Following a recommendation of our host, Chalcedon, I got hold of a copy of a book by Mgr Florian Kolfhaus called The School of Mary. Rather than ‘do a Bosco’, I sincerely ask Catholics here to help me with this, as I do not understand what is being said – at least if it is what it seems to be.
We are offered (p.19) the words of the Blessed Bartolo Longo (1841-1926) – no me neither – said in a prayer to Mary: “You are almighty by Grace”. It is for this reason, we are told, that the Church ‘uses the Christological titles also in the feminine form, for his mother: King – Queen, Mediator – Mediatrix – Saviour – Salvatrix’, St Catherine of Sienna (and yes, I have heard of her) we are told, calls Mary “Redemptix” because ‘Mary is so deeply involved in Jesus Christ’s work of redemption that there is truly no way other than her that leads to Jesus’. The author then quotes Pope Leo XIII in Octobri Mense:
With equal truth may it also be affirmed that, by the will of God, Mary is the intermediary through whom is distributed unto us the immense treasure of mercies gathered by God, for ‘grace and truth were realised by Jesus Christ’. Thus as no man goeth to the Father but by the Son, so no man goeth to Christ but by His Mother.
The author finishes this section by commenting:
As Christ is the only way to the Father also for the ones who do not know and pray to Him because they blamelessly or as a result of insurmountable obstacles have not found Him, so is Mary always and for everyone the gate that gives access to her Son’.
I have not quoted out of context. The author himself clearly states that this hyperdulia is about ‘excessive praise’ reserved for Mary alone.
So, to my misgivings and the hope they can be put to rest. First, I have no problem with excessive praise of Mary. How could one? She was the Mother of God, she took on herself the burden of becoming pregnant not be her fiance, she bore the sword that pierced her own heart, she is worthy, if that is one’s way, of all praise. That’t not my problem. The problem comes with what I take to be rather extravagant language, but which, if taken literally, does risk elevating Mary to a position she never claimed.
Scripture is clear – there is one mediator – Jesus Christ. If you want to claim some role for Mary, use another word. Mediator is tied to Jesus, and it is inevitable that, if you use it, people will think you are claiming for Mary what belongs -in Scripture – to one person alone. You don’t have to be Bosco to think that – the use of the word pushes you there. The same is true of the idea that there is no road to Jesus other than Mary. If that is meant literally it is simply wrong. Not one single convert in the NT is led to Jesus by his mother. That is not to insult her, she is the mother of my Lord, and I am sure like all good Jewish boys he loves her and expects me to do so too. It is to insist there is a distinction between him and her, and to say that passages such as the ones quoted blur it.
I cannot even understand what the author means when he talks about those who cannot come to Jesus coming to Mary as the ‘gate’. If you don’t know who Jesus is, how on earth are you going to get there through his mother? Sorry, maybe the translation from the original German is faulty, but this either means nothing much, or it implies that someone one can know Mary before one knows Jesus – and I can attach no meaning to that.
Chalcedon suggested that I share my views here because he thinks that it would help others, like me, to have the answers in plain sight. I am happy to oblige. For those who have read my stuff here, you will know I am not writing out of any desire (God forbid) to insult Mary, I am a simple old Baptist puzzled by such language – and happy to be enlightened.
All Along the Watchtower 
First, Geoffrey, thank you for the tone of this. It is a question many Protestants struggle with. I hope we can help provide you – and others – with some answers. I shall be back later.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you for putting it up. I am glad my tone is the right one – too easy to ‘do a Bosco’ for most Protestants on this. I am aware there is something here I ‘don’t get’ and look forward to being enlightened. I am sure our friend Dave Smith will have something good for me here.
I would ask other Protestants to treat this discussion respectfully – it is the mother of Jesus we are discussing here, after all.
LikeLiked by 2 people
OK, Geoffrey, so here are some thoughts, first from Mgr Kolfhaus himself.
He begins by reminding us that ‘Scripture says there is one mediator,not “only one”. Mary is the mediatrix to the mediator as we are all in some way.’ He reminds us that: ‘Mary is a creature. Without God she is nothing, but because of his grace she is lifted up at his side.’ He goes on to add:
‘Mary is universal Mediatrix to the universal Mediator.She leads to Him as he leads to the Father. She is no obstacle.’
What does that amount to? It says that Mary is what she herself said she was ‘the handmaid of the Lord’.
Jock wondered if this was not all to do with our not believing in the real humanity of Jesus. He was in the right area. It is because we do emphasise the humanity of Jesus that we place so much emphasis on his mother. As St Cyril of Alexandria commented at Ephesus, to confess Mary is the Mother of God is to say Jesus is both God and human – fully, at the same time.
We proceed from that to ask some serious theological questions. If Jesus is, as we know, without sin, and if God cannot stand sin, and if, as he is, Jesus is God, how could God dwell in human sinfulness during Mary’s pregnancy? He could not. The Son redeems us all, so why could he not have redeemed his mother from original sin when she was created? Who would dare say God could not do this?
But if He did this, then Mary is a very special creation, in fact the most perfect of God’s human creations. No one is saying Jesus is not the way to the Father, but we are saying that some find that way via Mary because they respond to her. How do we know this? Well, much of the popular piety surrounding her is just that – popular, it comes from the people, and so many attest their love to her, and the fact it helps increase their love for her Son through the Rosary.
The Rosary itself is entirely Christological in its orientation, following, as it does, the life and death and resurrection of the Lord. So praying it provides many of us with a way of deepening our faith which would otherwise be lacking.
No one is saying she is the only way to God, but she is a way, and one many have followed. In terms of Grace, we get it through the sacraments, and there is no reason Grace cannot come via our devotion to her.
What matters is we grow in God and our love for him, and our obedience to his word. For some, the example and spiritual encouragement of the most perfect human he ever made, helps us do this.
I hope that helps.
LikeLiked by 4 people
C – thank you. I am off line now for the evening, but will respond more fully tomorrow.
I am most grateful to you and others for their help – what you say about the humanity is most helpful.
Wishing you a good evening GRSS
LikeLiked by 2 people
Fair enough Geoffrey – and reciprocal good wishes.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Chalcedon – first off – your argument (or rather Kofhaus’s argument) that Scripture says, ‘there is one’ it does not say ‘there is only one’ is a stupid, legalistic, clever-clever fooling about with language that any lawyer (the unscrupulous sort, who gets the guilty client off on a technicality) would be proud of.
There is one mediator in any real sense – in the sense of the one who meets our need.
Secondly – I don’t see the full humanity of Jesus if Mary really is without original sin. This would make Mary the one who is at the same time fully human and fully divine, while Jesus is less human and more God, who simply happened to come to us in the form of a man.
In order to explain the miracle of Jesus, you push it back one generation and apply the miracle to Mary instead.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I thought Mgr K’s comment an interesting one, rather than a search for a loophole; is it not true then? It may not sit with what you believe, but is it true?
On the being human and divine, not at all. Mary needed saving, as we all did. In being without original sin Mary is the pattern God intended – as in one woman sin entered this workd, so through the new Eve did redemption enter the world. There is, in none of this, any suggestion Mary is divine.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It isn’t true – there is one mediator between man and God, Jesus Christ.
There are many intercessors, such as Moses (when he asked God not to wipe the Israelites from the face of the earth), but that is not the same as mediator. It is only through and because of the mediator and his work as mediator that the intercessors can, well, intercede.
If Mary was a sinner, like the rest of us (as she was), then what did it mean that she was without original sin? What is original sin (as oppose to sin)? From Romans chapter 5, we are of nature, ‘in Adam’ and we are transformed so that we are no longer ‘in Adam’, but ‘in Christ’.
I can vaguely see what ‘original sin’ means, although it’s not really part of my lexicon. I don’t find the term in Scripture. I can understand it if what you mean corresponds to what Paul means when he describes us as ‘in Adam’ before we ‘die to sin’.
It is because we were ‘in Adam’ that we keep on sinning once we are ‘in Christ’. If Mary was never ‘in Adam’, then why did she need a redeemer?
LikeLike
What is it a mediator does, Jock? He, or she, intercedes, so yes, there are many who intercede. But how many were the mother of Jesus? Original Sin is what we inherit as a result of Adam’s fall. In Adam all men fell. Our nature is marred, weakened, and we are far less than the image of God in whom we are made. But that image is redeemed and restored in Christ. Mary would have inherited Adam’s curse like the rest of us, but what is perfectly good cannot exist beside that which is bad, and so Mary was healed by her redeemer so that her womb could be a place where the one who is perfect goodness could lodge. Does that not make sense?
LikeLike
Jock, in all sincerity, the answer for your questions are best found on your knees in conversation with God. The humble He exalts. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
The problem with this sort of answer is it isn’t one. It presumes we do not spend hours in prayer. I do, and I am sure Jock does, and not once have I been told ‘go via Mary’.
The Bible is clear, there is one way – Jesus. Any implication there is another is a temptation for the weak.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Geoffrey, it isn’t worth the exhaustive hours of work it would take me to answer your questions. I have very good answers, but you aren’t asking because you are willing to change and have the curiosity of the open-minded. You are asking for another reason. To be honest, I’ve “been there, done that” with others in another place and wound up with a long string of blasphemous statements against the Mother of God to get past only to be told the very same things over and over and over again: one mediator to the exclusion of all other persons and their ability to intercede on our behalf, etc. which basically is a denial of there being any Saints at all, either living or deceased. I’ve already given you sufficient answer in my posts on this thread as to some of the reasons why you might want to consider including the Saints in your prayer life, but either you didn’t read what I wrote or failed to understand it. Usually when a person tosses out the “one mediator” verse in reference to Mary’s intercessory ability, they aren’t interested in finding out how it really fits into God’s redemptive works to allow the Saints to intercede in one’s life. Not wanting to help anyone here deepen their debt to God for the sins of blasphemy, I think it is best to keep it simple. If you were really interested in knowing how it is to your benefit to include the Church Triumphant in your cotidie communicatio apud Deo, then I might go there with your for you for as long as you needed me to. But until that time in your spiritual life arrives, I will deline. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
I am afraid you are doing what too many do. You are reading into my questions experiences you have had with others. It is rarely, if ever, a good thing to suppose you can divine the purposes of another, and if you could point me to one disrespectful comment I have made about Mary, it might strengthen what is, I fear, a non-existently weak case.
You have yet to answer the question of why anyone would want saints to intercede for them when we have Jesus. I am genuinely interested, as, so far, all I am getting is stuff about Queen Mothers and Kings, which no doubt worked as an analogy three hundred years ago, but now quite lacks force.
It seems to me that in fact you know your arguments are weak, and you are using a perfectly reasonable excuse not to make them.
I have observed before that you have trouble distinguishing between someone having the temerity not to agree with you, and them not taking your arguments seriously. I take them seriously, I just find them lacking persuasive power to those not already persuaded.
LikeLike
I’m counting on your help and that of a few others here. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
I shall be back later – I have an afternoon of interminable meetings
LikeLiked by 2 people
Apologies for such a long answer, Geoffrey.
First, thank you for a very fair assessment and also one that is difficult to adequately explain outside of Catholic culture; though I think it possible to illuminate this area of thought in a manner that will help one gain benefit as we try to penetrate the depth of our relationship with Christ, His Church, Mary and our Souls.
I would first like to say that for an understanding of Mariology we must look first to something you seem to have discovered yourself; and that is Hightened Language. The language of Mariology is theological, mystical, and devotional; even poetical, for, just as in poetry, you have to look behind the words to discover the meaning. It is therefore a language of the heart and of the soul. That is not to say that it is not without its theological merit as a rational system of thought but that it is more of a spiritual journey in relationships where our ideas of even Christ and the Church are given new depth and meaning. It is not unlike the mysteries of the Trinity or of the Person of Christ and our prayerfully thought-out theology of His 2 natures; human and Divine. These are certainly food for thought and prayer and likewise Mariology is found to be so as well.
Titles are a large part of the language of Mariology as they are a help in understanding that which is a mystery. Similarly with Christology we use many relevant titles: Son of God, Son of man, Son of David, Son of Mary, Elder Brother, the God-man, Bridegroom, Divine Spouse, Second Person of the Trinity, the Light of the world, the Word, the Way, the Truth and the Life etc. They are each an aid to our understanding of the Mystery of Christ and a never ending source of material for prayer and meditation. And further to mere titles we also find completion of OT figures or typologies. For instance with Christ we speak of Him as a new Adam, new Moses, new David, new Temple, new Israel, new Solomon and new Jonah. Similarly we see a completion of typologies in Mary in language such as the new Eve, new Ark of the Covenant etc.
There is an intra-penetration of love and mystery that exists between Mary, Christ, the Church and our Souls and an overshadowing by the Holy Spirit in this regard. For it is obvious that the Holy Spirit has a special relationship with each of them. The role of the Holy Spirit with Mary (her fiat for humanity), Christ (inseparable as God), the Church (intra-penetration of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost), and the needed gift of the Holy Spirit in our Souls as a means of Salvation (initially through Baptism) are all individually special but they are not without relationship to one another as well. There is a synergy of this intra-penetration of love and this Divinely guided co-operation which is always present as an ongoing eternal mystery. In other words they are all wrapped together in a most extraordinary way that taxes our spirit to adequately describe in words that which is cognitively ineffable but best experienced in a spiritual manner.
For example, let us think for a minute about Mary (who represented all of humanity in her ‘yes’ to the Divine Plan): Mary is in Christ and Christ in Mary and the Holy Spirit is with both in a divine intimate union. Mary is the sole source of Christ’s human body and blood which was given for our salvation. Thereby, it is co-operatively her body and blood as well as Christ’s Body and Blood that was shed for our salvation; their intra-penetration, by love and grace, is as inseparable as is the two natures of Christ. This is perhaps the best starting point for meditative purposes. However, one can begin to see the words or titles such as the Only Gate to Christ, co-Mediatrix, co-Redemptrix etc. foreshadowed in this meditation. For without Mary and her fiat for all humanity we have no Christ for our salvation; it is a co-operation of both the Divine and the human; it is a co-operative activity within the Divine Plan of the Father. From here, one may move to the many other Titles and Fulfillments we see in her and thereby useful to contemplate in her regard; particularly in relationship to Christ, the Church and our very souls.
So, the Catholics here at AATW might be able to add to this and help you explore each in more detail if you’d like but truly it is a matter of heart, a matter of wonder and even a holy, prayerfully revealed poetry. Therefore, Mariology is designed to be a rich ground for meditative prayer which is far more than the sum of the words.
So confusion for you and others outside this culture is perfectly understandable, Geoffrey. I hope this reply is beneficial to a better understanding of this confusion which Mariology usually cause between our non-Catholic Christian brothers and sisters.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is most surely helpful – and I am grateful to you for the time and energy expended. My queries are not, as you will know, just personal to me – many Prots have this difficulty.
I can see, I think, a way in via the idea of this as poetry, and the notion that we should not read it as prose. I, of course, am just reading the words as prose because I don’t get the poetry.
Let me ponder this. Most helpful though – be interested in other comments too – though this gets me thinking in a way I am sure will help – again, my thanks for such positive and helpful engagement.
I do hope Bosco stays out of it!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Indeed that was my hope which I expressed to C yesterday. Bosco does not need to muddy this up . . . for it is hard enough to explain to those not deep in Catholic Culture.
LikeLiked by 1 person
‘Mary is in Christ and Christ in Mary and the Holy Spirit is with both in a divine intimate union.’
So they got it wrong? Should they have had a ‘quadrant’ (Father, Mother, Son, Holy Spirit).
Other than that – your reply amounts to ‘it’s all poetical; you simply have to ‘feel it, man, feel it’ when it comes to the divine intra-penetration of love.’
Geoffrey posed some specific questions, along the lines of: ‘Holy Scripture tells us that there is exactly one mediator between man and God, the man Jesus Christ. These texts, sanctioned by the RCC use the term ‘mediator’ or ‘mediatrix’ to describe Mary. How is this compatible with Scripture?
Part of the problem with your reply is that you don’t seem to regard Christ as fully human; you need Mary to fill the gap.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well put, Jock – thanks.
LikeLike
By the way, where on earth is DMW?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Off directing dreams?
LikeLiked by 1 person
As an INFJ on the Myers Briggs scale, I would suggest he is off somewhere feeding Catholic chickens to a new age crocodile, but that would be very naughty.
LikeLiked by 1 person
He’s found some dreams to direct 🙂
LikeLike
As you ponder this, Geoffrey, I would like to pass on to you a piece written by Blessed Dom Columba Marmion. He was thought highly of by JPII and in fact the following may be of interest in setting this up:
John Paul II
In 1985 Pope John Paul II visited Belgium. When the papal helicopter flew over the Abbey of Maredsous on the way from Brussels to Beauraing, the Holy Father confided to one of his aides: “I owe more to Columba Marmion for initiating me into things spiritual than to any other spiritual writer.” The saints engender saints, and this in every age.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/MARY/MARMHIDD.htm
LikeLiked by 2 people
I’m teaching today, so it may be late before I can give a proper explanation of any sort; however, from my understanding every Mary devotion is more or less Christology. The Hail Mary begins with Luke’s message and has one focus on the fruit of her womb. The rosary has one meditate on events of Christ’s life. I think Mary veneration at its heart is refutation of Nestorians at the Council of Ephesus. Mary is Theotokos rather than Christokos. Acknowledging her as the Mother of God is proclaiming Christ’s divinity.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No, problem. Personally, as a Catholic, I go to Christ. I pray the Rosary but to me, it’s very Christ oriented as a meditate on the mysteries of Jesus Christ. My Catholic faith is connected to the Mass and the Eucharistic sacrifice of it. Quite honestly, because let’s be honest and open, I DO worry about my fellow Catholics going too far with their veneration of Mary. The Vatican hasn’t taken an official stance on Medjugorje; however, I’ve heard they’re backing off so many who proclaim it may be in heresy. Personally, I don’t even take a chance on things.
But the Church has excommunicated Mary worshipers. It’s not unheard of it going too far in the Church’s eyes.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Again, my thanks – it all helps.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well Philip Augustine “Took the Words Right out of my Mouth”
Mariology is understood always in the context of Christology. Mary presents us Jesus from her womb who in turn leads us to the Father. In scriptures we see that human agency plays a key role in accomplishing God’s activities as well. For instance, Othniel is considered a savior as well (Jdg. 3:9). Hence why the titles of Mediatrix and Redemptrix can also be applied to Mary but in a significantly lesser sense (but no less important sense) as they are applied to Jesus.
LikeLike
Well, the veneration of the Theotokos arises out of the early Church’s liturgy and devotions. That is, it comes from primitive Christianity. The NT seems to offer little proof for such veneration. Mary is mentioned here and there in the Gospels, mostly in roles that are secondary or as part of a family unit that was highly skeptical of Jesus’ claims. She does appear twice as the “mother of Jesus” in the Gospels, but Jesus himself refused to call her mother. He addresses her only as ‘woman,’ which by Jewish standards was terribly insulting. I think of John 2.4 where Jesus says “Woman, what have I to do with thee.” which is incredibly harsh.
But the idea of the special status of Mary comes from the worship and liturgy of the early Church, and the virgin birth seeped into all the creeds and became one of the strongest elements in the liturgy and worship of the early Church as well. So, the veneration of Mary is best explained by the devotions and worship of early Christians.
However, there is also the christological issue, where Mary became an important feature of that conversation, since the dogma of the Incarnation of the Logos is closely linked with the dogma of the Virgin Mary as Theotokos i.e., God was born, so Mary is the God-bearer.
But, yeah, as a strictly Scriptural concern, not taking Tradition into account, you will find little stimulus for the development of the veneration of the Theotokos.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you – most interesting.
LikeLiked by 1 person
As a former Classics students, I completely reject your points on the word “woman.” The English which has a poor comparative world is translated into “woman” which makes it appear to be a rough and even condescending word; however, this is a poor translation. The Greek, γύναι , would be far better translated as “Lady” than woman.
For example, Mt. 15:28: “O woman, great is your faith! Be it done for you as you desire.” And her daughter was healed instantly.”
Christ’s statement was commending her, but he still uses the same Greek word.
The Greek: Mt. 15:28: αὐτῇ Ὦ γύναι μεγάλη σου
John: 2:4: καὶ σοί γύναι οὔπω ἥκει
In 1 Corinthians 7:16, Paul writes: γὰρ οἶδας γύναι εἰ τὸν
Which in this context is often translated into “wife.”
Furthermore, other examples. In Homer, Odysseus addresses his beloved wife by the word: γύναι
It’s used most often as a direct address to the person.
In most cases, the word μητέρα (his Mother) for the most part never occurs when addressing a specific person.
So it’s important not jump to conclusions about the “woman” being disrespectful. One of the first lessons in Classics is that Greek and Latin do not translate exactly into English.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Furthermore, John 2:4 and the Wedding of Cana are to serve as typology of the Genesis story and Eve tempting Adam. The New Eve, Mary, is compelling her son to begin by allowing the Kingdom of God to become at hand.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Fair enough. First, my Greek is bad. Second, the NRSV translates it to “woman.” So, that explains my translation.
But it seems reasonable to me what you are saying. I’ll have to look into it more when I get a chance. But, again, your translation seems quite reasonable to me.
Also, I don’t mean to be pedantic, but our Lord did not speak Greek. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
True, He didn’t speak Greek, but the Gospel was written it. So the Aramaic word he would have used would be speculation.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I will also note that in Roman Catholic Mariology the Virgin Mary seems to be equated with Heavenly Wisdom–Heavenly Wisdom being an important aspect of the Orthodox Church. So, that might explain the exaggerated language. It does seem to me that popular religious feeling has elevated Mary to a place never designated for her by the Church. In the East, we don’t take it that far, that is to say, we don’t think of the deification of Mary as being the equivalent of the divine hypostasis Heavenly Wisdom. We venerate Mary because through Mary the divine Logos became incarnate. Of course, if I have your Mariology wrong, then some Roman Catholic correct me.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Seems much more like Fr Sergius Bulgakov’s Mariology. Russian Orthodox, mind you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bulgakov, Soloviev, Florensky, Illyin, and others in Russian religious philosophy developed a fairly sophisticated Sophiology. But that is all very controversial in the Church.
LikeLike
All very big names in modern Russian theology/religious philosophy. But you are correct–their positions are controversial though not explicitly condemned at the same time.
LikeLike
Yes, it varies depending upon the topic, on Sophiology, especially though. But in Orthodox thought, outside the 7 ecumenical councils, the licit range of theological opinion is pretty wide. And then there is the question of what the councils really said. So, you rarely get explicit condemnations of anything these days cuz you would need an ecumenical council to declare opinions heresy or ratify the declarations of heresy of a synod. And it has been a while…A lot of Orthodox do not like this, but, alas, that is the reality. Just, fyi, I have a great deal of sympathy for the “big names in modern Russian theology/religious philosophy” 🙂
LikeLike
I’m interested No Man’s. Can you provide some links perhaps? It would be nice. If I say please? God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m not sure what links you are wanting, Ginny. About Russian Orthodox theologians? Or Sophiology? I suppose I could post some, if that is, indeed, what you are asking for. I have to admit I don’t know how much of their work is available online, but I would think it would be quite a lot.
LikeLike
You might just try googling. Might be faster.
LikeLike
Again, this makes sense to me – thank you.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thereby, it is co-operatively her body and blood as well as Christ’s Body and Blood that was shed for our salvation
LikeLike
I’d love to help you out on this one Geoffrey, but I’m just home from surgery on a hand and have to type with only one, hunt and peck method and it is too time consuming.
The easy answer is for me is this: I am consecrated to Jesus thru Mary in the spirit of St. Louis de Montfort and as such, I do all that I do thru Mary, with Mary, in Mary and by Mary which places me in a very small segment of Catholics as I live out this particular religious charism. It isn’t for everyone and is purely voluntary, that means it is my wish to have the Mother of God as my sole Mediatrix before God. I have given myself over to her. It is a different lens thru which I view my place in the Christian schema of life. I wish I could say more but the typing is getting really annoying. Pray for me. The stitches are getting itchy already. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hope they heal quickly ginny – and thank you, you help me understand this a bit more – and that is what I am trying to do here.
LikeLike
I don’t know quite what to make of this, but the questions are genuine ones and the confusion has always been unresolved. I have struggled sometimes with the Catholic image of Mary (e.g. in the souvenir barometers sold in Lourdes that change colour with the weather) but I have also travelled through Europe visiting every Marian shrine I could reach on a bicycle. She never prevented any punctures.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you Gareth – I am getting the sense that it is impossible for someone brought up outside Catholic culture where this is common to quite ‘get it’. I’m not going to ‘get it’, I now see, but if no wiser, I am better informed 🙂
LikeLike
Hello Geoffrey, just a note that I also was brought up outside Catholic culture and I readily admit that I don’t fully “get it” about Mary. Some if it I do get, but not all of it. But I do embrace it as something worthy of my attention and prayerful pondering. (I’m writing this comment after reading your newest post, to which I might comment if I can succeed in gathering my thoughts which is always a challenge.)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you Zeke – I suspect it is a cultural problem in part. I see that Italians and other southern European seem to be the main places this works. I’ve no problem – except the one in my new post, which is that I think it could get in the way.
I take ginny’s point about the ‘Queen Mother’, but although I live under a Monarchy, I go to my MP if I’ve a problem, not via his mum!
LikeLiked by 1 person
You never know, it could be a cleaver move to appeal to your MP’s mum. 🙂
LikeLike
Might frighten U Geoffrey if you think in those terms, the “MP” in the Kingdom is Peter, back then but by Apostolic succession is Pope Francis now. Um, that being so and you’re only a baby Catholic, you might want to stick with the Blessed Virgin which is alot simpler than hoping a plane, train or ship to Rome and hoping to get some help from Francis in person. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
I’m OK, Jesus said I could go straight to him, said it in the Bible – so why on earth or in heaven would I go anywhere else? 🙂
LikeLike
Ya know what? Being a woman was never a bad thing till the feminists changed the definition for us. Now most women believe they were always considered the lesser sex instead of the fairer sex! That is not actually true. A
Another thing to consider: God chose to come to us by a woman, so why shouldn’t we chose to go to Him thru her intercession? Yes, it is always wiser to approach the King with His own mother on your side rather than alone.
God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Yes, it is always wiser to approach the King with His own mother on your side rather than alone.”
Can’t disagree with that! 🙂
LikeLike
Bravo!!
LikeLike
I see 🙂 But that still seems to me something of a feudal point of view – Jesus says we can come by him, so I’m just going with that. That said, whatever helps, as long as it isn’t ‘dream direction’ is good.
LikeLike
Geoffrey, there is absolutely nothing at all wrong with reliance upon God and communicating with Him as often and in ways that keep you comfortable in so doing. Marian devotion is NOT an “Either/Or” situation; it is a “Both/And” method that has proven fruitful for millions for thousands of years. So, there MUST be something to it on that score alone. I also think that at some point it is necessary to attempt to do so in one’s spiritual life simply because it affirms your trust in God in all things, including the intercessory abilities of His Saints. God willed Sanctity for humanity. Mary is already where God wills all of us to go – Heaven. The works of her salvation are completed in her already in the fullest degree possible to any: thus she is full of grace. To ignore this basic fact, is to miss out on a key part of the work of our Redemption and Salvation: Heaven as perfected, sanctified, glorified persons capable of joining ourselves in the whole to the works of God still remaining to be done as we intercede on the behalf of our brothers and sisters in Christ still behind the veil of life, the Church Militant here below. The Saints are the Church Triumphant. They’ve done as St. Paul so famously notes: they’ve run the race and won the crown of victory over death and reign now in Heaven. There they’ve joined themselves to the works on God to give Him glory. (see Rev. for more on this) But going beyond the limits of Protestantism,you need to see that they are freed from the bonds of earthly life and can now join in the works of God on a cosmic scale not possible as living human beings bound by earthly constraint. Look at yourself: you love God and this love you have for God causes you to attempt to help Him in His works. Most of those who come here are exactly the same in this respect. They are motivated by a love for Jesus Christ to attempt to help Him in the works of Salvation of men’s souls. Desiring to help God is honorable, but it doesn’t end at death IF you are a Saint. It actually just begins and builds upon your works here. IF you make to Heaven, you get to do more for Him then ever for whenever a Saint intercedes here in this earthly plane for someone, they naturally thank God for it fully knowing that it is the Saint who obtained the favor for them with God. In all this continuing work, God is glorified. Think on this phrase from the Gospel: “My soul MAGNIFIES the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior” That is the works of God increased by her intercessory ability as it is with all the Saints. How many times have you actually said “I believe in the resurrection of the body, the communion of the saints and life everlasting” in your prayers and discourse with others, yet your hesitance to act as if you fully believe these things remains untried or worse denied. The joys in Heaven are very loud when a sinner turns from sin and embraces the love and mercy of God. Imagine getting to do this as a member of the Church Triumphant and looking down on it actually happening here on earth while rejoicing in God your Savior while in Heaven! That part of what it means to be a Saint. How many times have you sung this tune to deny it now? But it is truly possible and an everyday, world-wide occurrence thru the intercessions of the Saints, the members of the Church Triumphant. That is the rejoicing part of her words “my spirit rejoices in God my Savior.” Mary knew she was getting to help God and it made her rejoice in His Salvific works. Can you see this and acknowledge some of the simple logic of it all? If you get to Heaven you actually get to do more work for God and in so doing, He is fully glorified and you do as Mary says, you get to magnify the works of the Lord on a global scale until the end of all things. It is too big a concept to fit into a little com box, but please try to get it, because it demonstrates a trust in Jesus Christ in ALL things including the resurrection of the body, the communion of the Saints, and life everlasting. It doesn’t help you to deny Him in these things and that may be the least reason to ask Mary for some help getting out of the box some Protestant ways construct for you. I hope this helps a bit.
Thanks for the prayers and wishes for healing. I’m off to get my ashes in a few minutes. My stitches itch and I’ve got a huge bandage on my left hand that is really not making typing any easier. I’m not allowed to take the bandage off or get it wet for two full weeks! Yeah. Tough one. I’m offering it all up. It is the Cross and a beauty. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
tHat is a good effort for someone without stitches – much to chew over, and so I shall be back.
LikeLike
Oh one other huge thing: know the difference between sentiment and a statement of doctrinal theology. This is a stumbling block that most hardline Protestant’s try to toss in the Way of many pilgrims. They see sentiment stated regarding Mary in the writings of the Church and push the envelope from purely sentimental love soaked sugary statements to doctrinal affirmations and call us out on their favorite sin of all times: Mariolatry! We’re Mary worshippers for having spoken of her sentimentally. Just ask the devil worshipper who frequents this place on this score. I’m sure he’ll trot out all his false accusations most willfully if given half the chance to do so for an example. Sentiment. Ever use it in talking about someone you love? The answer is yes, you have and know how this happens. A good card rack in the drug store is proof of the notions we have of sentimental exaggerations. But no one would dare accuse the authors of such sugar coated greeting cards of making statements of their personal doctrinal theology! Absurd! Yet that is what happens to us all the time. See what I mean? God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You rang?
LikeLike
Pingback: Catholic culture? | All Along the Watchtower