There are a couple of passages which, every time they come up in the Readings at Mass, admittedly make me cringe a little. The first is from Luke 8:19-21 (we just heard the parallel version from Matt. 12:46-50 at Mass on Tuesday):
Then his mother and his brethren came to him, but they could not reach him for the crowd. And he was told, “Your mother and your brethren are standing outside, desiring to see you.” But he said to them, “My mother and my brethren are those who hear the word of God and do it.”
The other is Luke 11:27-28,
As he said this, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, “Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts that you sucked!” But he said, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”
These admittedly look like Jesus is rebuking His mother. So what’s really going on here? I explored this about eight years ago, but it’s worth touching on again.
1.Jesus is not rebuking Mary, or denying her blessedness.
The reason I drew both of these from Luke is that Luke is the most obviously pro– Marian of the four Gospels. The first two chapters are told largest from the perspective of Mary, including what she’s pondering in her heart (Luke 2:19). And they include these beautiful words from St. Elizabeth (Luke 1:42-45):
Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For behold, when the voice of your greeting came to my ears, the babe in my womb leaped for joy. And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfilment of what was spoken to her from the Lord.
And this blessing wasn’t some fleeting thing, but something eternal. Mary herself foretold that “henceforth all generations will call me blessed” (Luke 1:48), a clear prophecy of the unbroken line of Christians honoring Mary down through the ages. So whatever else may be true, Jesus isn’t denying any of this. He’s not contradicting the inspired sayings of Elizabeth or Mary. He’s not saying, “You’re wrong, my mom’s not blessed!” So what is He saying?
2. Jesus corrects why Mary is blessed.
In Luke 8, the crowds think Mary and Jesus’ other relatives are going to get special treatment simply because they’re blood. And in Luke 11, the woman in the crowd views Mary as blessed for similarly biological reasons. But Jesus turns them each time from the biological to the spiritual relationship. The true family of God includes all those who believe. This is Good News for those of us who are adopted sons and daughters of God by faith, through baptism.
But again, this doesn’t exclude Mary. In fact, Mary is both the first disciple of Jesus, and the first person praised for such faith. Elizabeth praises her not simply for being Jesus’ mom, but because she “believed that there would be a fulfilment of what was spoken to her from the Lord.” That is, Mary is blessed primarily for her faith, and it’s owing to this faithfulness that God saw fit to make her the Mother of our Lord. Merely being a blood relative of Jesus isn’t enough. Just look at Jesus’ genealogy in Luke 3:23-38 or Matt. 1:1-16 to see what I mean – it’s a decidedly mixed bag.
3. This reveals something about Jesus.
Those first two points are more or less ones that I made in the post from 2011. The reason I decided it was worthwhile to write another post (besides the fact that not everyone reads archives from 2011) is that there’s a dimension that I hadn’t noticed back then… this is a revelation of who Jesus is.
The crowds seem to be imagining that Jesus is something like a Davidic king. They may well have had in mind God’s blessing to Abraham’s wife Sarah: “I will bless her, and moreover I will give you a son by her; I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of peoples shall come from her” (Gen. 17:16). And to be the mother of a king was an enormous honor, as we see from King Solomon’s approach towards mother (1 Kings 2:19):
So Bathshe′ba went to King Solomon, to speak to him on behalf of Adoni′jah. And the king rose to meet her, and bowed down to her; then he sat on his throne, and had a seat brought for the king’s mother; and she sat on his right.
This makes sense. After all, royalty was based on bloodline, so to be related to a royal was a big deal, because it meant you had royal blood. This is the only fathomable reason for why people (especially Americans) should care in even the slightest way about the children of Kate Middleton or Meghan Markle. Due to their marriages, those women are bearing royal children. So if that’s how you’re seeing Jesus – ascending royalty, like King David – then it makes sense that you would view the locus of blessing at the biological level. “Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts that you sucked!” makes sense to say to a king, and it’s fitting that everyone should clear out for the Queen and the Princes to come through.
But this misunderstands who Jesus is. True, He’s a King, but as He explained to Pilate, “My kingship is not of this world; if my kingship were of this world, my servants would fight, that I might not be handed over to the Jews; but my kingship is not from the world” (John 18:36). In other words, He’s not simply a King, He’s a god… the God, in fact. And our primary way of relating to God is not through biology, but through faith.
So it’s true, Mary is a Queen, but not because she’s the mother of an earthly ruler. Rather, it’s because she’s the most loyal disciple of the Incarnate God, a God who took on flesh through her. It’s why Rev. 12:17 says that “her offspring” are “those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus.” Again, this is tremendous news for us. Odds are, you’re not royalty by blood or marriage (if any royals are reading this, sorry I made fun of Kate Middleton and Meghan Markle earlier, I was mostly joking). But through faith, you really can be adopted into the family of God, and you can speak truly of God as your Father, Mary as your Mother, and Jesus as your Brother. Every little girl’s desire to be a princess is fulfilled in the plan of God. Love God, and be royal!
It’s interesting that you posted about this, because I had a thought about this passage recently, though not because of Mass readings.
Compare this passage with the man who calls Jesus good teacher: “And when he was gone forth into the way, a certain man running up and kneeling before him, asked him, ‘Good Master, what shall I do that I may receive life everlasting?’
And Jesus said to him, ‘Why callest thou me good? None is good but one, that is God.'”
Protestants are perfectly comfortable using the passage you’ve written on to deny the Blessed Mother’s unique holiness, but are more than willing to work to explain certain passages which appear difficult, e.g. an apparent denial by Jesus of His Divinity and goodness. What one brings to the text really does play an important role in what one takes away.
Virgo potens, ora pro nobis.
If I could speak a word in our defense, there: we defend the divinity of Christ because it’s unambiguously taught in Scripture (in, say, 2 Peter 1:1: “our God and savior Jesus Christ,” to pick just one). That requires us to understand “Why do you call me good?” in the context of his divinity.
We don’t do the same for remarks on Mary because Scripture, y’know, doesn’t teach that she’s sinless, immaculately conceived, bodily assumed, etc.
***
It seems like this is really a pretty straightforward pair of passages, particularly in Luke 11. Someone speaks a word of praise for the mother of Christ; my sense is that this would be perfectly at home in a modern Catholic church, and yet Christ corrects it.
Why does he correct it? There’s a straightforward answer: because it gets the priority wrong. Certainly Mary was blessed: she had the blessing of carrying, giving birth to, and raising the Messiah. That’s an amazing gift!
But it is a far more amazing gift to be granted salvation; compared to that blessing, being his mother is trivial. Thus, “Blessed rather…”; as Ambrose says in his commentary on Luke 8, “Parents are not unfairly dismissed; but it is taught that the bonds of souls are more sacred than those of bodies.”
Or Cyril of Alexandria, on the same passage: “For who among men is so obdurate and ungentle, as to refuse to honour, and accord the most complete love to his mother and brethren? For the all-powerful law of nature, even without our will, obliges us to this. When therefore, bowing our neck to the Saviour’s commands, we become His followers, and so are in the relation of a mother and brethren to Him, how does He regard us before God’s judgment seat? Is it not with gentleness and love? What doubt can there be of this? And what is comparable to this honour and goodness? What is there worthy of being matched with a gift thus splendid and desirable?”
Or Calvin, on Luke 11: “We now see the difference between Christ’s reply and the woman’s commendation; for the blessedness, which she had limited to his own relatives, is a favor which he offers freely to all.”
And I think that’s the vital part. I’d not deny that Mary was blessed: her blessing was to be the mother of Christ. But an application I’ve often heard here is that Christ holds special affection for her, and that he most particularly listens to what she would have him do, because she’s his mother. And what seems unmistakably true in these passages is:
1) Christ does not, in fact, do what his mother wants him to do in Luke 8, and
2) Christ names his followers as having a bond with him closer than even his family.
That’s a tremendous gift and encouragement to all of us: whatever special closeness there is in being mother and child, our closeness to him is greater than that. Let us then approach the throne of grace with confidence; Christ is our intermediary, and no one has a closer connection to him than the one he’s given us.
Irked,
“we defend the divinity of Christ because it’s unambiguously taught in Scripture” = perhaps you meant to say, “because it’s ambiguously taught in Scripture”. If it were “unambiguously taught” it wouldn’t require a defense, correct? Incidentally, I agree with you about Jesus’ divinity, but many in the early history of Christianity held a very different opinion, also derived from the same Scriptures.
“…because it gets the priority wrong” = As Joe said (and your quotes confirm), Jesus shifts from the biological/relational reason to the faith one. And here, again, Mary is the first to have faith in Jesus, when His ministry had not yet begun, hence she is blessed twice.
“I’d not deny that Mary was blessed: her blessing was to be the mother of Christ” = in my opinion, this is reductive. Mary’s blessing was primarily her faith in accepting her role. Without her fiat, Jesus would not have born (of her). Without her faith in Jesus at Canaan, even before any visible show of His real nature, the wedding would’ve been a disaster. Incidentally, the sequence of the events at Canaan supports the Catholic idea of Mary as preferred channel to Jesus.
“1) Christ does not, in fact, do what his mother wants him to do in Luke 8” = He does, indeed, in John 2:6. Interestingly, there’s a strict correlation between the Wedding at Canaan (John 2:1-12) and Matthew 15:21-28:
• Initially, Jesus does not seem to be willing to listen to Mary or the Canaanite Woman
• Both Mary and the Canaanite Woman show unfailing faith in Jesus, who grants their requests (as a side note, the disciples also urged Jesus to listen to the Canaanite Woman, to no avail)
• Both Mary and the Canaanite Woman are called “woman” by Jesus
“2) Christ names his followers as having a bond with him closer than even his family” = I would say wider, not closer. In Jewish culture, family/kin was everything, so Jesus’ change of perspective was to be a huge cultural shock.
LLC,
perhaps you meant to say, “because it’s ambiguously taught in Scripture”. If it were “unambiguously taught” it wouldn’t require a defense, correct?
No, I don’t think “My Lord and my God” or “our great God and Savior” or “being in very nature God” are particularly ambiguous. There are lots of obvious truths that still have to be defended; Paul says in Romans 1 the existence of God is one such.
And here, again, Mary is the first to have faith in Jesus, when His ministry had not yet begun, hence she is blessed twice.
She sure doesn’t seem to have much faith in Luke 8. But again, the significant thing is that the greater blessing – the greater closeness – is not the one that’s hers alone, but the one we all share.
He does, indeed, in John 2:6.
Yep. Which is a pretty good indicator that Jesus does the Father’s will, which sometimes involves doing what his followers ask of him. But it’s his words, not mine, that we’re closer family to him than any biological connection.
I would say wider, not closer.
Okay. Christ, however, presents a superiority: “Blessed rather are those.” Do you see support for “wider, not closer” among the fathers?
Irked,
Arians would very much disagree with your unambiguity. It would’ve been interesting to see you in a third century debate.
“She sure doesn’t seem to have much faith in Luke 8” = Luke 8 doesn’t say anything at all about Mary’s faith, or lack thereof (as you seem to imply). Also, Luke does not say anything about Mary leaving and complaining about Jesus’ apparent dismissal. The Gospels do, instead, report that she continues to follow Him, to the foot of the Cross (and beyond).
“the greater blessing – the greater closeness – is not the one that’s hers alone, but the one we all share” = correct; and yet Mary has both.
“Do you see support for “wider, not closer” among the fathers?” = sorry, my original quote was supposed to say “wider, not just closer”. Hence my cultural note.
Ultimately, you seem to believe that Catholics hold Mary to a higher level of devotion only because she is the mother of God, and not because her unfailing faith. The former doesn’t preclude the latter; they are complementary, and this combination is unique to her.
Hi LLC,
“She sure doesn’t seem to have much faith in Luke 8” = Luke 8 doesn’t say anything at all about Mary’s faith, or lack thereof (as you seem to imply).
That’s fair; Mary’s motive in Luke 8 is left ambiguous. It’s fortunate, then, that we have the parallel passage of Mark 3 to disambiguate it: “When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, ‘He is out of his mind.'”
That’s not “unfailing faith” – it’s human failing. Which is fine – Mary was as fallible as any of us! But again, the point is that Christ has graciously made all of us as close to him as any human can be; the great blessing, the great bond, is not on those who share his blood, but on those washed in it.
Irked,
In Mark, the parallel passage to Luke 8:19-21 is verses 3:31-35. As in Luke’s (and Matthew’s) rendition, there is absolutely no negative reaction reported from Mary (or any of Jesus’ kin), nor anything about Mary’s alleged (by you) lack of faith. This passage is about Jesus switching from a biological concept of family and kin to a relational one, again, a very difficult but necessary concept to accept in a tribal culture. Nothing ambiguous about it. Mary, as at Canaan, is silently accepting everything Jesus decides to do or say.
Your allusion is to Mark 3:20-21, which has a completely different background and meaning. First of all, what is translated sometimes as “family”, has a looser meaning of “those with him”, friends, followers, etc (Greek para autou), and also kin. Second, nowhere in this passage is Mary’s name to be found. Finally, this passage is about rejecting Jesus, not accepting Him (who is His family?).
From your ending point, again, you seem to believe that she who shared Jesus’ blood is somehow not allowed to partake of the bond of those who are washed in it. Mary, from the beginning, had both. Her unfailing faith in Jesus and her blood relationship with Him is unique.
LLC,
Mark 3:20-34 is one event, right? Jesus enters a crowded house in verse 20, and his family arrives at said house in verse 31, unable to enter because, again, crowded. Are you arguing that the description of their reaction in v. 21 is disconnected from their arrival in v. 31? Can you substantiate that from a modern, mainstream Catholic commentary?
First of all, what is translated sometimes as “family”, has a looser meaning of “those with him”, friends, followers, etc (Greek para autou), and also kin.
Okay. How do Catholic versions of the Scriptures such as, say, the NABRE or the NRSV-CE render the verse? Do you have a strong reason for believing these interpretations to be in error?
From your ending point, again, you seem to believe that she who shared Jesus’ blood is somehow not allowed to partake of the bond of those who are washed in it.
That is incorrect. As best we can judge from Scripture, she is part of his true family just as we are.
Irked,
“Mark 3:20-34 is one event, right?” = irrelevant to this discussion. Your point is that Luke 8:19-21 parallels Mark 3:20-21. It does not; Luke doesn’t report the episode described by Mark in 3:20-21.
“Are you arguing that the description of their reaction in v. 21 is disconnected from their arrival in v. 31?” = I am not; Mark does. Do you read any reaction from Mary in verses 3:31-34? Mark is silent, as are Luke and Matthew. It is very interesting that in the first part of the story Mary is not at all mentioned; Jesus’ visitors are very vaguely described, but their reaction is not. In the second part, Mary is personally mentioned, but her reaction (or, as you keep saying, her lack of faith), is found nowhere.
Incidentally, some translate Mark 3:21 to differentiate Jesus’ relatives from those who believed that He was out of His mind. In a way, this could be read as an attempt (poorly planned, and futile) to protect Jesus. My interpretation only here.
“Do you have a strong reason for believing these interpretations to be in error?” = never said that they are in error. Please don’t distort my comments. What I said is that the Greek here sometimes translated as “family” is much less defined (or more ambiguous) that what we intend as family.
“As best we can judge from Scripture, she is part of his true family just as we are” = ok, so as a starting point we seem to agree. Where we disagree is that you are reading in Mark 3:31-34 something that is not there, and are justifying it from a preceding passage with a very different topic (who is Jesus vs a much wider interpretation of the family concept).
LLC,
Your point is that Luke 8:19-21 parallels Mark 3:20-21. It does not; Luke doesn’t report the episode described by Mark in 3:20-21.
Right, that’s how parallel passages work: some of them include details others don’t.
Your reading disconnects the family coming to take charge of him at a house from the family members that show up at the house. Can you substantiate that division from modern, mainstream Catholic Bible commentaries, or is this reading original to you?
Historically, Theophylact explicitly connects verse 31 to verse 21. Pseudo-Chrysostom says of those in verse 31 that they lack belief. Here is a page full of modern commentaries supporting my reading of the passage. “But those are Protestant commentaries,” someone might say; okay, fine – which are the Catholic commentaries that oppose them?
Who, other than you, holds this position?
Irked,
“some of them include details others don’t” = I can tell that your definition of “details” is quite more inclusive than what I intend.
“Your reading disconnects the family coming to take charge of him at a house from the family members that show up at the house” = incomplete and misleading. My reading primarily disconnects the reaction of the first group of individuals, very vaguely described as “the ones with him” (among which Mary is not mentioned) from the reaction of the second group of individuals, much more detailed (among which Mary is mentioned by name). In the first case, the reaction is known; in the second case, it is not.
Historically, no ECF mentions Mary in the first group of individuals; they are simply “friends”, “relations”, “kinsmen”, “brethren”. Almost all ECF have a much softer attitude towards the second group of individuals; they all mention Mary, and none even hints at her alleged (by you) “lack of faith”. Interestingly, the most common emotion attributed to Mary is “love”.
Theophylact is an interesting case: he goes as far as allowing that “Vainglory perhaps had taken hold” of Mary (so, if anything, the opposite of lack of faith). But, ultimately, recovers: “By saying these things, the Lord is not thereby denying His mother, but He is showing that she will not be worthy of honor only because she gave Him birth, but because she also possesses every other virtue”, which is exactly the point I am making.
Mary possesses both, blood relationship and unfailing faith.
LLC,
Is that a “no,” then? No commentaries, scholars, etc. who draw your division between the subjects of verses 21 and 31?
Irked,
“Is that a “no,” then? No commentaries, scholars, etc. who draw your division between the subjects of verses 21 and 31?” = incorrect. It’s a “no” to your interpretation. Can you mention any ECF who explicitly includes Mary (either by name or by role) in the first group?
Incidentally, since you (mis)use Theophylact, here’s what he actually says: “And even His friends wished to do this, that is, His relations, perchance His countrymen, or His brethren” for Mark 3:21, and “Because the relations of the Lord had come to seize upon Him, as if beside Himself, His mother, urged by the sympathy of her love, came to Him. Wherefore it is said, “And there came unto Him His mother, and, standing without, sent unto Him, calling Him” for Mark 3:31-34. He (Theophylact) seem to imply that Mary was not in the first group, and after hearing what had happened, “urged by the sympathy of her love, came to Him”. To check on Him. As a mother would do.
Now, back to Luke 8:19-21. Is anything there that even suggests Mary’s alleged lack of faith?
LLC,
I’m disinclined to answer your challenge until you answer mine. If you can suggest a modern Catholic commentary with your reading, great; otherwise, I think we’re probably done here.
Irked,
Sure. Although, I thought that Theophylact qualified as “scholar”.
Until next time, then.
Since we’re apparently not done: if Theophylact held your position, sure, you could cite him. He doesn’t; who does?
Irked,
“He doesn’t” = it depends on what you are reading. “Because the relations of the Lord had come to seize upon Him, as if beside Himself, His mother, urged by the sympathy of her love, came to Him”. Did Mary come with Jesus’ relations (Mark 3:21)? No. She came later. In Mark 3:21, Theophylact names basically everyone he could (family, city, brothers), except Mary.
Saint John Chrysostom: “From this it is manifest that His brethren and His mother were not always with Him; but because He was beloved by them, they come from reverence and affection, waiting without”. Where they with Jesus in Mark 3:21? No, as also indicated by the different reason (according to Chrysostom) for visiting Him.
Pseudo-Chrysostom, interestingly, separates Jesus’ siblings from Mary when talking about lack of faith.
Enough?
Sure, that would work. I will grant you that “Mary thought he’d gone crazy” is the most straightforward, but not the only, interpretation of that passage; it does not, strictly speaking, prove that she sins in this matter. Do you have any Scriptural support to positively establish “unfailing faith?”
Irked,
“I will grant you that “Mary thought he’d gone crazy” is the most straightforward, but not the only, interpretation of that passage” = actually, the quotes I provided support the opposite, i.e. that the interpretations you mentioned do not have full Biblical foundation, as they all require the two groups to be the same in order to work. If such premise is incorrect, it follows that the two groups are different, so Mary was not among the ones wanting to “lay hold in Him”.
Hence, “Do you have any Scriptural support to positively establish “unfailing faith?” becomes: do you, Irked, have any Scriptural support to positively establish “failing faith”? Stress on “positively”.
No. You introduced the claim; you establish it.
Irked,
indeed, you did. Let’s recap (Cliff notes, for sure, but I think I am representing our discussion fairly):
1) Joe says that some Bible verses are used to prove that Jesus rebukes Mary because she puts her relationship of blood with Him above the relationship of faith. His point is that these verses do not imply Mary’s lack of faith, as she is the first one to have faith in him.
2) one of such verses is Luke 8:19-21
3) in our discussion, I claim that Mary’s faith is unfailing
4) in response, you claim that Luke 8:19-21 shows Mary’s lack of faith
5) I point out that Luke doesn’t say anything about Mary’s lack of faith
6) you switch from Luke to the analog episode in Mark, which is equally silent, but move up few verses, to show that Mary, as the people vaguely described in verses 3:21, did not have faith in Jesus, considered Him crazy and wanted to seize Him
7) I say that the text shows that the two groups of people are not the same, and that the ECF did not include Mary in the first group
8) You say that modern commentaries (admittedly of Protestant inclination) support your position
9) I show that the original commentaries about Mark 3 show that the ECF did not, in fact, hold the idea that Mary was in the first group of people
10) ergo, the modern commentaries did, in fact, miss the point. If Mary is not part of the first group of people, it follows that their interpretation doesn’t hold water
Now we are back at square one (or point 4). Luke (and Mark) do not show Mary’s lack of faith. In fact, nowhere in Scripture Mary is described as lacking in faith.
Now, again. Do you have any verse that positively proves that Mary was lacking in faith?
No. We’re back at square three: the original claim. If you’re going to ground argument on specific attributes of Mary, it falls to you to demonstrate she has those attributes, not to me to show she doesn’t.
Irked,
No, we are back at square 4.
I have provided two direct examples of Mary’s unfailing faith:
1) Mary’s “fiat”, in direct contrast to Zechariah’s doubt
2) the Wedding at Canaan, in direct contrast to Jesus’ apparent rejection (episode analog to Matthew 15:21-28).
There are other examples, but these two will suffice.
Now, again: Do you have any verse that positively proves that Mary was lacking in faith?
LLC,
I fully grant that these demonstrate she has faith. I don’t think you can establish someone has unfailing faith absent a statement to that effect, unless you mean something by that different than I do.
For clarity, is this a trait you’d ascribe to anyone in the Bible where we don’t explicitly see failures of faith?
Irked,
I’ll take that you do not have an example of Mary’s alleged lack of faith.
Thank you for the discussion, as always.
Luke 1:28 has an angel saying to Mary, “Hail, full of grace.” How does a Protestant interpret one’s being ‘full of grace,’ a visit by an angel to that one so full, the birth of Jesus by that woman, followed by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, that same person conceived by that same woman?
The word is, of course, kecharitomene, i.e., “you who are favored” or “you to whom grace is shown” – which is basically how it’s translated in the NIV, the ESV, the NASB, the KJV, the ASV, etc., as well as Catholic translations like the NABRE and the NRSVCE. Mary was, indeed, shown great favor: she was chosen by God to carry and raise his Son – and people of all generations have recognized that, indeed, she was given a great blessing in being so chosen. Any further implications have to be read into the text; they are not inherent in charitoo.
You quibble about translation of the word “who is favored”? And then you choose to say that some implication of that is not in charitoo? Woe!
I don’t think I’m quibbling. You asked how Protestants interpret the verse; we interpret it the same way several major Catholic translations do, as “Greetings, you favored one!” and allow the context to explain what favor is being shown. I don’t know what you mean by “some implication of that is not in charitoo” – some implication of what?
Mary is ‘favored’ …to what? Even the word favored must be understood in comparison to others who are ‘not as favored’. Is Mary the ‘favorite’ among all the women who have ever existed in the eyes of God? And, moreover, according to her own prophesy…she is the one who ‘ALL GENERATIONS of Christ’s true disciples will call “blessed” for all eternity… prophesied with these exact words:
“From this day all generations will call me blessed”.
Is this prophesy not fulfilled by Catholics today, and whereas Protestants generally never use such words “Blessed art thou amongst women”regarding the Mother of Jesus Christ? And our true ‘spiritual mother’ also, because without her there would be no Christian Church in existence, as Jesus …as we know Him …would not have been born?
Hi Al,
Mary is ‘favored’ …to what?
I answered this question above.
And, moreover, according to her own prophesy…she is the one who ‘ALL GENERATIONS of Christ’s true disciples will call “blessed” for all eternity… prophesied with these exact words:
And this objection, as well. If you’d like to engage those answers from the text, by all means!
Hi Irked,
Regarding Mary’s singular dignity, I’m not as interested in the definition of ‘Charitoo’ as I am of the terms “blessed AMONG women’ and “All generations will call me blessed”. And, this is because such terms are in no way normal in the history of mankind. The word ‘among’ distinguishes Mary from all other women as the MOST blessed among them. And, that Mary prophesied that ALL GENERATIONS would call her blessed indicates that she basically irrevocably canonized herself as no other person in the world had done before. Even St. Paul did not know if he would endure the ‘race’ till the end. And said ‘woe to me if I do not preach’, indicating that he could indeed fall from grace at some time in the future if he decided to take a vacation from spreading the holy gospel. But Mary has noreservatioins regarding her future. Apparently she knew that she would never fall away from the Lord such that in the future every true believe in Christ would recognize her sanctity.
Again…what other human had such presumption as this…to predict her own salvation and even without the future teachings of Jesus enlightening her? And, moreover, she was at such a young age when she proclaimed such things.
So, this is why I think she was truly a prophet and truly singular in her holiness….because not even Moses, or Abraham, or Joseph, or Elijah,or Isaiah, or John the Baptist… spoke like Mary regarding her own spiritual dignity.
To me, Mary’s ‘singular’ dignity is indisputable via this prophesy that ‘all generations would call her blessed’…and which was spoken when she was a mere teenager. To top it all off, it was Mary’s voice that caused John the Baptist to leap in Elizabeths womb, as scripture describes. And, we recall that of all other prophet’s John was the greatest. But how exactly her voice effected the infant in such a holy way is still a mystery for us to contemplate.
Hi Al,
The word ‘among’ distinguishes Mary from all other women as the MOST blessed among them.
Certainly she has a unique blessing: to bear the Messiah. But as we’ve established upthread, Christ says explicitly that those who obey God in following him receive a greater blessing than that.
If the passage requires some other sense for the word “blessing,” no one’s demonstrated that yet.
And, that Mary prophesied that ALL GENERATIONS would call her blessed
Helpfully, Mary immediately tells us why all generations will call her blessed: because God has done great things for her. In particular, he’s chosen her as the one through whom his Messiah will come, by which he is “remembering to be merciful to Abraham and his descendants forever.”
There’s the immediate, contextual link: all generations will bless her, because God will be merciful to Abraham forever through her son.
indicates that she basically irrevocably canonized herself
I don’t think it’s prudent to ignore Mary’s own explanation of the event and import concepts that, to my knowledge, don’t exist in Luke.
Hi Irked,
I think you greatly underestimate the glory of Mary. If you just read the wholes story from Luke very carefully you will understand the depths of God’s dealings with her. To ignore this incredible account is similar to not understanding Jesus’ words regarding St. John the Baptist. He was a greater prophet than Moses, Elijah, Isaias, Jeremiah, Jonah, etc…
It is a ‘no brainer’ that God is responsible for all of this. Yet, Mary still had her part to play. THAT God chose her, indicates something more special than even the birth and career of John the Baptist. And Mary might have had an impact on John being the greatest of prophets…as she was there helping Elizabeth for the last 3 months of her pregnancy. If John jumped in the womb of Elizabeth (.. which was considered a wonder by the great St. Elizabeth)….in the first minutes of Mary’s voice…how much more might he have jumped throughout the next three months…or at his birth…when Mary was most likely present!?
The fact is presented…that Mary was a saint unparalleled. The very visitations by multitudes of angels in the Christmas stories are a witness of this. Moreover, an angels said to Mary:
“the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father; and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever.”
And Mary could not have been left out of this angelic prophesy. That is, if Jesus will occupy the ‘ throne of David and shall reign in the house of Jacob FOREVER….
….then where does this leave MARY?…in this same context regarding the words of the Angel Gabriel? It is very clear. If Jesus “reigns in the hows of Jacob forever…then Jesus’s mother…Mary…is the QUEEN MOTHER…in the house of Jacob forever.
Regarding the humble Mary’s eternal dignity in the eyes of God and men?….She is the Queen of Heaven…according to these very words of the Angel Gabriel. It is common knowledge that the Queen Mother in ancient judaism had thrones for the mother of the king set up in close proximity to the kings.
Is to reign on the throne of David honorable?? Is this saying of the angel a great dignity, unparalleled in all of human history?
Then, Mary also shares some of this unparalleled dignity. To deny her it is to deny the words of the angel Gabriel to her. Mary KNEW perfectly well that she would be the mother of the Great King Israel, the Son of God…forever!
So, no one should fear in scrupulosity of addressing Mary as “Queen of Heaven”. If Jesus is King of Heaven, according to those same words of the angel…….Mary, His mother, is consequently “Queen of Heaven”.
Best to you.
Al,
We can speculate all sorts of things about Mary, but (to borrow from Eusebius) we get into trouble when we start introducing claims not found from Scripture. Most of the things you say here aren’t demonstrated.
It is a ‘no brainer’ that God is responsible for all of this. Yet, Mary still had her part to play.
Yep! Her part was to bear and raise the Messiah. That was important!
THAT God chose her, indicates something more special than even the birth and career of John the Baptist.
Scripture doesn’t say this – though it does say that the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than John.
And Mary might have had an impact on John being the greatest of prophets
Or she might not. We don’t ground theology on speculation.
The fact is presented…that Mary was a saint unparalleled.
You have not demonstrated this claim; as argued upthread, there’s reason to believe otherwise, whether we read Mark 3 as a lack of faith (as I do) or pride (as Theophylact does).
The very visitations by multitudes of angels in the Christmas stories are a witness of this.
By this metric, surely the shepherds are holier than she is. (One might note that the angels appearing to them never mention Mary at all; rather, they focus on the Person that all of this is ultimately about.)
That is, if Jesus will occupy the ‘ throne of David and shall reign in the house of Jacob FOREVER….then where does this leave MARY?
The prophecy gives no indication, and we don’t ground theology on speculation.
Al, I’d like to talk about things Scripture actually says. We can go all day saying, “Well, maybe this happened,” and speculating on subjects where the Bible is silent – but that is always a terrible eisegetical risk, and yet it appears to be the only thing you’ve cited.
What we actually have in the Bible, to return to Joe’s article, is that Christ says outright that being his follower is a greater blessing than being his mother. How does that fit with your theory?
Irked,
“as Theophylact does” = actually, he doesn’t. He speculates that it could be, but we don’t base theology on speculation.
If anything, Theophylact agrees with Awlms: “He is showing that she will not be worthy of honor only because she gave Him birth, but because she also possesses every other virtue”.
LLC,
actually, he doesn’t. He speculates that it could be, but we don’t base theology on speculation.
I didn’t say we should ground our theology on Theophylact. I’m simply noting that the interpretation that she sins in this matter is ancient and not original to me.
But that the family of Christ thought he was insane and came to collect him – and that Mary was among the group that did – is not speculative. And, fundamentally, we base the theology that Mary is sinful on clearer statement yet: the testimony of Scripture that we all are – a claim it nowhere contradicts in her case.
The way I see the Gospel teachings of Jesus, is that… due to the brevity of the writings, an enormous amount of sacred information regarding Jesus (His eternal words and eternal deeds), is needed to be conveyed in the most CONCISE way possible. This necessitates that every statement made (verbal teaching), every action performed (teaching by example) and every parable (metaphor revealing truth through symbolism) needs to be given a great deal of attention, and moreover, they all need to be added together to get the whole “gist” or context of the narratives told.
A simple example of example of this are the teachings regarding the “Bread of Life” discourses, which is scattered throughout the Gospels and which is also related to the Last Supper, the Eucharist and to all the previous ‘covenants’ revealed throughout the Old Testament. So, to understand what Jesus means about the Eucharist….everything that He says on the subject needs to be weighed together to get a correct interpretation of what Jesus is trying to teach (on such a monumental and important subject).
And the life and dignity of Mother of Jesus Christ must be analyzed in the same way. It is every word of OT prophesy concerning her, every word of Gabriel, every word of St. Elizabeth, every word of St. Simeon, every word of Joseph, every word of the angels at Jesus’ birth, every word of Jesus and every word of the Book of Revelation,……and then also also every non-verbal act or example that comes with all these words…that needs to be examined carefully to get ‘an adequate picture/assessment of the role of Mary in salvation history.
This is to say, everything above needs to be added together in great consideration…so as to understand the unparalleled dignity of Mary, mother of Jesus, mother of God. So, even as King Solomon needed incredible wisdom to uncover the truth about the ‘infants switched at birth’ so too much wisdom is needed to put all of the acts and words of Mary together so as to understand her incredible role in the Life of Jesus Christ and His eternal Church.
When one studies all these accounts and words relating to Mary, we can understand that from the beginning, Mary needed to protect the child Jesus from His many enemies on Earth… until His ‘hour was revealed’. So, this vocation of hiding, protecting and aiding the child/youth Jesus until the right time/hour came for His public revelation …was Mary’s chief vocation in life.
And, Jesus also needed to switch roles with Mar as He grew to adulthood, and to PROTECT Mary in the same way…AFTER His ‘public life’ and public teachings began (after His baptism). This is to say, that even as His life was in mortal danger during His public life…. any public attention that was focused on His mother, would potentially create a mortal danger to her as well. So, as Mary dutifully protected Jesus for 30 years of His early life, so too Jesus diverts attention away from her…so as to protect her from the dangerous persecution that was occurring during His public miracles and preaching/teaching tours.
So, in Luke 8:19-21 and in Luke 11:27-28, we find examples of this. Jesus needs to be the focus, and so He draws attention to both Himself and His disciples, and away from Mary and His biological family. However, this in no way reduces the importance or dignity of the Blessed Virgin Mary….even as Mary’s protection of Jesus as a child did not reduce the power, wisdom or significance of Jesus as Son of an All Powerful God …and 2nd Divine Person of the Holy Trinity.
So, when the angel Gabriel calls Mary: “Blessed among women” it needs to be given enormous weight. And When the mother of John the Baptist says the same thing…even MORE weight. And then all of the ACTS of Mary (and Joseph too) revealed in the Christmas stories need to be given much consideration, considering that Mary and Joseph were the one’s who guarded the gifts of the Kings/wise men for the use of raising and protecting her Divine Child, Jesus. This is also to say, that Mary was intimately involved in every aspect of Jesus’ early life…and it was she who really knew Jesus BETTER than anyone else on Earth. She knew Him intimately for 33 years, whereas his own disciple hardly knew Him for a mere 2 years.
So, my main message here, is…This is a story that must all be understood in the context of the WHOLE STORY, and not merely a phrase here and a word there from the Gospel accounts taken in isolation from each other.
And, kind of as a conclusion of that same…’entire story’, we have an image of the Blessed Virgin Mary presented in the Book of Revelation that clearly reveals her Heavenly glory:
“And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars: And being with child, she cried travailing in birth, and was in pain to be delivered….. And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with an iron rod: and her son was taken up to God, and to his throne….And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she had a place prepared by God, that there they should feed her a thousand two hundred sixty days.”
So we read here that Mary is “clothed with the sun” who had “brought forth a man child who was to rule all nations”.
DOES THIS NOT SPEAK OF THE INHERENT ETERNAL DIGNITY OF MARY….MOTHER OF JESUS…MOTHER OF GOD? SHE WHO IS “CLOTHED WITH THE SUN” IN HEAVEN?
***************************************************
Best to all.
Al,
I don’t believe it’s profitable to guess about all sorts of things not described or discussed in Scripture; that way lies an infinity of conclusions made to mirror the reader’s own biases. The Muslims do it, when they say that “the advocate” is actually Muhommed; the Mormons do it, when they declare that Joseph Smith is prophesied, if you read between the lines; heretics of every stripe have done it endlessly, and insisted that they were only carrying out the true traditions passed down to them.
What particularly troubles me about our conversations, though, is that you step beyond mere addition and also subtract from the text. This is the second time in as many conversations that you’ve explained away a contradictory passage by saying, “Well, the author didn’t really mean what he said.” Last time, you wrote whole chapters out of Romans as “Jewish hyperbole.” This time, does Jesus say – explicitly, unambiguously – that to be his mother is less of a blessing than to be among those who follow God? Never mind; let’s invent a motive for him – one nowhere discussed in Scripture – to allow us to discard it.
Do you see how this begins with a conclusion, and then backfills whatever motives will support that? You lack a statement in Scripture that Mary has the attributes in question, and you have a statement denying some of them, and your argument is that we should expand the former and disregard the latter until the desired conclusion fits!
What could even conceivably qualify as evidence against your claim? I mean that as a serious question. Is there anything I could produce, even hypothetically, that would act as counter-evidence, or is your theology simply axiomatic?
Do you see the danger in this approach? Do you see how little defense it gives you against any heretic with a similar interpretive claim – because their exegetical method is the same as yours?
Irked,
“I didn’t say we should ground our theology on Theophylact” = agree; but you are the one who quoted him, and his position (and yours) is based on something you seemingly want to avoid (speculation).
“I’m simply noting that the interpretation that she sins in this matter is ancient and not original to me” = ambiguous. If you are asserting that the notion that Mary has sinned is ancient, it is true, as is it true that the Church Fathers largely believed that Mary was sinless. Some held a different view, but not unequivocally, based on Romans 3:23, not from a direct verse naming her. If you are claiming that Mary sinned here specifically (I am guessing you are still talking about Mark 3), read on.
“But that the family of Christ thought he was insane and came to collect him – and that Mary was among the group that did – is not speculative” = oh, yes, it is, and very much so:
• As already demonstrated, characterizing the group of people in Mark 3:21 as Jesus’ family – in the English meaning of the word – is reductive and incorrect, as the ECF interpretations also attest.
• Mary is never mentioned in Mark 3:21 by the ECF
• When Mary is mentioned by the ECF in Mark 3:31-34, they to make a point of softening Jesus’ reaction to her (specifically)
• The focus in Mark 3:31-34 is the shift from blood relationship to faith relationship in Jesus’ teachings, but is nowhere mentioned here that His relatives (Mary included) are lacking the latter. Even in other Gospels, where his kinsmen show lack of faith (John 7 comes to mind), Mary is never mentioned.
“the testimony of Scripture that we all are…” = if you are referring to Romans 3:23, it must be read in contest, as Romans 5:18, or Romans 10:12-13.
Hi Irked,
I guess, then, that you don’t interpret the “woman” of this passage as Mary, the Mother of Jesus?:
“And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars: And being with child, she cried travailing in birth, and was in pain to be delivered….. And she brought forth A MAN CHILD, WHO WAS TO RULE THE NATIONS WITH AN IRON ROD: AND HER SON WAS TAKEN UP TO GOD, AND TO HIS THRONE….And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she had a place prepared by God, that there they should feed her a thousand two hundred sixty days.”
This clearly demonstrates her unique dignity which you continue to deny. If you can’t see Mary in this one quote….how can you interpret anything else in scripture accurately? It clearly identifies “her son being taken up to God, and his throne”.
How can this NOT be Jesus? And IF it is Jesus….then the Woman is MARY. And IF the woman is MARY…she is:
“clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars”
Therefore, Mary has incomparable holiness and dignity; and therefore, an absolutely unique place in the Kingdom of Heaven. A ‘crown of twelve stars’ , whether symbolic or not…describes her incomparable dignity indisputably.
LLC: Show me someone other than you who holds your interpretation of this passage – a modern commentary, a reputable scholar, someone – and I’ll engage it.
Al: You’re quite correct; I see the woman as the people of God – initially Israel (hence the “crowned with twelve stars”), from whom the Messiah comes, and ultimately all God’s people, Jew and Gentile, in the church. Similar interpretations are offered by such radical Protestants as the commentary on the NABRE (a standard Catholic Bible translation) and Hippolytus of Rome.
But, y’know, maybe neither of them are able to competently interpret Scripture, either?
No answer to my questions, then? Not sure there’s any point in continuing without one.
Irked,
“LLC: Show me someone other than you who holds your interpretation of this passage – a modern commentary, a reputable scholar, someone – and I’ll engage it” = apparently, the source itself – Theophylact – is not reputable enough for you. No problem, then.
LLC – seems like our debate has moved back to the other thread.
Al – I’m still curious whether there’s any conceivable evidence that could argue against your interpretation, here, or if we’re kinda wasting time debating it.
Hi Irked,
My interpretation of Rev.12 is a common sense argument in 3 parts:
1. If we know that the the great dragon is a SINGULAR INDIVIDUAL PERSON named “Satan”, i.e…:
“The huge dragon, the ancient serpent,* WHO IS CALLED THE DEVIL and SATAN “(Rev.12:9)
And then we also know also, that… “a son, a male child, destined to rule all the nations with an iron rod. Her child was caught up to God and his throne.”……. is ALSO a SINGULAR INDIVIDUAL PERSON named Jesus Christ.
Then should not the ‘Woman of Revelation 12” not ALSO be a SINGULAR INDIVIDUAL PERSON??
Why interpreted her, ALONE, as a ‘plurality of people’….or ‘a nation’ or ‘a church’?…when others, like Jesus and Satan are clearly individuals?
This is why I believe that the ‘woman of Revelation 12’ is…. The Most Blessed Virgin Mary, who was the mother of a “son, a male child, destined to rule all the nations with an iron rod…and was caught up to God and his throne.”
Al,
I understand that’s your interpretation. Nonetheless, many Christians, including many good Catholic scholars, disagree with it.
No answer to my question?
Hi Irked,
I thought that was the question you wanted answered. Renew the question you are interested in…it’s hard to keep track of what you are requesting.
Regarding different interpretations….
If it is TRUE that Mary IS the Woman of Revelation 12….then her unique dignity is proven without a doubt. The crown of 12 stars indicates royalty in ancient understanding, and this would be consistent with her being the Queen Mother of the Judeaic line that would last for ever according to the saying in Luke 1:31:
“and thou shalt call his name Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the most High; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father; and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever.”
Even if this is sacred symbolism ….Mary is included into it. Thus her dignity is due to the Divine royalty of her Son. She is his holy Mother…and thus…in Judaism…she reigns on His throne, as all other queen mother’s did after King David.
Clearly there is incomparable dignity (regarding Mary)..associated with such sacred or holy royalty? How can one separate a King from the rest of his royal family (without breaking with the concept of monarchical governance)? …And, regarding ourselves…we too are part of the same royal family, being included by adoption?
Jesus is King, Mary is Queen Mother… and we are children in that Divine Kingdom.
The question:
“Do you see how this begins with a conclusion, and then backfills whatever motives will support that? You lack a statement in Scripture that Mary has the attributes in question, and you have a statement denying some of them, and your argument is that we should expand the former and disregard the latter until the desired conclusion fits!
“What could even conceivably qualify as evidence against your claim? I mean that as a serious question. Is there anything I could produce, even hypothetically, that would act as counter-evidence, or is your theology simply axiomatic?”
It’s an important question, I think. If it’s just axiom, we can all go home.
***
The key word in your argument, it seems to me, is “if.” When your own commentaries don’t favor that interpretation, I’m not inclined to, either.
Hi Irked,
Do you see how this begins with a conclusion, and then backfills whatever motives will support that? ”
In many ways…yes. And this is because there are many topics discussed in the Gospels and we are given the answers to them by Jesus through His parables and explicit teachings. And by knowing the conclusions of these these we can apply them to other area’s of the scriptures that are under dispute. So, conclusions in other parts of the scriptures can shed light on scriptures that are less clear.
“You lack a statement in Scripture that Mary has the attributes in question, and you have a statement denying some of them, and your argument is that we should expand the former and disregard the latter until the desired conclusion fits!”
You might look for one single statement to justify any position you have regarding scripture, thinking that THAT STATEMENT alone, without context or history is the authoritative interpretation. However, the scriptures are revealed more by “story” than by dogmatic philosophy or logical deduction. If a reader of scripture only analyzes single phrases or sentences and neglects the overall content of stories told …they are the one’s who are most capable of bending the meaning and definition of words to suit their own desired purposes.
And this is proved by simple teachings of Jesus and scriptures such as the parable of the “Good Samaritan”. We have a philosophical statement “Love your neighbor as yourself” as a precept discussed there. Yet a ‘philosophical type’ person wants to justify his own opinion by defining ‘what exactly’ is a neighbor. This way, he might not have to love various people that indeed aren’t his physical neighbors…such as Samaritans, for instance. And, this philosophical question is answered by Jesus using the tool of by a STORY, TELLING. (And I might add that even philosophers like Plato used stories such as the ‘Allegory of the Cave’ to convey his philosophical message). So, that Jesus used stories and parables, which are not ‘explicit’ statements..to convey His Gospel message….this proves that such story telling and parables are often MORE profitable than axiomatic philosophy, logic and explicit statements on moral subject matter.And this is because parable and metaphors have the ability to define concepts that are very difficult to understand otherwise….such as the example given above, with the question: “Who is my “neighbor”?
Regarding Mary and the ‘brothers’ …who want to talk to Jesus…these need to be understood ALSO through the story being told in the scriptures. We need to understand the environment and circumstances of the situation, and try to understand the reason WHY these family members might want to converse with Him at that particular time. And, we note that the story occurred at a very difficult time for Jesus, and on many levels. One difficulty for Jesus is that He was very popular at the time, due to His miracles and healings. Yet, at the same time, Pharisees and other enemies of Jesus were accusing Him of performing miracles through the power of the Satan. Moreover, in recalling earlier Gospel events/stories …we remember what happened in Nazareth where Jesus’ own townsmen tried to ‘throw Him off of a cliff’. And, Mary and the ‘brothers’ of Jesus could NOT have escaped notice of this. It obviously had a direct impact on their own lives. So, we also can understand that Mary and the brothers went to Jesus through compassion for Him, maybe so that a similar event that happened in Nazareth would not happen in Capharnaum as well, because it is undeniable that the claims that He cured by the power of Beelzebub was so serious as to likely to lead to a similar persecution as happened in Nazareth.
Now, you might say….”there is nothing explicit about ANY of this!”. But I will reply “Stories reveal more to us than dogmatic maxims because if we can’t even define “who our neighbors are”, how can we love them? And further…”how much ” are we supposed to love them? That is, did the ‘Good Samaritan’ give ALL of his wealth to the injured man? No, rather, Jesus reveals that there were reasonable limits to that love. So, this story/parable reveals very many small details that philosophy might require 100’s of pages of text to define in a logical, systematic,way…and STILL GET IT WRONG. Stories and parables are similar to the old saying “A picture is worth a thousand words”. A parable is basically a verbal picture…and can convey an enormous amount of moral wisdom and spiritual teaching therein.
“What could even conceivably qualify as evidence against your claim? I mean that as a serious question. Is there anything I could produce, even hypothetically, that would act as counter-evidence, or is your theology simply axiomatic?”
Again, I take the whole context of the scriptures and pay attention to the stories told therein…to get a good idea of what is taking place.
There is a lot of background information that needs to be considered to understand Why Mary and the extended family (‘brothers’) are trying to communicate with Jesus. We need to discover their intent. So, to do this we need to understand the history of what Jesus has been doing recently, so as to interpret the motive of His mother and ‘brothers’. And when we look at history, we need to recall all of it…all of the care that Mary had for Him when they fled to Egypt, when they raised Him in Nazareth in great secrecy, until “His hour” and public revelation arrived…largely at the Marriage at Cana. When Jesus stayed back in Jerusalem when He was 12 years old…and where Mary and Joseph were greatly alarmed at His being “lost”. So, what I mentioned about Mary’s vocation of keeping the identity of Jesus secret…is very true. It’s all part of the great story needed to understand the Gospel message.
To sum up: Jesus used parable and story to convey much of the Gospel message. In understanding these many stories and parables we can ‘piece together’ what Jesus is trying to convey…we can “recognize the voice of the Shepherd” and ‘follow Him’.
If Jesus wanted to teach only through dogmatic logic, He probably would have been born in Athens, like Socrates and Aristotle. But he was born a Jew…and as we know…almost the entirety of the Sacred Scriptures is STORY. THAT’s the way that God decided to reveal His Holy Will to the world.
And, by the way….there are very good reasons for teaching religion and spirituality in this way. But it will have to wait until another time.
Praise be to Jesus Christ! Now and Forever!
Do you see how this begins with a conclusion, and then backfills whatever motives will support that? ”
In many ways…yes
Okay. Not really any point in my trying to argue from the evidence, then, is there?
I think I’ll call it there.
What you call ‘back fill’ I call ‘supporting evidence’. the same happened after Jesus revealed His Gospel. Christians returned to the Old Testament and started to see how much of it was a prophesy of Christ’s teaching and Life.
But what you derogatorily call ‘back fill’ I call ‘honest study and research’. But I am not trying to PROVE anything…rather I’m first trying to understand what happened with all the evidence I can find.
And as i gave the example of the Eucharist that needed a lot of ancilliary study of the ‘Bread of Life” scriptures, scattered throughout the Gospels and OT too…so also, everything regarding Mary needs to be studied from all of the scriptures regarding her…and not taken as merely an isolated event. Without a comprehensive study of her….a competent conclusion about her cannot be made….because you cannot understand the PERSON of Mary as revealed throughout scripture.
Good luck following your own way of scriptural study, though.
Mary was not only the Mother of Christ, but a true prophet also. Before the birth of Jesus, during her visit to her cousin Elizabeth, we note her prophetic words regarding all future generations until the end of the world, and in Heaven thereafter :
“My soul glorifies the Lord. And my spirit rejoices in God my Saviour. Because he has regarded the humility of his handmaid; for behold from HENCEFORTH ALL GENERATIONS SHALL CALL ME BLESSED. Because he that is mighty has done great things to me; and holy is his name…”[Luke 1:46]
And currently, these prophetic words of hers are still being fulfilled by countless Catholics (like myself) throughout the world who daily pray the “Ave Maria” or “Hail Mary” prayer: “Hail Mary Full of Grace, the Lord is with thee. BLESSED ART THOU amongst women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.”
So, the woman praising Mary in Luke 11:27-28, is merely one of many until the end of time, and throughout eternity, that will fulfill Mary’s own prophesy about her own self. And, actually she is not the only witness of this great glory of hers. Both, the Angel Gabriel and her cousin Elizabeth also praised her as “Blessed amongst women”:
Gabriel, said this in Luke 1:28 : “blessed art thou among women.”…singularly distinguishing her from all other women in her blessedness. And, Elizabeth later confirmed this saying, speaking in the power of the Holy Spirit…and using almost the exact same words as the Angel:
“Elizabeth was FILLED with the HOLY GHOST: And she cried out with a loud voice, and said: BLESSED ART THOU AMONG WOMAN, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.” [Luke 1:41]
So, is it any wonder why Christians today praise Mary with similar words as those which the angel Gabriel, Elizabeth and Mary herself also used? Are we not merely those who fulfill her prophesy in Luke: ” From this day all generations will call me blessed”. And then, knowing that Heaven is an extension of this Earthly life into eternity…it is only common sense that the ‘blessed’ in Heaven will also be amongst those who call out in that ‘eternal generation’: “Blessed art thou amongst women”.
Irked, I hope these verses contradicting your unambiguity opinion on the divinity of Christ will not irk you: “… yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live…” (1Cor8:6,niv); Jesus praying to the Father, “Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God…” (John17:3,niv)
No irk! There is one God, agreed.
And Jesus himself declared that this one God is the Father. How does this make Jesus’ divinity unambiguous?
Because both Christ and his followers then declare Christ to be the one God, as well; see, for instance, “Before Abraham was, I AM”; the Daniel reference in “You will see the Son of Man coming with the clouds of glory and seated at the right hand of the Mighty One”; Peter and Paul’s shared use of “our great God and savior Jesus Christ”; John’s declaration that the Word was God; Thomas’s proclamation of Christ as “My lord and my God”; Christ’s statement that he had the glory of God the Father before the world was; the worship of the heavenly beings in Revelation for both the One who sits on the throne and the Lamb who was slain in equal terms; Philippians’ statement that Christ is in very nature God; etc. etc.
I’m not really looking for a Trinity debate today, but the evidence is not thin on the ground; I’m sure my Catholic brothers could supply it as well.
Irk, so if Jesus is God and there is only one God, how would you treat the Father whom Jesus said is the only true God (John17:3) and whom Paul referred to as the one God from whom all things came (1Corinthians8:6). Shall we just set aside these verses to make the divinity of Christ unambiguous?
There is one God; God is three distinct persons, Father, Son, and Spirit; each person is fully God. There are any number of standard defenses you could read on this point, but I’ll bow out now.
Irk, when Christ rose in glory he still referred to the Father as “my Father and my God” (John20:17). Shall we also set aside this scripture so that Christ’s divinity will be unambiguous?
Irk, when Christ rose in glory he referred to the Father as “my Father and your Father, to my God and your God” (John20:17). Shall we also set aside this scripture so that Christ’s divinity will be unambiguous?
Irk, I thought you believe in unambiguous teachings of scripture and not in people’s interpretation and standard defenses. One last point: where in the bible is it unambiguously taught that the one God is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and that each person is fully God?
Irk, I am a catholic and I believe in the divinity of Christ and the Trinity not because it is unambiguously taught in the bible but because it is infallibly taught by the church which is the foundation of truth (1Timothy3:15)
Okay. Eusebius, who was at Nicaea, said in his presentation to that council that the truths of the Trinity “we have also come to know through the divine Scripture,” as well as by other means. He further praises the council because it “forbad the use of words not found in Scripture, from which almost all the confusion and disorder in the Church have come. Since then no divinely inspired Scripture has used the phrases, ‘out of nothing,’ and ‘once he was not,’ and the rest which follow, there appeared no ground for using or teaching them.”
If you’d like to argue that the Trinity cannot be found in Scripture, or that we should assert things about the Godhead not appearing in Scripture, I’d direct you to Eusebius. Otherwise, this is not Joe’s topic, and I’ll politely decline to discuss it further.
Irk, so you cannot argue that the Trinity is clearly taught in Scriptures using the Bible alone without Eusebius.
“It’s interesting that you posted about this, because I had a thought about this passage recently, though not because of Mass readings.
Compare this passage with the man who calls Jesus good teacher: “And when he was gone forth into the way, a certain man running up and kneeling before him, asked him, ‘Good Master, what shall I do that I may receive life everlasting?’
And Jesus said to him, ‘Why callest thou me good? None is good but one, that is God.’”
Protestants are perfectly comfortable using the passage you’ve written on to deny the Blessed Mother’s unique holiness, but are more than willing to work to explain certain passages which appear difficult, e.g. an apparent denial by Jesus of His Divinity and goodness. What one brings to the text really does play an important role in what one takes away.”
The Blessed Virgin, was as the mother of John rightly noted, blessed for her faithful acceptance of the angel’s message. All generations shall indeed call her “blessed among women.”
“Unique Holiness”? Certainly the Virgin is unique, for there is but one Christ and he has but one earthly mother.
But “woman” was how Christ addressed her was it not? He did not call her “The Queen of Heaven”, “The Mother of God” or anything remotely similar, and at the Cross he as much as told her that from henceforth she was to be the mother of his disciple and that disciple her son, did he not?
None of that idolatrous stuff later fastened on her by sophists to grease the paths of pagans with their fertility cults and goddesses.
Christ said that the truth is revealed to babes, not to those who think themselves wise, and the word of one “babe” of three and half who saw the Throne of God was that Christ sits on the right hand, the Archangel Gabriel stands on the left and Mary kneels before the Throne.
Why do you think she kneels?
Still, He knows who worships Him in spirit and in truth and forgives our errors where they are but the result of our limited understanding, but those who have understanding, or could have it if they would but make the effort and ask for the guidance of the Holy Spirit, what excuse shall they give?
And what excuse could they give for having misled others?
Ah, I remember now: “the keys”! Yes, we shall pontificate upon the order of Heaven, and God shall make it so because we say so, for ever and ever! And logically of course, whichever of our Borgias or heretical popes makes his pronunciamento, why the Heavenly Kingdom shall forthwith rearrange itself to accord with his statement, and if one of his successors shall ordain otherwise, why Heaven shall jump to his command as well!
“There is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ.”
The irony is that Luke 11:27-28 was the standard pericope used in masses for the Blessed Virgin in the Old Rite. The corresponding passage from the Fathers (Venerable Bede) in the Office of Matins explains the passage well:
“Yea, rather, blessed are they that hear the Word of God and keep it. How nobly doth the Saviour say “Yea” to the woman’s blessing, declaring also that not only is she blessed who was meet to give bodily birth to the Word of God, but that all they who spiritually conceive the same Word by the hearing of faith, and, by keeping it through good works, bring it forth and, as it were, carefully nurse it, in their own hearts, and in the hearts of their neighbours, are also blessed. Yea, and that the very Mother of God herself was blessed in being for a while the handmaid of the Word of God made Flesh, but that she was much more blessed in this, that through her love she keepeth Him for ever.”
That final line explains it perfectly.
“Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.”…
Sorry, but “rather” means “instead” or “otherwise”, not “in addition” or “as well”.
So when the woman called out, Christ contradicted her. Ponder on that.
And in a like vein, when Thomas saw and believed, He said, “…blessed are they who have not seen and yet have believed.”
That can only mean that the one who has heard and seen only the Word, and in printed form rather than in the flesh, and yet has believed, is at least equal to if not greater than those who believed because of a Divine visitation or revelation.
Which of course makes perfect sense, unlike the doctrines of men and their convolutions.
Always bearing in mind of course, that those who believe are those who do the works of God to their best understanding, not those who merely say they believe.
Blessed rather, means of Mary’s faith but she can be blessed still to have the baby. Like, think of getting a lunchbox in school and getting called lucky for it and you say you’re lucky instead for having a loving family.
Oh Mary, concieved without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.
Who did Christ tell us to pray to?
It wasn’t his earthly mother, the mother of his half-brothers.
Take you pick, the Word of God or the commandments of men?
If you think there is a choice.
The Father, who is the father in the trinity with the Son.
You can think it like this: the soul, spirit, and mind.
The Word of God, God Father, and Spirit of God. Plus, Timothy stated “my Lord, my God” to Jesus while bowing. With revelation having Jesus stating to be alpha and Omega. The Father is the head.
I came across an interesting document recently, an account of an exorcism by Bobby Jindal, one of the participants. (New Oxford Review, Dec. 1994) At a certain point he experienced a phenomenon not unknown in such events: a demonic power exerted over him prevented him from praying to the Father or the Son. He found however that he was quite free to pray to the Virgin Mary or the saints. Ironically, Bobby concluded this was somehow supportive of the idea of praying to the Virgin and saints. It doesn’t seem to have occurred to him that either such prayers were spiritually irrelevant and therefore unaffected by the demonic power pressing on him, or the demonic power was attempting, but apparently failing, to undermine his faith in such prayer by a backhanded technique tantamount to driving itself out. Given that the demonic power was able to temporarily obstruct his prayers to the Father and the Son, it seems ludicrous to suggest the demonic force was unable to impede his prayers to the Virgin and the Saints, so we must either conclude that the demon deliberately did not impede such prayers, or that they were simply irrelevant. Interesting.