[soc.religion.christian] Mary and Scripture

cms@gatech.edu (05/29/90)

[This is in response to a couple of postings from Carl Donath, asking
for justification for Marian devotion.
> I figured someone would have this kind of problem with my posting. I'm not
> trying to blast Mary worship or Fatima, I just have some significant problems
                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> with accepting these as "Christian" and cannot reconcile them with the 
> Bible. I understand that some people do believe these things that I don't.
--clh]

 I'm astounded and disappointed that OFM did not catch this remark and correct
it forthwith.  Marian worship was disallowed by the Catholic Church at the
Council of Nicea in the Fourth Century.  I recall reading a book by Billy
Graham who described the sect that worshipped Mary as the origin of the Baptist
Church.  I think he was being ironic and speaking of a spiritual descent.  The
same Council of Nicea, incidentally, strongly reaffirmed *devotion* to the
Blessed Virgin Mary.

> I am just trying to understand what their reasoning is behind their 
> acceptance and want to see scriptural justification of them. If I can see
> scripture supplied to support these, then I will be satisfied. My
> interpretation of the scriptures given may differ, and I still may not
> agree, but I will
> be satisfied that they have a scriptural basis for their belief since the 
> differences would be "just" a matter of interpretation. Does this make any
> sense?

 I will begin my Scriptural justification with the Acts of the Apostles,
chapter 1:13-14, in which all the Apostles, Mary the mother of Jesus, and other
women disciples, gathered and devoted themselves to prayer in the upper room. 
All these saints prayed to God together.  Today, we pray with the all the
saints of God to God our Father in heaven.

 Next, I draw your attention to the Gospel of John 2:1-12, to wit:  "On the
third day there was a wedding in Cana in Galilee, and the mohter of Jesus was
there.  Jesus and his disciples were also invited to the wedding.  When the
wine ran short, the mother of Jesus said to him, 'They have no wine.'  Jesus
said to her, 'Woman, how does your concern affect me?  My hour has not yet
come.'  His mother said to the servers, 'Do whatever he tells you.'  Now there
were six stone water jars there for Jewish ceremonial washings, each holding
twenty to thirty gallons.  Jesus told them, 'Fill the jars with water.'  So
they filled them to the brim.  Then he told them, 'Draw some out now and take
it to the headwaiter.'  So they took it.  And when the headwaiter tasted the
water that had become wine, without knowing where it came from (although the
servers who had drawn the water knew), the headwaiter called the bridegroom and
said to him, 'Everyone serves good wine first, and then when people have drunk
freely, an inferior one; but you have kept the good wine until now.'  Jesus did
this as the beginning of his signs in Cana in Galilee and so revealed his
glory, and his disciples began to believe in him.  After this, he and his
mother, his brothers, and his disciples went down to Capernaum and stayed there
only a few days."

 This is an extremely important passage in Marian theology; therefore I posted
the entire passage.  Thomas Merton once said of this passage that we do well to
imitate Mary here.  He said, Jesus Christ performed his first miracle at his
mother's request.  It is significant to note *when* Jesus Christ decided to
perform this miracle:  Not immediately after his mother asked him to do so, but
*only* *after* his mother told the servers to do *whatever her son told them to
do*.  This is how Merton suggests we should imitate Mary:  First, we tell God
what our problem is ('we have no wine') and then we submit ourselves to the
will of God.  Theologically, we tell God, we have no wine, no blood to redeem
us from our sins; Christ gives us his wine, his blood, and redeems us from our
sins.  Thank you Jesus Christ, for giving us your blood, and thank you, Mary,
for reminding us that, before we can be redeemed, first we have to ask.

 Now, let's get a little more detailed.  Why does Jesus refer to Mary as
"woman" ?  This is not at all disrespectful, or even distancing, as some have
thought.  In Jewish usage, it has somewhat the connotation of "madam."  On the
other hand, it was unheard of for someone to refer to his mother in such terms. 
What did Jesus mean by this?

 Let's turn to the phrase "Woman, how does your concern affect me?  My hour has
not yet come."  Christ's disavowal is not an outright refusal, but rather has
to do with the role in which Mary has been cast in John's Gospel, already made
obvious by his usage of the word "woman."  In Luke 2:49, Jesus reminds his
mother of his relationship to the Father, which relationship transcends all
human relationships.  Also, his "hour" has not yet arrived (the giving of wine
turned into his blood).  Thus, in this passage, Jesus reminds his mother of the
only title under which she may command intervention.  His "hour," of course, is
his passion, death, resurrection, glorification, achieving the salvation of
humanity.  Therefore, just as it is in the Passion and Resurrection that Christ
achieves his destiny, so also it is only in the Passion and Resurrection that
Mary's intercession has any efficacy whatsoever.

 This sign is of crucial importance in salvation history; the sacramental
teachings of John is central to the purpose of this gospel, that Christians may
confirm their faith and receive the very life of God (the life is in the
blood).  The teachings of the entire New Testament point to the sacraments as
the deeds of Christ.

 The same is said of the figure of the mother of Jesus in the Gospel of John.  
I'm going to break off here and quote directly from the Jerome Biblical
Commentary:  "Mary is represented not merely in her historical character but in
the function that has been reserved to her in salvation hisotry.  If John as
seen a new hisotry of creation unfold in the preceding "seven days," he has
also reserved a special place in this history for her who has been addressed as
"woman."  The woman of the first creation was called Life ("Eve") because she
was the "mother of all the living."  Mary is mother of the new life, not only
of the Word become flesh, but also of all those who live with his life.  She
is, in other words, a figure of the Church, the new Eve, as the Fathers called
her.  A similar Johannine representation is found in the woman of Ap 12, who is
simultaneously the mother of Christ and of the New Israel, where again the
imagery of Gn has served as the inspiration of the vision.  in this
acceptation, we can see the relevance with which she is again called "woman" in
19:26f., where the beloved disciple, who stands for all Christians, is
committed to her as to his mother.  We can see the relevance with which her
implied claim on Christ at Cana is apparently disavowed:  Her intercessory
efficacy is effective only in virtue of the glorification of Christ.  However,
because the hour that has not yet come is nevertheless anticipated, her
petition is granted.  In the light of this role, the enigmatic reply of our
Lord in v. 4 becomes consistent with the action of v. 5ff.  The ecclesiology of
this passage therefore contains a Mariology as well, which is also true of the
Infancy Narrative of Luke 1-2."

> My challenges to Mary-related beliefs are only because I cannot find any
> Bible-based support for the beliefs. I will be satisfied - and stop 
> challenging > - when someone gives be some decent Biblical support for 
> these beliefs.

 I hope the above remarks have helped you to understand that all Christian
beliefs of the Catholic Churches are based on Scripture and that Scripture and
Tradition are not in conflict.  I'd also like to mention, as an aside, that
Jesus and Mary are not in competition.  The thrust of many accusations against
Catholics seems to based on a mistaken belief that they are.  Mary leads us to
her Son, and, again in the words of Father Merton, "Our Lady's mission in the
world is to help people see Christ forming in their souls in the same way
Christ formed within her womb."

> Thanks...
> 
> - Carl
> 
> [Let me be clear that I had no problem with the nature of the posting
> itself.  My concern was with a meta-issue, namely that it came as a
> response to a posting that was clearly intended as part of a
> discussion among Catholics.  I'm worried that if we don't allow
> Catholics to discuss issues of Catholic practice among themselves, and
> similar things with Protestants, etc., this group will never be able
> to get beyond the "big issues" separating groups.  But it doesn't seem
> that anyone else is bothered by this, so I'm not going to be.  --clh]

 Father Merton expressed the hope that Mary would become the "bridge between
the waters" that would unite Protestants and Catholics.  I sincerely hope and
pray that this comes about.  Russia is on the verge of conversion; the more
people we have praying the Rosary now for the conversion of Russia the closer
we'll become to seeing a free world and peace.

-- 
emory!dragon!cms

[You ask why I wasn't upset about the original posting's reference to
"Mary worship".  I decided to take it at its word, which seemed to me
to be specifically disavowing the intent to accuse anyone of Mary
worship.  --clh]

wagner@karazm.math.uh.edu (David Wagner) (06/05/90)

In article <May.29.03.33.46.1990.2408@athos.rutgers.edu> emory!dragon!cms@gatech.edu writes:
> This is how Merton suggests we should imitate Mary:  First, we tell God
>what our problem is ('we have no wine') and then we submit ourselves to the
>will of God.  Theologically, we tell God, we have no wine, no blood to redeem
>us from our sins; Christ gives us his wine, his blood, and redeems us from our
>sins.  Thank you Jesus Christ, for giving us your blood, and thank you, Mary,
>for reminding us that, before we can be redeemed, first we have to ask.

My understanding is that Christ has already redeemed all people. We don't have
to ask (I wouldn't suspect a Catholic of teaching 'decision theology'! :-) 
But maybe this is an end result of 'faith conjoined with works'.)
We need only believe in the redemption Christ has already won for us.
  It may be just my Lutheran prejudice, but I think you read too much into this
passage. But then the practice of seeing allegory in most passages of the Bible
has been a Catholic passion since Ambrose.
  I think the best use of Mary as an example is based on her acceptance of
the Annunciation.  When Gabriel makes his rather stunning announcement, she
only asks 'How will this be, since I am a virgin?'  This is in pointed 
contrast to Zehariah's "How can I be sure of this?"  

>
> Father Merton expressed the hope that Mary would become the "bridge between
>the waters" that would unite Protestants and Catholics.  I sincerely hope and
>pray that this comes about.  Russia is on the verge of conversion; the more
>people we have praying the Rosary now for the conversion of Russia the closer
>we'll become to seeing a free world and peace.

Frankly, I don't expect a lasting world peace in this world.  God does not
promise it.  Rather he promises to destroy this world which we have 
contaminated with and by our sin, and to create a new one. (2 Peter 3,
Rev 21,22).  Until then, Jesus tells us, there will be wars and rumors of
wars.  
   I don't hate peace, but I don't put my hope in the things of this world,
either.  

David H. Wagner           'I'm but a stranger here, Heav'n is my home;'
                          Earth is a desert drear, Heav'n is my home.
                          Danger and sorrow stand Round me on ev'ry hand;
                          Heav'n is my fatherland, Heav'n is my home.
                          (T.R. Taylor, 1836)

My opinions and beliefs are not likely to coincide with any held by
The University of Houston.