Example Of Taking Mary

[Era Might]

Our prayers to the Saints are not scholastic manuals, and to treat them as such is incorrect. St. Alphonsus knew Catholic theology, he wasn't ignorant of any distinctions you are making. If we need to make every subtle distinction with our prayers, then our prayers would be needlessly long. It was obvious to St. Alphonsus and to all Catholics what the prayer meant. Our Lady saves us from hell by her prayers, by her constant protection, by being a mother to us. Her prayers would have no purpose if there was no grace to obtain, and Christ provided that grace with his paschal mystery. In the Salve Regina, we call Mary "our life, our sweetness, and our hope." Jesus is our divine life, but it is clearly understood in what sense Our Lady is our life. Our Lord himself called St. John the Baptist "the greatest born among women." Our Lord was born among women, and he was certainly greater than St. John the Baptist, but he didn't qualify his statement unnecessarily, because his meaning was clear. Pope John Paul II recalls another Liturgical prayer in his Encyclical Letter "Redemptoris Mater":

[quote]Loving Mother of the Redeemer, gate of heaven, star of the sea, assist your people who have fallen yet strive to rise again. To the wonderment of nature you bore your Creator![/quote]Jesus said he was the gate to the sheepfold, and John Paul II is clearly not denying this. It is understood in what sense Our Lady is the Gate of Heaven. John Paul II also encourages in "Ecclesia de Eucharistia":

[quote]Let us take our place, dear brothers and sisters, at the school of the saints, who are the great interpreters of true Eucharistic piety.[/quote]
The Saints are also the great interpreters of Marian piety, and we should learn at their school.

[bonoducchi]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1245766' date='Apr 16 2007, 01:28 PM']Our prayers to the Saints are not scholastic manuals, and to treat them as such is incorrect. St. Alphonsus knew Catholic theology, he wasn't ignorant of any distinctions you are making. If we need to make every subtle distinction with our prayers, then our prayers would be boring. There is no need to qualify the prayer because what it means is clear in Catholic theology. It was so obvious to St. Alphonsus and to all Catholics what it means that Our Lady saves us from hell, by her prayers, by her constant protection. There was no need to explain it. In the Salve Regina, we call Mary "our life, our sweetness, and our hope." Jesus is our divine life, but it is clearly understood in what sense Our Lady is our life. Pope John Paul II recalls another Liturgical prayer in his Encyclical Letter "Redemptoris Mater":

Loving Mother of the Redeemer, gate of heaven, star of the sea,
assist your people who have fallen yet strive to rise again.
To the wonderment of nature you bore your Creator!

"Gate of Heaven"? Jesus said he was the gate to the sheepfold, but John Paul II is notdenying this? It is understood in what sense she is the Gate of Heaven. John Paul II also encourages in "Ecclesia de Eucharistia":

"Let us take our place, dear brothers and sisters, at the school of the saints, who are the great interpreters of true Eucharistic piety."

The Saints are also the great interpreters of Marian piety, and we should learn at their school.[/quote]


I guess what I disagree with is the tendency to give Mary praise for redmeptive action, but then qualify it with "but we alll know Jesus really does it through her." If Jesus does it, then let's praise him for it, not his mother. Mary is of course am inportant part of the church, but we may need to adjust our emphasis on her. J2P2 had a very strong Marian devotion that I think sometimes clouded his overall view of the world. Why should our prayers be doctrinaly questionable, but poeticly beautiful? Didn't you read Liturgican Authenticum? Poeticism cannot trump sound doctrine. Why pray on feeble theological ground becuase it sounds nice?

BTW, if you removed "gate of heaven" I would love J2P2's prayer because it directs the faithful towards Christ, a characteristic of rightly order Marian devotion. They prayer also speaks of assisting, not redeeming or saving. That's all we can do - assist. We [i]assist [/i]at Mass, we [i]assist [/i]in salvation. We can't [i]do [/i]it ourselves.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1245766' date='Apr 16 2007, 02:28 PM']Our prayers to the Saints are not scholastic manuals, and to treat them as such is incorrect. St. Alphonsus knew Catholic theology, he wasn't ignorant of any distinctions you are making. If we need to make every subtle distinction with our prayers, then our prayers would be boring. There is no need to qualify the prayer because what it means is clear in Catholic theology. It was so obvious to St. Alphonsus and to all Catholics what it means that Our Lady saves us from hell, by her prayers, by her constant protection. There was no need to explain it. In the Salve Regina, we call Mary "our life, our sweetness, and our hope." Jesus is our divine life, but it is clearly understood in what sense Our Lady is our life. Pope John Paul II recalls another Liturgical prayer in his Encyclical Letter "Redemptoris Mater":

Loving Mother of the Redeemer, gate of heaven, star of the sea,
assist your people who have fallen yet strive to rise again.
To the wonderment of nature you bore your Creator!

"Gate of Heaven"? Jesus said he was the gate to the sheepfold, but John Paul II is clearly not denying this. It is understood in what sense she is the Gate of Heaven. John Paul II also encourages in "Ecclesia de Eucharistia":

"Let us take our place, dear brothers and sisters, at the school of the saints, who are the great interpreters of true Eucharistic piety."

The Saints are also the great interpreters of Marian piety, and we should learn at their school.[/quote]Sure, prayers to the Saints don't need to be perfect, we aren't perfect, but thanking them for redeeming us or confering graces on us is a Major Point. There IS need to qualify the prayer because what it means is NOT clear in Catholic theology. If it was clear, or well known, you could discuss what Mr. Ligqouri means thanking Mary for confering graces. It isn't obvious to me that St. Alphonsus means her intercession.
Equating the Salve Regina doesn't come close. Calling Mary our life, our sweetnes, and our hope in the context of that prayer is not specifcally saying Mary is all our hope, that she confers grace, or that we place all our trust in her. Very big difference.
The second prayer in "Redemptoris Mater" again doesn't specifically ascribe to Mary powers. Calling Mary 'gate of heaven, is understandable because she is the womb through which God entered the world as Man. Calling her the star of the sea acknowledges her as being a beacon to guide us to our destination, her Son, and doesn't confuse her as being the destination. Both titles are contained within a sentence that clearly depicts Mary as assisting us in our struggle. It's not confusing what her role is.

[bonoducchi]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1245766' date='Apr 16 2007, 01:28 PM']Our prayers to the Saints are not scholastic manuals, and to treat them as such is incorrect. St. Alphonsus knew Catholic theology, he wasn't ignorant of any distinctions you are making. If we need to make every subtle distinction with our prayers, then our prayers would be boring. There is no need to qualify the prayer because what it means is clear in Catholic theology. It was so obvious to St. Alphonsus and to all Catholics what it means that Our Lady saves us from hell, by her prayers, by her constant protection. There was no need to explain it. In the Salve Regina, we call Mary "our life, our sweetness, and our hope." Jesus is our divine life, but it is clearly understood in what sense Our Lady is our life. Pope John Paul II recalls another Liturgical prayer in his Encyclical Letter "Redemptoris Mater":

Loving Mother of the Redeemer, gate of heaven, star of the sea,
assist your people who have fallen yet strive to rise again.
To the wonderment of nature you bore your Creator!

"Gate of Heaven"? Jesus said he was the gate to the sheepfold, but John Paul II is notdenying this? It is understood in what sense she is the Gate of Heaven. John Paul II also encourages in "Ecclesia de Eucharistia":

"Let us take our place, dear brothers and sisters, at the school of the saints, who are the great interpreters of true Eucharistic piety."

The Saints are also the great interpreters of Marian piety, and we should learn at their school.[/quote]


I guess what I disagree with is the tendency to give Mary praise for redmeptive action, but then qualify it with "but we alll know Jesus really does it through her." If Jesus does it, then let's praise him for it, not his mother. Mary is of course am inportant part of the church, but we may need to adjust our emphasis on her. J2P2 had a very strong Marian devotion that I think sometimes clouded his overall view of the world. Why should our prayers be doctrinaly questionable, but poeticly beautiful? Didn't you read Liturgican Authenticum? Poeticism cannot trump sound doctrine. Why pray on feeble theological ground becuase it sounds nice?

BTW, if you removed "gate of heaven" I would love J2P2's prayer because it directs the faithful towards Christ, a characteristic of rightly order Marian devotion. They prayer also speaks of assisting, not redeeming or saving. That's all we can do - assist. We [i]assist [/i]at Mass, we [i]assist [/i]in salvation. We can't [i]do [/i]it ourselves.

[Era Might]

I have to do homework so I can't really stay and discuss. I understand what you are saying, but the Saints know Catholic theology and piety. We should not instruct the Saints on authentic piety, the Saints should instruct us. Pope John Paul II was not clouded, he simply learned from 2,000 years of Catholic piety. Prayers are not doctrinally questionable, rather, they are not theology manuals. There is a difference. When a husband tells his wife that he loves her more than anything in the world, he isn't saying he loves her more than the Eucharist, even though the Eucharist is in the world. There is no need to qualify. The piety of the Saints is a sure guide for our own piety.

[Katholikos]

Why do Protestants (and others) expect every statement we make to Mary to be theologically exact? We speak to our Mother and the saints in the language of love, not theology. No matter how flowery our language, we know Mary is a human being and has no power but the power of prayer.

The oldest known written prayer to Mary is an example, the [b][i]Sub Tuum Praesidium[/i][/b], found in a Greek papyrus dated about A.D. 250:

[i]We turn to you for protection,
holy Mother of God.
Listen to our prayers
and help us in our needs.
Save us from every danger,
O glorious and blessed Virgin.[/i]

Catholics -- then or now -- didn't believe Mary had the power to "help us in our needs and save us from every danger" except through her prayers.

Likos

[cathoholic_anonymous]

[quote]But you didn't answer his question (or mine). Does Mary actuall control Grace to the extent it's accurate to say she 'confers' Grace?[/quote]

My understanding of Mary's ability to confer grace is summed up by the image of a multi-tiered fountain. Water (God's grace) gushes out at the top and pours down into the bowls and hollows below, which in turn brim over and spill the water into the lowest trough. Mary acts like one of those bowls. She is so full of God's mercy and love that she is brimming over with it. Stand near her, and you will be soaked in it. It reminds me of an Arabic proverb: "He who stands near the perfume-seller will smell of fragrance."

She had an active role in the Divine Plan when she brought Christ into the world. Saying that she confers grace is no different to hailing her as the [i]Theotokos[/i], the God-bearer. She still bears God to us even now - like any mother, she wants to share her joy and her love, and so she pours out on us what she has been given.

Admittedly the language of the prayer disturbed me at first - but so does the language of many of the old prayers, including those that are addressed to Jesus. I prefer to pray in simple language; all the frills and furbelows irritate me. As St Bernadette said, "In trying to dress things up, one only distorts them." But what we must remember is that when St Alphonsus was alive this prayer [i]was[/i] an example of simple language. It is our own cultural context that causes the prayer to be distorted.

[bonoducchi]

[quote name='Katholikos' post='1245791' date='Apr 16 2007, 01:53 PM']Why do Protestants (and others) expect every statement we make to Mary to be theologically exact? We speak to our Mother and the saints in the language of love, not theology. No matter how flowery our language, we know Mary is a human being and has no power but the power of prayer.[/quote]

If her only power is prayer, why praise her for things she has no power to do?

Is doctrincal exactness and correctness such a bad thing? Would you allow a Protestant to make inccorect statements and excuse it by saying, "I'm using the language of love?"

[kujo]

I think we are all missing a crucial point here. That point is Mary's [i]fiat[/i], her "yes." This is the essense and source of our belief that she, in some way, aided in our (and her) salvation. She accepted God's command, accepted His will for her. So, too, can we participate in salvation through [i]our[/i] "yes" to God.

[Justin (Wiccan)]

[quote name='Katholikos' post='1245791' date='Apr 16 2007, 02:53 PM']Why do Protestants (and others) expect every statement we make to Mary to be theologically exact?[/quote]

Hey, watch that broad brush! *ducks to escape the paint*

Seriously, even the most cursory study of Church history and historical liturgy will illustrate Katholikos' point precisely. Yes, the prayers and hymns to Mary are flowery, and place her on a pedestal--but contrary to the Baptist teachings that I received as a child, that's not a "recent apostasy" that Rome somehow fell into at the Council of Ephesus. The Church has revered Mary since the second century (this can be documented), and probably since the first (this is somewhat speculative, but certainly not an unwarranted speculation).

Contrary to some of the accusations that some Protestants place on the Catholic Church, Mary has never been considered as the "fourth member of the Trinity," or as in any way "equal with" or "above" Jesus Christ. (And yes, in case there are any doubts, I heard both slanders being propagated from Baptist pulpits when I was a teenager.) Mary required redemption: though Catholic theology teaches that she was born without a sin nature, she is not God. Some Catholics refer to Mary as "Co-Redemptrix," an appellation that many Protestants object to, but if this was accepted by solemn definition, being "Co-Redemptrix" does not make her "co-equal" with God, and the Catholic Church has [i]never[/i] tried to make her so. Indeed, in Catholic teaching, all baptized members of the Church are "co-redeemers," in that they cooperate with God's redemption.

It has been said before, "To be deep in [Church history] is to be Catholic." That's more true than some Protestants will admit, and some of that is from an honest and sincere misunderstanding of the terminology used within the Catholic Church. But it is possible that some of it is due to an uncharitable hostility for Catholic Christianity--a hostility that hates first, and looks for "reasons" later.

[Aloysius]

oh boy, we're being defended by wiccans

:double checks IP address to be sure it's not a Jesuit conspiracy:... nope, no jesuit cospiracy found.

still a bit unsettling haha :

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='VaticanIILiturgist' post='1245783' date='Apr 16 2007, 02:44 PM']I guess what I disagree with is the tendency to give Mary praise for redmeptive action, but then qualify it with "but we alll know Jesus really does it through her."[/quote]I would disagree with your use of the word "tendency." In fact, one has to really search hard to find examples like the Liguori quote. Far from being a "tendency", they are exceptions to the rule.

But, even in considering this quote, it is not the Marian apologist who has to read between the lines to say "we all know Jesus really does it through her." In this prayer, Our Lord is explicitly mentioned; it is His love that we are after. Instead, it is the skeptic who has to ignore certain text in order to put forward a cogent argument.

[quote name='VaticanIILiturgist' post='1245783' date='Apr 16 2007, 02:44 PM']If Jesus does it, then let's praise him for it, not his mother.[/quote]Can you imagine making such a demand of the Holy Bible? When people in search of healing were trying to touch the shadow of St. Peter (Acts 5), should the text have added something like, "Well, it wasn't the power of the shadow or St. Peter himself; it was actually Our Lord working through St. Peter through the shadow."? Wouldn't this become incredibly monotonous? Let's apply your rule without prejudice. If it applies to St. Alphonsus Liguori, let's see how often we can fault the Holy Bible for the same "sin."

[quote name='VaticanIILiturgist' post='1245783' date='Apr 16 2007, 02:44 PM']Mary is of course am inportant part of the church, but we may need to adjust our emphasis on her.[/quote]I'm sorry?

[quote name='VaticanIILiturgist' post='1245783' date='Apr 16 2007, 02:44 PM']J2P2 had a very strong Marian devotion that I think sometimes clouded his overall view of the world.[/quote]R2D2? Anyway, I find it difficult to understand how you could claim that a Pope's "very strong Marian devotion" could cloud his views. Do you have specific examples?

[quote name='VaticanIILiturgist' post='1245783' date='Apr 16 2007, 02:44 PM']Why should our prayers be doctrinaly questionable, but poeticly beautiful? Didn't you read Liturgican Authenticum? Poeticism cannot trump sound doctrine. Why pray on feeble theological ground becuase it sounds nice?[/quote]Once again, let's apply the same test to Holy Scriptures. As you know, plenty of Christological and Trinitarian heresies sprung from an independent, literal reading of isolated texts. Yet, we don't fault the inspired writers or Sacred text for these errors.

[quote name='VaticanIILiturgist' post='1245783' date='Apr 16 2007, 02:44 PM']BTW, if you removed "gate of heaven" I would love J2P2's prayer because it directs the faithful towards Christ, a characteristic of rightly order Marian devotion. They prayer also speaks of assisting, not redeeming or saving. That's all we can do - assist. We [i]assist [/i]at Mass, we [i]assist [/i]in salvation. We can't [i]do [/i]it ourselves.[/quote]Editing prayers aside, my main point still applies: the Marian devotions which do not conform to your discriminating judgment is the exception to the rule; anyone who presumes to use judgment against them for not being 100% explicit (regarding attributing all grace to God) will be sorely let down if they try to apply this standard to the Holy Bible.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Cathoholic Anonymous' post='1245799' date='Apr 16 2007, 03:00 PM']My understanding of Mary's ability to confer grace is summed up by the image of a multi-tiered fountain. Water (God's grace) gushes out at the top and pours down into the bowls and hollows below, which in turn brim over and spill the water into the lowest trough. Mary acts like one of those bowls. She is so full of God's mercy and love that she is brimming over with it. Stand near her, and you will be soaked in it. It reminds me of an Arabic proverb: "He who stands near the perfume-seller will smell of fragrance."

She had an active role in the Divine Plan when she brought Christ into the world. Saying that she confers grace is no different to hailing her as the [i]Theotokos[/i], the God-bearer. She still bears God to us even now - like any mother, she wants to share her joy and her love, and so she pours out on us what she has been given.

Admittedly the language of the prayer disturbed me at first - but so does the language of many of the old prayers, including those that are addressed to Jesus. I prefer to pray in simple language; all the frills and furbelows irritate me. As St Bernadette said, "In trying to dress things up, one only distorts them." But what we must remember is that when St Alphonsus was alive this prayer [i]was[/i] an example of simple language. It is our own cultural context that causes the prayer to be distorted.[/quote]Thanks. Your example illustrates her role as a channel of God's grace, so in a sense, she can be said to 'confer' graces as a channel of grace. It's still an uncomfortable illustration.

I have not problem with flowery language. The Gloria is a good example of flowery language with solid grounding because Mary is calle our most Gracious Advocate within the context of the prayer. Confer means to transfer, assign, bestow. That infers control of what is being bestowed. It's clumsy because it takes too much nuance to communicate a clear and theologically correct meaning. Why use it especially in the context of the rest of the prayer?

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1245819' date='Apr 16 2007, 03:24 PM'] oh boy, we're being defended by wiccans

:double checks IP address to be sure it's not a Jesuit conspiracy:... nope, no jesuit cospiracy found.

still a bit unsettling haha :[/quote][b]"God bless those pagans."[/b] -- Homer Simpson

[Justin (Wiccan)]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1245819' date='Apr 16 2007, 03:24 PM'] oh boy, we're being defended by wiccans [/quote]

Maybe I'm the Spanish Inquisition in disguise! Mua-ha-ha! And nobody expected me!

Heck, the biggest reason I'm saying what I've said is [i]because it's true[/i]. I cannot tell you the number of times I was lied to growing up ... lies that I now see being repeated in good faith by well-meaning people who have been fed bad information.