The Deification of Mary?

[Elijah John]

Over the past few centuries, even dating back to the third, we seem to be witnessing a progression in Marian devotion.

In modern times as in antiquity, people pray to Mary as an intercessor. Parish Churches are named after her, statues are enshrined to her. Litanies are recited, and of course there is the Rosary and apparitions.

Some even refer to her as "co-redeemer".

Consider this summary timeline of Marian veneration, and what led up to all this.

-In 431 at the council of Ephesus Mary was declared "Theotokos", or "God bearer", from whence the Church derived her title "Mother of God".

-In 1854 Pope Pius the IX declared Mary born without original sin, a dogma known as the "immaculate conception"

-In 1950, Pope Pius the XII declared that Mary was transported body and soul into Heaven without tasting death in a dogma known as the "Assumption"

Throughout the ages various apparitions and visitations of Mary have been reported, some considered authentic by the Roman Catholic Church. Among these are Lourdes and Fatima.

Compare this to the progression of Jesus' Deification.

-Starting with the belief in his resurrection and ascension, which led to New Testament declarations that Jesus was "Son of God".

-New Testament accounts include the vision of the ascended Christ to Paul on the road to Damascus.

-The Council of Nicea in 325 AD refutes Arius claim that Christ was a created being, and affirms that Jesus is God, and was always God.

And today, as in ages past, people pray to Jesus, consider him mediator, recite litanies to his name, and enshine statues for his devotion. (sound familiar?)

For debate,:

-Despite Church insistance to the contrary, ("veneration not worship") are we witnessing a progression in Marian devotion that can be considered her Deification? And is this analagous to Jesus' elevation from Son of God to "God the Son"?

-Do you think Mary will become a fourth member of the Godhead in the minds and hearts of devoted Catholics? And according to future Church dogma? Thus completing a Christian pantheon?

If things keep progressing as they seem to be, that is.

[RightReason]

[Replying to Elijah John]

Good point, Marian devotion has existed before the third century. And the Magnificat is evidence for this. My point though, regardless of the exact starting point, is there has been a progression. The doctrines of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption were not there from day one.

Like I already explained actually they were original beliefs simply formalized into doctrines precisely to make sure people realized such were truths taught and believed by Christendom from the get go.

If we extend that progression into the future, will we get Mary's actual Deification?

Ridiculous. That does not logically follow. This is merely your anti-Catholic projection. I continue to repeat the Church does not adore Mary or consider her God. Such thinking has nor ever will be the case. Your slippery slope suggestion fails to understand Church teaching on this matter.

I think it seems likely, and you say no. Reasonable people can disagree on their speculation. Even the RCC changes it's doctrine over the years, as the two "modern" (Immaculate Conception and Assumption) developments in Mariology demonstrate.

False. You show again you do not understand. These dogmas were NOT changes in Church teaching. YOU DON’T GET IT!! For that reason alone your speculation is presented on shaky ground.

RightReason wrote:


Sooo . . . not exactly a new phenomenon – looks like Marian devotion goes way back.


And I never said otherwise. I just forgot about the starting point of the "way back".
And my point is there has been a progression and an evolution in Church thinking about Mary and her place (role) in the Cosmos, and (as you indicate) her role in the plan of salvation..

No. No progression unless you simply include how God’s people continue to know and understand His plan as we grow in love and understanding. Scripture often mentions how there are things even Jesus’ Disciples did not fully understand at the time, but as time would go on they would come to understand what Jesus had meant. If that is the kind of progression you are referring to than yes – Christians are continually progressing in our faith. This progression does not mean changes in truth – rather simply a better understanding of said truth.

RightReason wrote:


We cannot add anything to the Trinity but the plain truth is that Redemption without Mary is simply NOT POSSIBLE!


Unless the Almighty in His wisdom and sovereignty simply and directly forgives the contrite., as Jesus taught. But that is another discussion.

No, it is really the same discussion. As you seem to see contradiction where there is none. You seem to think the Church does not teach that God can forgive sins -- only Jesus – which is ridiculous. You once again knock down straw men of your own erroneous creation.

RightReason wrote:


Your timeline is misleading. For example just because it wasn’t until 1854 when the dogma of the Immaculate Conception was declared does not mean that Mary was not always born without sin or something the Church did not always believe and teach. Quite the contrary. Often things are formally declared to combat heresies that begin popping up. Mary’s place of devotion and respect had always existed throughout Christendom and only because some heretics came along teaching something contrary to Christ’s original church, did the Church have to issue a formal declaration. There is evidence that goes back to writings of the very first Christians and early Church fathers regarding Mary being born without sin. So, no this teaching did not come about in 1854.


Can you provide this evidence?

Of course.

There are literally dozens of cases where early Church fathers have mentioned Mary as being without sin, using such words as "All-Holy One," "All-Sinless One," and "Immaculate." It proves that the idea of Mary's sinlessness was not uncommon in the first few centuries of the Church.


“He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption.� Hippolytus, Orations Inillud, Dominus pascit me (ante A.D. 235).

“This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one.� Origen, Homily 1(A.D. 244).

“Let woman praise Her, the pure Mary.� Ephraim, Hymns on the Nativity, 15:23 (A.D. 370).

“Thou alone and thy Mother are in all things fair, there is no flaw in thee and no stain in thy Mother.� Ephraem, Nisibene Hymns, 27:8 (A.D. 370).

“O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides.� Athanasius, Homily of the Papyrus of Turin, 71:216 (ante AD 373).

“Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin.� Ambrose, Sermon 22:30 (A.D. 388).

“We must except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin.� Augustine, Nature and Grace,4 2[36] (A.D.415).

“As he formed her without my stain of her own, so He proceeded from her contracting no stain.� Proclus of Constantinople, Homily 1 (ante A.D. 446).

“A virgin, innocent, spotless, free of all defect, untouched, unsullied, holy in soul and body, like a lily sprouting among thorns.� Theodotus of Ancrya, Homily VI:11(ante A.D. 446).

“The angel took not the Virgin from Joseph, but gave her to Christ, to whom she was pledged from Joseph, but gave her to Christ, to whom she was pledged in the womb, when she was made.� Peter Chrysologus, Sermon 140 (A.D. 449).

“[T]he very fact that God has elected her proves that none was ever holier than Mary, if any stain had disfigured her soul, if any other virgin had been purer and holier, God would have selected her and rejected Mary.� Jacob of Sarug (ante A.D. 521).

“She is born like the cherubim, she who is of a pure, immaculate clay.� Theotokos of Livias, Panegyric for the feast of the Assumption, 5:6 (ante A.D. 650).

“Today humanity, in all the radiance of her immaculate nobility, receives its ancient beauty. The shame of sin had darkened the splendour and attraction of human nature; but when the Mother of the Fair One par excellence is born, this nature regains in her person its ancient privileges and is fashioned according to a perfect model truly worthy of God… The reform of our nature begins today and the aged world, subjected to a wholly divine transformation, receives the first fruits of the second creation.� Andrew of Crete, Sermon I, On the Birth of Mary (A.D. 733).

“[T]ruly elect, and superior to all, not by the altitude of lofty structures, but as excelling all in the greatness and purity of sublime and divine virtues, and having no affinity with sin whatever.� Germanus of Constantinople, Marracci in S. Germani Mariali (ante A.D. 733).

“O most blessed loins of Joachim from which came forth a spotless seed! O glorious womb of Anne in which a most holy offspring grew.� John of Damascus, Homily I (ante A.D. 749).

RightReason wrote:


And the exact can be said regarding the Assumption and pretty much all your points. You seem to simply not get it.


Needlessly personal. You could have made the same point without that last sentence.

It actually isn’t personal. It’s observation of your comments. Like I said, you continue to misrepresent the Church and say she does or teaches things she doesn’t. So, like I said, I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that your errors are not intentional – that you really do falsely believe what you believe regarding the Church. You may be a very nice sincere individual with no malice intended, however, like I stated you simply don’t get it – you do not know our faith. You are getting much wrong. It is not a statement about your character – simply that you have been ill informed.

RightReason wrote:


And perhaps biggest of all you misrepresent the Church if you suggest she usurps Glory to God. God alone is our Supreme being and is alone to be adored. To adore any other creature would be to commit idolatry. Therefore, it is wrong and unfair to suggest Catholics adore Mary. We do not, even though you continue to make that false claim.


Fair protest, I get it. That is the position of the Church. But it sure seems to me, and many others that the RCC splits hairs with the disctinction between "veneration" vs. adoration and worship.

Then you do not understand. I suggest you meditate about it. Take it to your prayer life. You mentioned the Rosary earlier. Do you even know anything about that prayer? If you did you would know the mysteries of the Rosary are all about the life of Christ. They aren’t about Mary. In fact, if you understood Mary as the Church does you would realize that no one ever stops at Mary. Mary always leads us to her son, Jesus Christ.

The other important thing to recognize is that Scripture tells us Jesus gave us His mother. So she isn’t just the mother of Jesus. She is our mother too. And who doesn’t love their mother?

When Jesus saw His mother and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He said to His mother, “Woman, here is your son.� 27Then He said to the disciple, “Here is your mother.� –John 19:26

Two things to think about:

1-We are to imitate Christ, right?
2-We are told to honor our parents, right?

Did Jesus honor Mary?
Are we supposed to imitate Jesus?

So, in short when Catholics show love and devotion and honor to Mary, we aren’t doing anything that Jesus didn’t already beat us to. Catholics are in good company.

The underlying point of the OP, (not just directed at you, and which I didn't fully articulate in the OP) is that there seems to be a paralell between what we are seeing today (and going way back) with Mary, to a similar process which happened in first three centuries or so with the progressive Deification of Jesus. That is my hypothesis, certainly open to debate.

Oh, I got your point. But my point was that hopefully in pointing out just how much you seem to get wrong and not understand about Mary, you are likely getting your progressive deification of Jesus wrong as well, which pretty much weakens your hypothesis. The Church does not think about Mary the way you suggest she does. So, in my opinion your hypothesis is invalid.

[bjs]

The 11th century movement known as the Cult of Mary did claim that Mary was co-equal God with the other members of the Trinity. The Roman Catholic Church immediately declared it a hearsay and said that its members must renounce that claim or be excommunicated from the Church. The Cult of Mary died out quickly. It’s only lasting contribution to society is that it greatly effected the way western culture thinks of romantic love.

So to all the questions of this thread: No, that does not seem likely. It was tried once and it, so to speak, did not stick.

[ttruscott]

To put it more mildly, if anything is "heresy", (deviating from Jesus teachings) it seems to be the doctrine of the Trinity, which Protestants also share.

Do you refer to the meaning of His teachings in

Mark 2:1-12

John 8:56-58, the "I AM!� verse

John 16:28.

John 8:24

and others like these? Why do you think that your opinion of the meaning of these verses has greater weight than the Trinitarians?

[Wootah]

[Replying to Elijah John]

-Despite Church insistance to the contrary, ("veneration not worship") are we witnessing a progression in Marian devotion that can be considered her Deification?

Only if you’re looking for it and need to promote your anti-Catholic propaganda.

And is this analagous to Jesus' elevation from Son of God to "God the Son"?

Only if you insist on getting the facts wrong.

-Do you think Mary will become a fourth member of the Godhead in the minds and hearts of devoted Catholics?

No.

Apparently, even though you aren’t Catholic, you think so. Uuuummm . . . all I can say, as a Catholic myself, is you misrepresent the Catholic faith. I also might ask why the need to push your anti-Catholic agenda? Do you feel threatened? Are you worried truth will prevail?

Moderator Warning

None of your post is useful. Debate sites invite questions and encourage questions.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[RightReason]

[Replying to Wootah]


RightReason wrote:

[Replying to Elijah John]

Quote:
-Despite Church insistance to the contrary, ("veneration not worship") are we witnessing a progression in Marian devotion that can be considered her Deification?


Only if you’re looking for it and need to promote your anti-Catholic propaganda.


Quote:
And is this analagous to Jesus' elevation from Son of God to "God the Son"?


Only if you insist on getting the facts wrong.

Quote:
-Do you think Mary will become a fourth member of the Godhead in the minds and hearts of devoted Catholics?


No.

Apparently, even though you aren’t Catholic, you think so. Uuuummm . . . all I can say, as a Catholic myself, is you misrepresent the Catholic faith. I also might ask why the need to push your anti-Catholic agenda? Do you feel threatened? Are you worried truth will prevail?

Warning Moderator Warning

None of your post is useful. Debate sites invite questions and encourage questions.

Are you serious?

I find my post extremely useful in letting him know he is misrepresenting my faith. He asked questions and I appropriately answered. I even went on to provide support of my responses.

I would like the second opinion of another moderator whether my post was not useful. Perhaps Catholics find this whole thread un-useful. I know I do and explained why. He mistakingly suggested the Immaculate Conception and Assumption were not believed or taught by the Church prior to them formally becoming dogma. This is untrue. He also asked whether anyone thought Mary will soon become part of the Trinity in the Catholic faith. I was not the only one who told him NO! The Church has always rejected such heresies, which renders his accusation unsupported.

Sorry, I do not believe my post warrants a moderator warning. Do whatever you must.

[Elijah John]

To put it more mildly, if anything is "heresy", (deviating from Jesus teachings) it seems to be the doctrine of the Trinity, which Protestants also share.

Do you refer to the meaning of His teachings in

Mark 2:1-12

John 8:56-58, the "I AM!� verse

John 16:28.

John 8:24

and others like these? Why do you think that your opinion of the meaning of these verses has greater weight than the Trinitarians?

It's not just me. Historical Jesus scholars and Jehovah's Witnesses also do not find the Trinity in those verses.

And why are Trinitarian opinions more valid than ours?

[bjs]

It's not just me. Historical Jesus scholars and Jehovah's Witnesses also do not find the Trinity in those verses.

And why are Trinitarian opinions more valid than ours?

Most Historical Jesus Scholars who say that Jesus did not claim to be God argue Jesus simply didn’t say these things. These scholars say that if Jesus had said such things then that would be him claiming divinity. Instead of contradicting that claim, these scholar say that the statements were later addition which Jesus himself never said.

JW are the only sizable group currently claiming that Bible is inspired by God but that Jesus did not claim to be God. Nearly everyone who studies the Christian scriptures, both theist and non-theists alike, says that their position is an extremely difficult one to hold.

[Elijah John]

The 11th century movement known as the Cult of Mary did claim that Mary was co-equal God with the other members of the Trinity. The Roman Catholic Church immediately declared it a hearsay and said that its members must renounce that claim or be excommunicated from the Church. The Cult of Mary died out quickly. It’s only lasting contribution to society is that it greatly effected the way western culture thinks of romantic love.

So to all the questions of this thread: No, that does not seem likely. It was tried once and it, so to speak, did not stick.

Fair enough. The OP was attempting to draw a comparison, not only attempting to prove Mary's progession would end up with her Deification. There's no way for us to know if that will be the end result, really. Rather, the OP wonders if the apparent progression toward that end gives us a glimpse into what happened with Jesus in the first few centuries, when Jesus did indeed progress from the "Son of God" in the Bible, to "God the Son" the second person of the Trinity according to Church Councils.

Or conversley, does Jesus Deification give us a glimpse as to what may well happen with Mary, in the minds and hearts of her devotees, and in RCC official doctrine.

I was not aware of the episode you present. So that is evidence that ending up as part of the Godhead will not be the likely outcome with Mary. Still perhaps the comparison to Jesus Deification could be illuminating..

[Elijah John]

It's not just me. Historical Jesus scholars and Jehovah's Witnesses also do not find the Trinity in those verses.

And why are Trinitarian opinions more valid than ours?

Most Historical Jesus Scholars who say that Jesus did not claim to be God argue Jesus simply didn’t say these things. These scholars say that if Jesus had said such things then that would be him claiming divinity. Instead of contradicting that claim, these scholar say that the statements were later addition which Jesus himself never said.

JW are the only sizable group currently claiming that Bible is inspired by God but that Jesus did not claim to be God. Nearly everyone who studies the Christian scriptures, both theist and non-theists alike, says that their position is an extremely difficult one to hold.

Many skeptics on this site do not reach the conclusion that the NT teaches that Jesus is God, even if taken at face value.

But you're right, many HJ scholars quesion the authenticity of the verses in which Jesus comes close to that claim. Theologians like John, not Jesus himself are the authors of high Christology according to scholars.

[otseng]

I would like the second opinion of another moderator whether my post was not useful. Perhaps Catholics find this whole thread un-useful. I know I do and explained why. He mistakingly suggested the Immaculate Conception and Assumption were not believed or taught by the Church prior to them formally becoming dogma. This is untrue. He also asked whether anyone thought Mary will soon become part of the Trinity in the Catholic faith. I was not the only one who told him NO! The Church has always rejected such heresies, which renders his accusation unsupported.

Moderator Comment

Please do not respond publicly to moderator actions. If you do wish to challenge it, there is a proper protocol for it. Please review the Rules on how to properly challenge moderator actions.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.