Just Another Blog in the Wheel

Mary, Queen of…..the Nile?

Posted on Thursday, May 29th, 2008 at 5:06 pm

Yesterday my Roman Catholic friends celebrated the supposed Crowning of Mary as Queen of Heaven. Having just heard the entire service, I’m made once again to wonder just why it is that Romanists deny that they pray to Mary, why they deny that they hold Mary to be the functional equivalent of a Fourth member of the Godhead. We might well ask, if the world rumor about Rome being ready to officially rank Mary as a member of the Quadrinityâ€”if they were to do that, what changes would be necessary to Romish faith and practice? I answer that question: none.

However, the denial continues as does the worship and adoration rendered to that blessed (but abused by her friends) woman. In what seemed a perfunctory effort to bring some earthly balance to the way Mary is thought of by the faithful, the priest, a man dear to me, quoted assorted Scripture texts which he apparently hoped might support various Marian dogmas. They didn’t.

His emphasis, however, encouraged more diligent imitation of Mary’s virtues, a safer application than a call to yet more exalted devotion. In all the priest’s Bible-summoning, however, the Scriptures he didn’t cite left bigger holes unfilled than Munchkins do.

The priest said that Mary’s assumption to heaven is known to be fact by the symbolic teaching of the Book of Revelation, particularly in its 12^th chapter where “the woman” is spoken of. He said we must remember that the symbolism in that chapter applies both to Mary and to the entire church, for both are “clothed with the sun.” But while we read of a loud voice from heaven declaring, “Now have come the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God, and the authority of His Christ”, we find no mention of any woman let alone “the” woman, being assumed up to heaven, and not a word that could be construed as reporting a coronation. Revelation 12 is where they find Mary being crowned Queen of Heaven and Earth? How anyone could conclude that such occurred in this chapter is indeed a mystery. The woman flees into the desert under God’s watchful care for 3.5 years. She is given eagle’s wings to help her escape from the dragon, but she flies out to the wilderness, not up to heaven. She is the object of special divine care, rescued from drowning when the torrent spewed by the dragon threatened to engulf her. At that time the earth “opened its mouth” and swallowed the pursuing river. The earth again, not the heavens. There simply is no mention or allusion to herâ€”or anyone elseâ€”being lifted to heaven. If anything may be safely concluded it is that the woman, whoever she is, remained altogether on earth, because the dragonâ€”who had explicitly been cast down to earthâ€”went off to make war against her, even “the rest of her offspring” who obey God’s commandsâ€”obey on earth.

The priest spoke of Jesus as “Mary’s only begotten Son.” I had never heard that before and was rather startled by it. Could it be that their interest in perpetuating her maidenhood into eternity may have been bolstered by a desire to attribute to her a relational descriptive everywhere else reserved for God the Father, thus making her seem ever more divine? I don’t know. But I do know that we heard nothing of Mary’s assumption in any passage cited. We heard, rather, Romanists’ presumptions, and wept. The pretense of offering Scriptural support was dropped finally when it was admitted that the May crowning of Mary as Queen of Heaven is a tradition of long standing in the church and therefore ought to be continued. As if every sin attaining to the boast of great age ought for that reason be perpetuated.

Other Scripture was “dragged in,” such as the prophecy of the sword piercing her soul, which, we were correctly assured, was fulfilled as she witnessed the crucifixion. But an earthly piercing is not a heavenly crowning. At homily’s end, the proposition about Mary’s crowning remained as unsupported as when the homily had begun.

But the end didn’t come before we were exhorted to see Mary as a model worthy of imitation in her virtues, special mention being made of her devotion to prayer. While we see no harm in encouraging imitation of anyone’s virtues we do not see how the specific instance citedâ€”Mary’s being among the 120 who were filled with the Spirit at the Jerusalem Pentecostâ€”sets her apart from the pack in any way. There is absolutely nothing attributed to Mary in that passage that did not pertain equally or more to the other 119.

There was, on the other hand, a great deal attributed to the Apostles, and especially Peter, that is not predicated of Mary. Of this nothing was said. We do not count silence as a case-clincher, but we do wonder at Luke’s omission, his failure to report anything about her after the crucifixion which would be remotely suggestive of eminence, let alone preeminence. If anything, we are made to believe that her unspeakably honorable role in God’s unfolding plan had pretty much been played, and she was on her way, escorted rather swiftly by Luke’s narrative, to the relative obscurity she doubtless coveted. We ought to be careful not to stain Mary with the ugly lust for ostentation which her self-appointed devotees attribute her. If any crown were offered to Mary in heaven, doubtless she would have refused it and cast it at her Savior’s feet.

No Mary-loving service would be complete, of course, without reference to her alleged intercessory superpowers as revealed in the incident at the wedding in Cana (John 2) wherein Mary made Jesus aware of the shortage of vino at the marriage celebration. “They have no more wine.” (There is something almost comically disproportionate about this simple sentence resulting in trillions of “Hail Mary, pray for us sinners” utterances. The priest mentioned her instruction to the servants present, “Do whatever He tells you,” deliberately, it seemed, trying to convey the impression that she was Jesus’ manager and/or agent. But curiously absent from the priest’s citations were the words our Lord used in response to her initial observation: “Woman, why do you involve Me? My time has not yet come.” That this was a rebuke of sorts cannot be disputed. It reveals Mary (again) to be precisely that sort of run-of-the-mill, bumbling, endearing disciple that we find Peter and the other apostles to have been throughout the pre-Pentecost narratives. These are just NORMAL people. There is no Queen of Heaven here, no Manager of Intercessions, no “Bring your worries to me” woman. We see instead a woman trying to figure out just who Jesus is and wondering intensely when He was going to make it known.

Interestinglyâ€”not surprisinglyâ€”absent from the priest’s list of passages were texts like this from Mark 3: In this scene, a crowd gathered deep around Jesus had assumed that a special privilege would belong to Jesus’ mother, in tow with Jesus’ siblings from Mary, all waiting outside to see Him. If any favor is ever accorded to anyone by a dignitary, it is AT LEAST helping them avoid those long lines where commoners must wait and wait for audience with the celebrity. If there is a Level One Favor for favored souls, it would certainly be a back-stage pass. But Mary couldn’t/didn’t merit even that! No moving her to the head of the line. From whence does the notion of His eagerness to crown her Queen of Heaven arise? Not from any divine text in our possession! When told that Jesus’ blood family was waiting outside to see Him, our Lord said, “Make way for the Queen of Heaven!” Oh. Sorry. No. He didn’t say that. He said, “Who are my mother and my brothers? Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother.”

That would mean, minimally, that there is lots of competition for the Queen’s crown. But more plainly, it means that the “tradition” invented and perpetuated by Rome is not merely one added to Scripture (which is the breathings of God). It is a tradition added AGAINST Scripture, and therefore ought to be tossed out, not continued.

The last element of the service was the singing of a Latin hymn to their reigning monarch: “Save us, Mary,” they chanted over and again. “Save us.” Amen, but not to Mary. Rather, “Lord Jesus, save them from laying any more bricks in their well-intentioned road to perdition. Grant them eyes able to distinguish between a mother chosen by You to guarantee His humanity, and a goddess manufactured by themselves to partake of your divinity. Grant them a desire to see You honored, above all. Amen.”

Posted in Worship |

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Oy Vey!«

»“HURRAY!” For Pharmacists For Life!

13 comments

William Campbell:

Amen..I whole heartedly concur . May it please the Lord to use this cogent presentation to extricate may souls from this idolatrous yet very attractive religion.

May 29th, 2008 at 6:41 pm

Frank Meyer:

I think you’ve added a good outline of reasons for not identifying Miriam as Person #4. One puzzle which outsiders looking into our faith might continue to wonder about is: if the godhead contains more than one “person”, then what is so special about THREE? If Mary is not #4, who is the speaker in Proverbs 8? And, for that matter, if there is then a fourth person in the godhead, why not 5, 6, …. etc.? Or “a numberless set” of persons? Perhaps that is an implicit consequence of the Eastern Orthodox notion of members of the Body of Christ being made “new creatures” and developing into “little Christs”?

Those with a Hindu background might be especially prone to pursue this line of questioning, so no doubt there is some place in the missionary literature produced by the testimony of believers called to witness to the Hindu peoples about this matter. Any suggestions of where to look, or do you happen to be familiar with commentary on this question?

Proverbs 8:1-2,22-31

verse 23, especially, but also the rest of this passage, seems to suggest an “Only Begotten Daughter” participating “from before the foundation of the cosmos” in its creation. Perhaps we can expect to hear more about this in coming days?

Thanks

May 30th, 2008 at 2:37 am

Dan Reuter:

I remember reading, back in the 1950’s, a report of a sermon (homily/remarks, etc.) by a priest in which he said that Mary represented the feminine aspect of God and that Protestants were at a disadvantage because they had no way of doing this. Thus, in his view at least, the Quadernity represents the “theologization” of feminism.

May 30th, 2008 at 5:15 am

Patricia Burns:

Revelation 12: 1-6 speaks of the persecution of the early church.
The woman at Revelation 12:1 is with child and is about to be delivered (Re.12:2 below) that is- Mary (blessed among women - Lk.1:48) about to deliver Jesus.
At Revelation 12:3-4 we see a great red dragon/Satan standing before the woman which was ready to be delivered to devour her child as soon as it was born.
The woman (Re.12:1-2) is delivered of the man child
Re.12:5 And SHE BROUGHT FORTH A MAN CHILD (Matt.1:21), WHO WAS TO RULE ALL NATIONS WITH A ROD OF IRON (Re.19:15): and her child was caught up unto God (the Father - Col.1:3), and to his throne (Re.7:10, Re.7:17).
The man child is Jesus (Matt.1:21 below).
Eph.2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone (Ps.118:22 below):
Ps.118:22 The stone which the builders refused IS BECOME the head stone of the corner (Eph.2:20 above).
From this point, (Re.12:6, Matt.2:13 below) the church (1 Cor.10:32 below) consists of Jesus, Mary (Lk.1:47), and Joseph.
Re.12:6 And the woman fled into the wilderness (Matt.2:13 below), where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days. A thousand two hundred and threescore days is 1260 days or 3 Â½ years.
Matt.2:13 And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt (Re.12:6 above), and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.
Mary brought forth Jesus, the Word of God the Father in the flesh (Jn.1:14). She brought forth He who will rule all nations with a rod of iron (Re.12:5, Re.19:15 above). She brought forth He who would BECOME the chief corner stone (Eph.2:20, Ps.118:22 above) of the church (1 Cor.10:32 below), Christ Jesus’ living body (1 Cor.12:27).
1 Cor.10:32 Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God.
1 Cor.12:27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.
At Revelation 12:1, we see the mother of God (Re.1:6 below), having brought forth the chief corner stone of the church of God (1 Cor.10:32 above), standing in heaven in Spiritual glory.
Re.1:6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God AND his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

May 30th, 2008 at 4:34 pm

Jeremiah Bannister:

I wanted to inform you and your readers that I have written a critique of this particular entry. It has been posted on my blog. If you are interested, it is readily available for you to read.

editor: Mr. Bannister’s response is more aptly ‘inspired by a misconstrual of this post’ rather than as a critique of the SMS’s actual thoughts or intentions. Feel free to read his supposed ‘critique’ as well as a ‘correction’ offered by CLB in the comments section.

May 31st, 2008 at 10:59 am

Karen:

What is the world is “save us, Mary?” I’ve been CAtholic for 47 years and never heard any such thing. Are you talking about “Salve Regina” which means, “Hail, Holy Queen?” Granted, not acceptable to you either, but if you read the words of the Salve Regina, it is a Christocentric. Mary is “mother of Mercy” and Mercy=Jesus. It asks her to pray for us so that “and
after this our exile show unto us the
blessed fruit of thy womb Jesus;”

As I said, not in your gestalt, either, but when I hear you talking about a crowd chanting “save us, Mary” I seriously doubt the veracity of your account.

May 31st, 2008 at 4:29 pm

Steve:

1) Is it Romanist dogma that Mary was crowned in heaven BEFORE giving birth to Jesus? That’s what you have asked us to believe. If her wearing a crown while pregnant is all the crowning we’ll ever hear about, then the May celebration of the Crowning of the Virgin should cease, for that is NOT the coronation celebrated in that event.

2) Is Joseph, son of Jacob, and an everlasting virgin reigning as the Eternal King of Heaven? The same “sign” was attributed to him in Genesis 37:9-11. And his purity is emphasized in the story with Potiphar’s wife. If one vision makes Mary queen of heaven, what hermeneutical rule allows you to deny that honor to Joseph?

3) What offends you about the correct interpretation, viz., that the woman in Rev. 12 is Israel? It really makes things much simpler. If the devil is put under the figure of a dragon, why do you suppose it would be a woman put under the figure of a woman? Rather, you see, God is communicating His sovereign care for a very vulnerable Israel, who bore His Son. How miraculous was that, considering Satan’s assault on the Christ since Eden’s door closed?

June 2nd, 2008 at 11:10 am

Steve:

(from editor CLB)
Karen-
To be quick and to the point, no.
The piece was not the common, “Salve Regina”. It may have been something based loosely on, “Salve O Maria” except it seemed to have been a more folkish, perhaps contemporary/charismaniac revision. This being the song that was sung (and not Salve Regina), I am hopeful your doubt of the veracity of SMS’s account has been rightly dispelled.
However, the veracity of your own claim about the Christocentric nature of the Salve Regina is doubted. In support, I will simply include the English translation in which Christ is incidental and at best an indirect object:

Hail, holy Queen, Mother of Mercy,
our life, our sweetness and our hope.
To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve;
to thee do we send up our sighs,
mourning and weeping in this valley of tears.

Turn then, most gracious advocate,
thine eyes of mercy toward us;
and after this our exile,
show unto us the blessed fruit of thy womb, Jesus.
O clement, O loving, O sweet Virgin Mary.

V./ Pray for us O holy Mother of God,
R./ that we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ.

Let us pray. Almighty, everlasting God, who by the co-operation of the Holy Ghost didst prepare the body and soul of the glorious Virgin-Mother Mary to become a dwelling-place meet for thy Son: grant that as we rejoice in her commemoration; so by her fervent intercession we may be delivered from present evils and from everlasting death. Through the same Christ our Lord. Amen.

June 2nd, 2008 at 12:19 pm

Br. Dominic-Michael OHS:

Steve,
I hope you soon find the peace and assurance and light you are seeking. There is hope. Why should you be numbered among those who fight for the Dragon unwittingly? Pray that Our Lady will shed the light of Her Son Jesus Christ into your soul very soon. Peace.

editor’s insert (CLB): The thought is sweet if it were realistic and sincere. I think couching a curse in a blessing is risky business. I will post this for two reasons- to show deference to sincerity; and to display the confusion. Also, How can one fight for the Dragon if Israel’s Messiah has come?

June 4th, 2008 at 4:04 am

Matthew N. Petersen:

Just a couple of thoughts:

First, “If anything, we are made to believe that her unspeakably honorable role in Godâ€™s unfolding plan had pretty much been played…” Is your point honestly that Mary was given a honorable role, only to have it taken away–with no resurrection? This is a out and out denial of the gospel. Perhaps she hasn’t been returned to her previous position yet, but if her unspeakably honorable position is ended, her cross has no resurrection, and God is not faithful. End of story.

editor insert (clb): No. We are not at the end of the story yet. Nor is her position ‘ended’. What if the very point of her unspeakably honorable role is her mundaneness as a humble Jewess? (just honestly consider whether it necessitates God’s UNfaithfulness if she has not been given God’s attributes: Omnipresence, Omniscience, etc.)
Historically, she is unique, unspeakably so. Consider this: so are the Jewish people! And you still have them among you… what honor have you offered them on behalf of their unspeakably honored role in God’s unfolding plan?

Second, “That this was a rebuke of sorts cannot be disputed. It reveals Mary (again) to be precisely that sort of run-of-the-mill, bumbling, endearing disciple that we find Peter and the other apostles to have been throughout the pre-Pentecost narratives.” Come on. I dispute that it was a rebuke. I dispute hotly that it was a rebuke.

Well…the assumption was that one would more than assert dispute without offering grounds… I guess you don’t.

Moreover, I have heard over and over from Protestant pulpits that the sins of parents are repeated in the children. Do you think Christ was somehow exempt from this? Was He not really his Mother’s Son? If she was a bumbling image of St. Peter (the sort that denied Christ and was not present at the Cross) He was too. At least at first, and had to turn from such sins.

What you have heard from (vaguely) protestant pulpits has very little bearing on this post. Yes. Christ was exempt.

But I suppose the reason you didn’t find the texts compelling is simply that none of them were put forward as argument. If you mistake a ceremony for an argument, you will find it easy to refute. Why did they ignore Mark 3? Probably because it isn’t relevant to the occasion. It would be like reading Hosea at a wedding, or listing to the St. Matthew’s Passion at Christmas.

This weddings and Christmas bit is a text book faulty analogy. SMS was the person present at the service in question, not you. You have no reason to doubt his testimony except your distaste for the report.

How does Mark 3 relate to Mary? We all agree this is part of the sword piercing her heart. The Cross she is to bear. But you seem to take it as absolute. Mary is still on her cross. God does not vindicate her. There is no resurrection of glory lost for her. God is unjust, taking and not returning.

Catholics and Orthodox, however, proclaim God just–that for every Good Friday there is a Pascha. Just as God has vindicated his servant, so He has vindicated his handmaid.

All that will come to pass has not yet. We all have a future. Even the Jews, and that’s the point. “Just as God has vindicated His servant, so He will vindicate His handmaid.” Well said.

June 4th, 2008 at 11:37 am

Karen M Kennedy:

I too pray that your presentation will bring much food for thought to many who have not carefully considered what the un-biblical tradtions about Mary are truly about. We can only communicate with God because of Jesus’ sacrifice, and the fact that He is omnipresent. Crying out in prayer to anyone else implies the same omnipresence. It is interesting to note that in the old testament, during one of the times that the children of Israel were rebelling against God, they made cakes(as an act of worship) to the “Queen of Heaven”… that title is more than 2000 years old.

I am a former Catholic and remember well the songs I sang in church during my years at parochial school, some of the words of a particular song went as follows: “Gentle mother, quiet light, morning star so stong and bright….give us wisdom, give us love.”
This was a song sung to Mary…singing to Mary in church… is that not worship? Give us wisdom and love? Surely these virtues come from God alone and cannot be given by anyone else. It is the Lamb of God who shed his blood, is the one and only mediator between God and man, and he alone is to be sung to in church. Hebrews 12:2 says: “Let us fix our eyes on Jesus(not Mary or the saints), the author and perfector of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.”

June 6th, 2008 at 5:13 pm

Matthew N. Petersen:

You can do better than that.

First, it doesn’t really make sense to say that Mary was exalted and so exalted that she is vindicated by becoming a run of the mill disciple. That’s just flat out nonsense. Mary was, in Mark 3, a run of the mill disciple because she had been faithful. She had descended to the level of a run of a mill disciple from master of God because she was faithful. If you leave her as a run of the mill disciple, you make God unjust, taking and not returning. If you say her glorification is being a run of the mill disciple, you make evil good and good evil. As if Philippians 2 said “wherefore God has highly exalted Him by giving Him a name which is just like every other name.”

So, you didn’t read the italicized response and questions below? Your attempt to redux above is an equivocation.

Again, the post did not say “I thought it was a beautiful ceremony, but I’m not fully convinced Mary has achieved that status yet (though she certainly will on the new earth). It said that Mary is just a run of the mill disciple. Playing with my tenses does not defend your post.

Second, I didn’t say that Pr. Schlissel misrepresented the occasion. I said that objecting that a crowning isn’t apologetically persuasive is uncharitable.

even if the Cleric suggested his readings were? You are presupposing a misrepresentation…

Third, The reason I didn’t offer any grounds for my challenge that Jesus was rebuking Mary is that you offered none that it was. You simply asserted “no one challenges that…” That was the sum of your argument. Well, I challenge it! Provide some support for your assertion! Particularly when challenged, provide some support!

Support was a straight citing of the text and the rebuke. Now provide the alternate reading which supports your challenge.

What you have heard from (vaguely) protestant pulpits has very little bearing on this post.

I never knew Pr. Schlissel had become a hard-core TR.

Yes. Christ was exempt.

“Like us in all respects, apart from sin.” So, are you asserting that imitating our parents is sin? I agree imitation of our parents sin is sin. And I agree Christ was exempt. But imitation per se? If so, why does Christ explicately say that everything He does is imitation of His Father? He isn’t condemning Himself as a sinner is He? But if not, well, why have you exempted Christ? The full humanity of Christ is a very important doctrine to me, and I don’t appreciate off-hand dismissals of it.

Here you are simply being argumentative…look at you comment. You said protestant pulpits say children repeat their parents sin…and now you have equivocated that with imitation of God the Father? The full humanity is not dismissed nor disputed…it isn’t even being discussed. Please, state you goals clearly.

Matt

June 12th, 2008 at 10:19 pm

Matthew N. Petersen:

<b<So, you didnâ€™t read the italicized response and questions below? Your attempt to redux above is an equivocation.

I don’t quite see why that is relevant. Perhaps someone could argue that Mary is omnipresent and omniscient. But I don’t believe that’s part of the doctrine of the crowning.

even if the Cleric suggested his readings were? You are presupposing a misrepresentationâ€¦

Well, perhaps I misread the post. I didn’t read it as “I had an apologetic debate with a cleric and here’s his arguments.” But “I went to a May Crowning, and look at the ridiculous things they did. And when I challenged the cleric, he just pointed to the texts in question.” Though even so, I don’t think it is quite fair to think that the homily would be apologetically persuasive, nor that simple quick answers would be apologetically persuasive.

Support was a straight citing of the text and the rebuke. Now provide the alternate reading which supports your challenge.

But you can’t tell me the support that it was a rebuke was citing the rebuke. This is circular. A passage was cited that Protestants read one way and Catholics another. And you have not “proved” the Catholics wrong by shouting “no one disagrees with me” and by arguing circularly. If you think you can argue against your opponents without trying to understand your opponents, I have reason to believe you aren’t really interested in listening, and any long discussion of the issue would be completely futile.

Here you are simply being argumentativeâ€¦

The point is that part of being human is to imitate our parents. And this is a good and right part of being human. We know it is good and right because Christ says He imitates His Father. When children imitate their parents, they are imitating Christ who imitates His Father. Imitation of parents is filial love. That means that just as human children imitate their parents, so Christ imitated his mother. “Like us in all respects apart from sin.”

But when children are tiny, they are far to little to distinguish good and evil, and so they imitate everything their parents do, without discernment. And again, being tiny is not sin. So Christ, being too young to distinguish good and evil–indeed being too young to do anything at all–imitated His mother. In everything.

In our fallen world, this means children learn to sin. They see their parents sinning, and because they love their parents, they sin too. The children mimetically desire what the parents desire, and mimetically react as the parents. And mimesis is a good and right part not only of being human, but of being divine. So if we say Christ was without sin, but Mary full of sin, we destroy mimesis, and make Christ not fully human, in that he is not really the Son of His mother, but perservered in goodness because of some outside divine force. In short, we are docetists, or at best Nestorians. He looks like a full man, but indeed He is God animating flesh and blood.

June 13th, 2008 at 9:44 am

2 Trackbacks/Pings

Fair And Balanced Reporting – PROPHEZEI Nov 09 2008 / 6pm
Benedicta tu in mulieribus et benedictus fructus ventri tui, Jesus « Ut Unum Sint Nov 16 2008 / 12am

Mary, Queen of…..the Nile?

13 comments

2 Trackbacks/Pings

Leave a reply

Meta