Well said and Absolutely correct calvin. I agree with you totally (as my granddaughter would say).
Pope's New Tweet
- Thread starter LanceA
- Start date
Well said and Absolutely correct calvin. I agree with you totally (as my granddaughter would say).
No problem.
This isn't my thread actually -- this is someone else's. I only posted in it.
In regards to Mary's titles as mediatrix and co-redemtrix, I can only recommend reading my post in #16 -- I gave explanation for this since I think people misunderstand what these titles mean, and understandably so in these modern times. One of those misunderstandings is one that you mentioned: "In some aspects I feel that the RCC trends a thin line of adding another hypostasis to the Godhead."
I wouldn't be comfortable being part of a group that has added someone or something to the Godhead. Mary isn't nor has she ever been considered to be part of the Godhead -- that is reserved strictly for the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit...and I will fight anyone who tries to associate a 4th into it. If the Catholic Church did in fact do that with Mary, then I'd say they didn't just tread a thin line, they crossed it. I'm glad to say that didn't do that.
Last edited:
I've always thought we honor our OWN mothers in order to be like Jesus, because he was honoring HIS OWN mother (such as making an arrangement while He was on the cross by telling his disciple John to take care of HIS OWN mother. I see Jesus honoring his mother in obedience to Jewish tradition and the Law. I honor my own parents for the same reasons and in obedience to Jesus. I also honor Mary because she was chosen to be the vessel through which our Lord came to this world, but I honestly don't see her elevated in the scriptures in the way that Catholics elevate her. If you know where those scriptures are, please share them with me. Thank you.
There are two in particular that come to mind. Tue first is the wedding in which Mary beseeches Jesus to turn the water into wine. This, if I'm not mistaken is what justifies the title mediatrix, that Mary can mediate with God on our behalf because she did it here and her intercession carries more weight.
The second item comes from Christology. In order to for Christ to be God and for the Gospel to be coherent with this, Christ must have what's know as a hypostatic union of divine and human nature. If that union is so then Mary was mother both of the human nature and the divine nature which makes her 'Mother of God'.
Thank you for your quick response, Godspell. The first incident of Mary interceding at the wedding seems to be the only one you draw from in order to justify (your word) the elevated title of mediatrix. I've never fully understood what the water-into-wine incident truly means; however, because there is nothing else to draw from (as far as I can see), it seems a big leap to make it mean she is mediatrix.
The logic in the second item you are using seems very flawed to me. Does not the fact of being a mother mean you have to pre-exist your offspring? I see Mary as the mother of the human nature of Jesus, but NOT the divine nature. She would have to be divine herself in order to be the mother of His divine nature. His divine nature came from the pre-existing divinity of the Holy Spirit.
I'm going to throw in a bit, as this is all I have, but if it can be agreed that mediators are consistent with our faith in Christ, the I can begin to accept Mary in such a position. But what of the other mediators we encounter in the New Testament? Are we to consider them as among the saints to whom we might also seek mediation?
The list does go on, even to the New Testament with some whose salvation was not entirely clear. Now before someone takes this the wrong way, I am not suggesting that if we have mediators all those in Scripture who were engaged in anything close to mediation should be on the list, but the idea of mediation, outside of Christ, is a matter on which I am unclear.
I am most interested to hear how this occasion of turning water to wine can be understood as a result of Mary's intersession on behalf of either the groom or his servants.
My concerns are based on the stated fact that this incident was the 'first' of Jesus' signs:
John 2:11. This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory. And his disciples believed in him.
Now as I understand things a 'sign' points to something.
If there was an event that could be identified as 'the first sign' it is clear that there were other signs all pointing the same way. Since these signs point to Jesus' Divinity and to none other, the connection with Mary and any sort of mediatorial role is very unclear.
Indeed in the light of ::
John 2:4. And Jesus said to her, "Woman, what does this have to do with me? My hour has not yet come."
It is most difficult to understand that Jesus saw in this incident anything other than an opportunity to begin to prepare His disciples for the pouring out of His Blood as the wine of the new covenant.
This is based on Jesus' own words.
Can you explain how these stated facts (from the Bible) can be set aside in favour of an unchronicled intercession by Mary?
Ohh dear, I think we are straying from the original OP. Maybe a new thread should be created if there is sufficient interest and any real point to be gained?
Last edited:
Indeed, honoring our own mothers is modeling off of Jesus, but we also honor Mary as the mother of God. We recognize that as Jesus is the new Adam, Mary must be the new eve.
I'm on the metro at the moment, so when I get to my office, I'll go deeper with this using scripture.
Thank you. You captured and expressed my thoughts much more clearly when you used the term intecession. I think there is some foundation for believing that there may be intercession through/from the "saints" who have passed on, but it would seem a thin reed upon which to form a belief.
Also, just a heads up, I'm keeping a close eye on this thread...If I see any comments out of line, warnings may be issued. This is hot button for both sides.
Sorry for the delay. Now that I'm at my office, I can give a better answer rather than a half-attempted one.
It sounds like we're both on the same page that 1) Mary should never be worshiped and 2) Mary is not divine. However, you asked a good (and perfectly fair) question: Why is Mary held above others if she's not divine? She's only a human.
Moving forward, just to let you know, this is not my attempt to change anyone's minds, but to explain the Catholic position of this. When all is said and done, we may still disagree on the interpretation of Scripture, but I am only meaning to explain the Catholic position.
1: When it comes to the enmity of Satan, in Genesis 3:15, the mention of the mother of God is referenced: I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel. This is partly why Mary is sometimes depicted as stomping on the head of a serpent.
2: In Isaiah 7:14, we know Christ was born of a virgin.
3: We know through Luke 1:26-28 that Mary was full of grace even before the incarnation: in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. And he came to her and said, "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!"
4: Mary wasn't simply a woman who had Jesus, she was set apart from all women through the grace of God. In Luke 1:41-42, it says this: When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. And she cried out with a loud voice and said, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!
5: We also know through Scripture that Mary is the mother of God -- which I suspect we're all on board with, but it deserves mentioning: And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? (Luke 1:43)
6: We don't regard Mary as not needing a savior -- we know she, as a human, was just as much in need of one as anyone. We see this is Luke 1:47: and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
7: Mary's role has always continued as a being blessed among all women. It says in Luke 1:48 for he has regarded the low estate of his handmaiden. For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed;
8: We understand that Mary's suffering had a unity with Christ's holy suffering on the cross. In Luke 2:34-35, it says and Simeon blessed them and said to Mary his mother, "Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign that is spoken against (and a sword will pierce through your own soul also), that thoughts out of many hearts may be revealed."
9: Mary's role isn't to direct glory to her, but to direct glory to her son. In John 2:3-5 says When the wine failed, the mother of Jesus said to him, "They have no wine." And Jesus said to her, "O woman, what have you to do with me? My hour has not yet come." His mother said to the servants, "Do whatever he tells you. This is a perfect illustration of what Mary is to us.
10: Spiritually speaking, because Christ's Church make up His body (Romans 12:4-5), we regard Mary as our mother--not in a way of giving her divinity, but in recognizing Christ's divinity. In Revelations 12, where it talks about the Woman and the Child, it points out the those in fellowship with Christ as the offspring--Revelation 12:17: Then the dragon was angry with the woman, and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus. And he stood on the sand of the sea. This also goes back to the Woman still at enmity with Satan.
11: As Christ is the New Covenant, we recognize Mary as the ark of the New Covenant. In Revelation 11:19-12:1: Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple; and there were flashes of lightning, voices, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail. And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars;
So again, if we don't agree on translation (as I suspect we won't--that's very much what it ties down to), then that is absolutely fine. Nonetheless, that is the Scriptural position Catholics and Orthodox and others have in regards to Mary, why we honor her, love her, and look to her intercession in order to become fully united with God -- God is the ends and Mary is a means.
Just to make sure we're all on the same page, this response was never intended to point at anyone and say "you're wrong and here's why" -- rather, it was intended to offer some insight on how we view Mary. My hope is that even if you still disagree, you'll know precisely what it is you disagree with. And further, I hope this creates a better relationship as we can understand one another a bit clearer when addressing something this controversial.
Last edited:
Lysander Shapiro, I appreciate you taking time to explain more fully how the Catholics interpret scripture. You are right that we still disagree. It is very difficult for me to gather the same understanding from the scriptures you have pointed out. It seems esoteric to say that because Jesus is the new Adam, it follows that Mary is the new Eve. I don't think we needed a new Eve, but even if Mary were to be the new Eve (as you say), I would strongly remind you that Eve was the wife/helpmeet of Adam and NOT his mother. Hence, I cannot imagine how this Catholic interpretation of this "type/picture" has become so strong. It seems extremely esoteric....I'm sorry and I don't mean to attack you personally but this interpretation is almost blasphemy, IMO.
No, no problem -- I don't feel attacked one bit.
I understand what you are saying.
With Mary being the new Eve, this is to mean that Mary fulfilled what Eve could not, though the more important aspect is Jesus fulfilling what Adam could not. But just as Adam required an Eve, Jesus required a mother as it was God in the flesh, and this is where Mary comes along -- hence the new Eve. God could have taken all of this is a different direction -- in fact, if God willed it, Christ could have been made the same exact way Adam was and Mary wouldn't even be necessary at all. But this was not God's will -- His will was that he was born of a virgin.
If we wanted to look at the comparison of Mary and Eve, we wouldn't attribute it to their relationship being identical to Adam and Eve's. Adam and Eve were husband and wife while Jesus and Mary were son and mother. We wouldn't call Mary the new eve for that reason of course. Some people consider the idea of Mary being a queen blasphemous because they believe it suggests that they were married. Of course that is silly. The reason for this title is that she isn't a queen-wife, but a queen-mother, as it was the custom in ancient Israel (like King David's mother being the queen mother).
You and I seem to be in full agreement in regards to who Mary was to Jesus and that she was by no means his wife. Rather, she was a servant of God--pretty much the first Christian in fact--who showed obedience to Him to be used in His plan to save man from sin through Christ.
But I guess if it's the title of her being the New Eve that is uncomfortable, this title isn't dogmatic if you will -- the substance of it is what is important. Most Catholics don't refer to her as this, but understand what she is. One book I highly recommend reading if you are serious about getting the full understanding of this perspective of Mary is Mary Revealed through Scripture written by Scott Hahn. It goes into every account, every passage, written in layman's terms as to how Catholics perceive her and why.
If you are serious about getting to the bottom of it, check it out. It is written so well, I couldn't even begin to put it as well as the author did.
Last edited:
Lysander Shapiro, I recognize that Jesus required a mother in order to fulfill God's will. It still seems inaccurate to connect Mary with Eve as a "type" mother because Adam did NOT require a mother (like Jesus did), and Eve was NOT Adam's mother (like Mary was to Jesus).
Also, Eve was supposed to live a sinless life. Neither Eve nor Mary lived a sinless life, hence I conclude Mary did NOT fulfill what Eve could not. Was there something else Eve was supposed to fulfill besides not sinning? That is the only thing I see in Genesis for her to do when God commanded she not eat from the tree...just don't sin.
Mary conceived without sin is another subject which this forum has had many of. If you'd like, we can discuss in a private conversation, but I don't want to bring in extra topics into this thread which is reserved for another topic.
But the Catholic position is that God made it so she was conceived without original sin as fitting for Christ's being divine. I'd suggest having a private discussion on this though.
"God is the ends and Mary is a means."
This is my biggest hurdle for Catholicism.
Jesus told him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me. (John 14:6 NLT)
Don't misinterpret what I said as meaning Mary is the way to God. I've already established that there is only one mediator between man and God, and that is Christ.
This is why these get very difficult for me to respond the same answer over and over again. I'll answer one question but not everyone reads every response (and understandably so -- it will take too long) but just to explain, I did establish this. Consider going to church or Bible study as an example. You don't go to the Father by going to church, but going to church helps your way to Christ.
Catholics like myself would agree with you 100 times over when it is said that Christ is the way, the truth, and the life -- it's Scriptural, and we can't kick Scripture aside.