What is Mariology?

[face2face]

On this issue of Mary.... She was the CHOSEN mother by God to give birth to Jesus.
I know that JESUS loved His mother very much... so I am also rather fond of her... and grateful to her.
But she is not what many have made her out to be... and as for the summation on what occurred in her
bedroom.... well... that is just plain CREEPY... in my opinion.

Ha that’s funny.

The Scripture goes to great lengths to inform us Mary had not "known" Joseph prior to the birth of Jesus, so in that regard it does invite insight. Of course, the reason its states this several times is to cast no doubt that Jesus is the Son of God and not the Son of Man (unlike Mary and us). The gospel isn’t interested in Mary beyond the sword that would be thrust in her heart. I won’t go into the lessons Mary learned from Jesus for fear that might upset others and cause contention. My goal is to better understand how Catholic believers understand Mary beyond what the Scripture teaches.

 

[Truman]

Oh, Mary-ology. I though you meant Mario-ology. I bet he wouldn't need a vaccine.

 

[Addy]

The Scripture goes to great lengths to inform us Mary had not "known" Joseph prior to the birth of Jesus, so in that regard it does invite insight. Of course, the reason its states this several times is to cast no doubt that Jesus is the Son of God and not the Son of Man (unlike Mary and us). The gospel isn’t interested in Mary beyond the sword that would be thrust in her heart. I won’t go into the lessons Mary learned from Jesus for fear that might upset others and cause contention. My goal is to better understand how Catholic believers understand Mary beyond what the Scripture teaches.

I hope this discussion is fruitful as you are hoping for... Be blessed...

 

[Mungo]

Thanks Mungo.
The links are helpful.



Am I right then to suggest your faith believes Mary to have pre-existed? The word "Ancient" is only used of God Himself in the Bible but here you are saying Mary holds that title before Adam ???

Thanks

No, No, No. We do not believe that Mary pre-existed. Ancient here just means from the earliest times in the Church.

 

[Mungo]

Mungo, I sense you have argued this subject a lot over the years. Does the Church have a historical record for the use of Mary being the Mother of God prior to the council of Ephesus?

If not, that's fine. As I said, I am gathering facts at the moment.

Here are various quotes I have found from before Ephesus:

"The Virgin Mary, being obedient to his word, received from an angel the glad tidings that she would bear God" (Iranaeus - Against Heresies, 5:19:1 [A.D. 189]).

"[T]o all generations they [the prophets] have pictured forth the grandest subjects for contemplation and for action. Thus, too, they preached of the advent of God in the flesh to the world, his advent by the spotless and God-bearing (theotokos) Mary in the way of birth and growth, and the manner of his life and conversation with men, and his manifestation by baptism, and the new birth that was to be to all men, and the regeneration by the laver [of baptism]" (Hippolytus - Discourse on the End of the World 1 [A.D. 217]).

"For Luke, in the inspired Gospel narratives, delivers a testimony not to Joseph only, but also to Mary the Mother of God, and gives this account with reference to the very family and house of David" (Gregory the Wonderworker Four Homilies 1; 262 AD).

"(Those engaged in the public transport service) came to the church of the most blessed Mother of God, and Ever-Virgin Mary, which, as we began to say, he had constructed in the western quarter, in a suburb, for a cemetery of the martyrs" (Peter of Alexandria The Genuine Acts of Peter of Alexandria; 305 AD).

"While the old man [Simeon] was thus exultant, and rejoicing with exceeding great and holy joy, that which had before been spoken of in a figure by the prophet Isaiah, the holy Mother of God now manifestly fulfilled" (Methodius Oration on Simeon and Anna 7; 305 AD).

"We acknowledge the resurrection of the dead, of which Jesus Christ our Lord became the firstling; he bore a body not in appearance but in truth derived from Mary the Mother of God" (Alexander of Alexandria Letter to All Non-Egyptian Bishops 12; 324 AD).

"The Father bears witness from heaven to his Son. The Holy Spirit bears witness, coming down bodily in the form of a dove. The Archangel Gabriel bears witness, bringing the good tidings to Mary. The Virgin Mother of God bears witness" (Cyril of Jerusalem Catechetical Lectures 10:19; 350 AD).

"Though still a virgin she carried a child in her womb, and the handmaid and work of his wisdom became the Mother of God" (Ephraim the Syrian Songs of Praise 1:20; 351 AD).

"The Word begotten of the Father from on high, inexpressibly, inexplicably, incomprehensibly, and eternally, is he that is born in time here below of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God" (Athanasius The Incarnation of the Word of God 8; 365 AD).

"Being perfect at the side of the Father and incarnate among us, not in appearance but in truth, he [the Son] reshaped man to perfection in himself from Mary the Mother of God through the Holy Spirit" (Epiphanius of Salamis The Man Well-Anchored 75; 374 AD).

"The first thing which kindles ardor in learning is the greatness of the teacher. What is greater than the Mother of God? What more glorious than she whom Glory Itself chose?" (Ambrose of Milan The Virgins 2:2[7]; 377 AD).

This Virgin became a Mother while preserving her virginity;
And though still a Virgin she carried a Child in her womb;
And the handmaid and work of His Wisdom
became the Mother of God
(St Ephraim, Songs of Praise, 1, 20; c. 381 AD)

"If anyone does not agree that Holy Mary is Mother of God, he is at odds with the Godhead" (Gregory of Nazianz Letter to Cledonius the Priest 101; 382 AD).

 

[quietthinker]

Ha that’s funny.

The Scripture goes to great lengths to inform us Mary had not "known" Joseph prior to the birth of Jesus, so in that regard it does invite insight. Of course, the reason its states this several times is to cast no doubt that Jesus is the Son of God and not the Son of Man (unlike Mary and us). The gospel isn’t interested in Mary beyond the sword that would be thrust in her heart. I won’t go into the lessons Mary learned from Jesus for fear that might upset others and cause contention. My goal is to better understand how Catholic believers understand Mary beyond what the Scripture teaches.

Mariology is nothing more than a construct of men.
It is an attempt marry pagan views with the message of the Gospel.

 

[Mungo]

Mariology is nothing more than a construct of men.
It is an attempt marry pagan views with the message of the Gospel.

That may be your opinion but you provide no evidence to back it up.
Therefore it is worthless.

 

[quietthinker]

That may be your opinion but you provide no evidence to back it up.
Therefore it is worthless.

It is not worthless anymore than fire isn’t because one doesn’t volunteer the content of it’s substance!

 

[Mungo]

It is not worthless anymore than fire isn’t because one doesn’t volunteer the content of it’s substance!

A fire give evidence of it's existence by the light and heat it produces.

You comments only give evidence of the existence ignorance and anti-Catholic bigotry

 

[quietthinker]

A fire give evidence of it's existence by the light and heat it produces.

You comments only give evidence of the existence ignorance and anti-Catholic bigotry

As you wish Mungo!

 

[face2face]

No, No, No. We do not believe that Mary pre-existed. Ancient here just means from the earliest times in the Church.

When you say earliest of times you dont mean during the time of the Apostles do you?

 

[face2face]

Here are various quotes I have found from before Ephesus:

"The Virgin Mary, being obedient to his word, received from an angel the glad tidings that she would bear God" (Iranaeus - Against Heresies, 5:19:1 [A.D. 189]).

Several insights worth mentioning here.

When do you believe the shift from Mary bearing the Son of the Most High (Holy Scripture - Luke 1:32), to Mary bearing God took place (Theologian - Iranaeus)?

Clearly this wasn’t the understanding of the first century Apostles for nowhere in the cannon of Scripture is there a section given to Mariology.

Also, you would agree the complex teaching which you hold concerning Mary is not here stated by Iranaues. When presenting to a group of believers on this subject I must have verifiable evidence to support such claims. Would it be fair to say the Catholic Church believes Iranaeus was speaking ex cathedra? Or, those who developed the doctrine of Mariology down through the ages were given "special enlightenment" beyond the inspired Word? Any resources to support?

This makes me wonder how Apostolic understanding 120 - 150 years earlier shifted from Mary being a humble handmaiden of the Lord to what she has become today in the Roman Catholic Church. You must concede it’s a rather remarkable shift from the understanding of Canonised Scripture to Roman Catholic Catechisms?

At present my first slide for this presentation is the above quote from Iranaeus, which has little substance to support the following beliefs:

(1) the divine motherhood (theotokos) of Mary (Council of Ephesus, 431)
(2) the virgin conception and Mary’s perpetual virginity (Second Council of Constantinople, 553)
(3) Mary’s immaculate conception and sinlessness (Pius IX, 1854)
(4) her bodily assumption into heaven (Pius XII, 1950).

I can only concur at this point that Mariology was a developed dogma, something the Lord would have called the "traditions of men".

I would like to ask you a question, which is not easy to answer because it requires you to step outside your current belief system and approach the subject with honesty and integrity.

Can you think of a doctrine concerning Mary or the Lord Jesus Christ, which if found to be true, would dispel all 4 of the above Catholic teachings?

This question is important, as it shows whether you have honestly tested your faith, or whether your confirmation bias holds you in a state of blindness. Having been in a state of blindness myself I feel qualified to ask the question.

Looking forward to your response.

F2F

 

[Grailhunter]

Greetings all,

I am looking to have an amicable discussion with those who venerate Mary the mother of Jesus. The purpose is to gather information on the subject with the view of presenting a study session to a wide range of believers.

As I understand it a Roman Catholic believer would agree with the below statement:

"In view of her dignity as the Mother of God and her fullness of grace, a special veneration is due to Mary. This is substantially less than the cultus latriae (= adoration) which is due to God alone, but it is higher than the cultus Duliae (= veneration) due to the angels and to the other saints. The special veneration thus given to Mary is called cultus hyperduliae" Fundementals of Catholic Dogma by Ott Ludwig

Can someone lead me to the Catechism where this type of veneration is stated? Any links to a Catholic library would also be helpful.

Is there a Scripture which states Mary should be praised?

It is widely understood that the treaching of Mary being the Mother of God was advocated by St. Cyril of Alexandria, at the Council of Ephesus (431) - Does the Church acknowledge this teaching was not taught, or held by the Apostles and was a later developement by the early Church fathers?

Thank you and look forward to the discussion.

The vernation of Mary and the Mother of God title are two different things.
Getting a good book on Christian history will help you out with that.
Veneration started with the congregations, maybe as early as the end of the first century, not the Church leadership.
Correspondence related to Hippolytus of Rome around 215 ad recorded the first liturgical reference to the Virgin Mary, as part of the ordination rite of a bishop. Marian feasts appeared in the 4th century, and the feast of the "Memory of Mary, Mother of God" was celebrated on August 15 in Jerusalem by the year 350.
The early Roman Catholic Church...the early ecumenical councils resisted it.
Then at Council of Ephesus in 431 she was proclaimed Mother of God.

 

[Mungo]

When you say earliest of times you dont mean during the time of the Apostles do you?

I covered the Scriptural evidence in post #6. But after that the earliest I know of is the quote from Irenaeus.
What we have to remember is that the early Church had to contend with various heresies about the nature of Christ and so most apologists and councils were about Christ. Indeed the Marian doctrines, such as Mother of God and Ever-Virgin were not to glorify Mary but to affirm a true understanding of Christ.

So the definition at Ephesus in 431 was against Nestorius who claimed that Mary did not give birth to a unified person but tried to separate Jesus’ human nature from his divine nature, creating two separate persons, one human and one divine in a loose affiliation.

 

[Mungo]

Several insights worth mentioning here.

When do you believe the shift from Mary bearing the Son of the Most High (Holy Scripture - Luke 1:32), to Mary bearing God took place (Theologian - Iranaeus)?

Clearly this wasn’t the understanding of the first century Apostles for nowhere in the cannon of Scripture is there a section given to Mariology.

I gave the Scriptural support for the title on post #6

Also, you would agree the complex teaching which you hold concerning Mary is not here stated by Iranaues. When presenting to a group of believers on this subject I must have verifiable evidence to support such claims. Would it be fair to say the Catholic Church believes Iranaeus was speaking ex cathedra? Or, those who developed the doctrine of Mariology down through the ages were given "special enlightenment" beyond the inspired Word? Any resources to support?

Irenaeus was not Pope so could not speak ex-cathedra in the sense that the Catholic Church uses the term. Regarding your second point see below.

This makes me wonder how Apostolic understanding 120 - 150 years earlier shifted from Mary being a humble handmaiden of the Lord to what she has become today in the Roman Catholic Church. You must concede it’s a rather remarkable shift from the understanding of Canonised Scripture to Roman Catholic Catechisms?

At present my first slide for this presentation is the above quote from Iranaeus, which has little substance to support the following beliefs:

(1) the divine motherhood (theotokos) of Mary (Council of Ephesus, 431)
(2) the virgin conception and Mary’s perpetual virginity (Second Council of Constantinople, 553)
(3) Mary’s immaculate conception and sinlessness (Pius IX, 1854)
(4) her bodily assumption into heaven (Pius XII, 1950).

I can only concur at this point that Mariology was a developed dogma, something the Lord would have called the "traditions of men".

I wouldn't say the the current doctrines are "tradition of men" for two reasons.
1. The Catholic Church does not believe in Scripture alone. Scripture itself is quite clear that the teaching of Jesus and the apostles was handed down both in writing and orally. The latter is called Sacred Tradition. Both are God's word.

2. Doctrine develops over time. When a dogma is solemnly declared it does not mean that it has just been invented. The understanding has been developing and the time has come for it to be dogmatically formulated. I think that, at least in the early Church, this was to counteract a heresy.
For example:
The First Ecumenical Council (Nicea, 325)
To this council we owe The Creed (Symbolum) of Nicaea, defining against Arius the true Divinity of the Son of God (homoousios)

The Second Ecumenical Council (Constantinople I, 381)
It was directed against the followers of Macedonius, who impugned the Divinity of the Holy Ghost. To the above-mentioned Nicene Creed it added the clauses referring to the Holy Ghost (qui simul adoratur) and all that follows to the end.

The Third Ecumenical Council (Ephesus 431)
….. defined the true personal unity of Christ, declared Mary the Mother of God (theotokos) against Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople, and renewed the condemnation of Pelagius.

The Fourth Ecumenical Council (Chalcedon (451)
. ..defined the two natures (Divine and human) in Christ against Eutyches
Quotes from the Catholic Encyclopedia

Development does not mean something new is added but that insight grows.

“Is there to be no development of Doctrine in Christ’s Church? Certainly there should be great development.

Who could be so grudging towards his fellow-men and so hostile to God as to try to prevent it? But care should be taken to ensure that it is development of the faith and not alteration. Development implies that each point of doctrine is expanded within itself, while alteration suggests that a thing has been changed from what it was into something different…….

The limbs of infants are tiny, while those of young men are large, but they are the same limbs. The man has no more parts to his body than the little child…as a result it can be said that nothing new is produced in old men that was not already present in an undeveloped form when they were boys…..” (St. Vincent Lerins, early 5th century.)

I would like to ask you a question, which is not easy to answer because it requires you to step outside your current belief system and approach the subject with honesty and integrity.

Can you think of a doctrine concerning Mary or the Lord Jesus Christ, which if found to be true, would dispel all 4 of the above Catholic teachings?

This question is important, as it shows whether you have honestly tested your faith, or whether your confirmation bias holds you in a state of blindness. Having been in a state of blindness myself I feel qualified to ask the question.

Looking forward to your response.

F2F

I'll come back to this

 

[quietthinker]

God’s character is vindicated through Jesus, not Mary.
Drawing attention to Mary is a clever ploy to take the focus off Jesus.

It is God’s character which is attacked by Satan and his agents and one of his methods is to use decoys even that of Jesus’ mother by placing her in a position not backed by the scriptural narrative.

 

[Mungo]

God’s character is vindicated through Jesus, not Mary.
Drawing attention to Mary is a clever ploy to take the focus off Jesus.

It is God’s character which is attacked by Satan and his agents and one of his methods is to use decoys even that of Jesus’ mother by placing her in a position not backed by the scriptural narrative.

Another false opinion given without evidence.

 

[Mungo]

I would like to ask you a question, which is not easy to answer because it requires you to step outside your current belief system and approach the subject with honesty and integrity.

Can you think of a doctrine concerning Mary or the Lord Jesus Christ, which if found to be true, would dispel all 4 of the above Catholic teachings?

This question is important, as it shows whether you have honestly tested your faith, or whether your confirmation bias holds you in a state of blindness. Having been in a state of blindness myself I feel qualified to ask the question.

Looking forward to your response.

F2F

The Catechism says:
“What the Catholic faith believes about Mary is based on what it believes about Christ, and what it teaches about Mary illumines in turn its faith in Christ.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, para 487)

Therefore it would have to be a doctrine about Christ. The only doctrine that I can think of is that Jesus Christ is/was not God. But if that was true then IMO the whole of Christianity is false.

 

[Addy]

@Mungo... This is an off topic question to you... and I am placing it here because I know you are actively participating in this thread.

As one who has walked away from the church... according to your church... I am going to hell because I have abandoned my faith.
This to me suggests that nothing I do matters... until and only if I return and repent. ( that is the simple answer ).

Do you believe this to be true?? And NO you will not offend me by your answer...

I love Christ with all my heart... I praise Him... worship Him... pray to Him... commune with Him... and I rest in the biblical promises.
How can I be headed to hell if I am walking in a Christian life?

 

[Mungo]

@Mungo... This is an off topic question to you... and I am placing it here because I know you are actively participating in this thread.

As one who has walked away from the church... according to your church... I am going to hell because I have abandoned my faith.
This to me suggests that nothing I do matters... until and only if I return and repent. ( that is the simple answer ).

Do you believe this to be true?? And NO you will not offend me by your answer...

I love Christ with all my heart... I praise Him... worship Him... pray to Him... commune with Him... and I rest in the biblical promises.
How can I be headed to hell if I am walking in a Christian life?

Hi Addy,
Yes, it's off topic but so are many other posts on these forums.

If you were baptised into the Catholic Church then you are "born again", a child of God and are participating in the New Covenant. The only route to hell is to die in a state of mortal sin.

You don't go to hell for leaving the Catholic Church. However by doing that I do believe you are putting yourself at risk of sliding into heresy, depriving yourself of the graces of the Sacraments.

As someone on another forum put it.
To be Catholic is to have at one's disposal everything God has given to make one's salvation sure. It is not enough to simply believe in Jesus. One must know how to work out their own salvation in fear and trembling as Paul tells us [Phil 2:12]. To do so, one must have their consciences formed correctly which requires they be taught the Christian faith correctly. The Catholic Church gives us everything we need to do so.

To work out our own salvation outside the Catholic Church is like trying to climb a steep, high rock cliff face with minimal equipment, maybe even just our fingers and toes. To do so as a Catholic holding to all the Catholic Church teaches and offers for our salvation, is to climb that same rock cliff with state of the art equipment that will assure us of getting to the top safe and sound no matter what may assail us on the way, but only if we use it.

I hope that helps