A Prayer to Mary

[Guest]

Paidion wrote: Quote:
Unhappily, this phrase has often been translated as "mother of God." Most non-Catholics shudder at that appelation.


Shudder they might, but the title is fully "orthodox." Is Jesus God? In the minds of most Christians, yes. Is Mary Jesus' mother? Nobody denies this. If both these things are so, then Mary is God's mother. To claim otherwise is to deny the divinity of Jesus.


No i don't think so Emmet, Jesus existed long before Mary and he did'nt have a mother. She did birth him as a human but not as a divine being.

[Guest]

In my experience with Catholics, they regard "Born Again"="Baptized". And since they're baptized at very young ages, they don't quite resonate with the issue.

Catholic theology says that yes, you must be baptized (born of water and the spirit), but then you must die in a state of friendship with God (i.e. no unconfessed Mortal Sin). So the Born Again thing is a starting condition, but the ending condition is the more pertinent thing.

Apologies if I've misrepresented anything. All this understanding was gleaned from listening to Catholic Answers Live.

[Guest]

Hi, Mort,

Thank you for your response!

I'm not familiar with Alexander Hislop or Ralph Woodrow. It's not that difficult to trace the Westward trajectory of Semiramis worship and obviously Hislop and Woodrow aren't the only ones to have pointed it out. What's particularly obvious is the superimposition of Cybele/Diana/Magna Mater onto Mary.

As far as I am aware, the Semiramis theory is limited to Hislop and to those who have followed in his wake (knowingly or unknowingly). No reputable scholar gives the theory credence.

I will not contest that some religious paradigms from pagan culture crossed over into Christian dogma, with greater and/or lesser modification. However, mere parallels between goddess-cults in different regions of the world do not demonstrate direct relationship. Many world religions have parallel features - not because they are mutually related, but because they each stem from fundamental aspects of the human experience. Accordingly, it is not surprising that mother-goddesses and amorous-goddesses appear in various cultures. These images refract from basic psychological needs and forms common to 'most all humanity. (Incidentally, even in the Hebrew bible God is portrayed as both Father and Lover.)

And in the syncretistic environment of Late Antiquity, it is not untoward to expect that goddesses of different cultures around the Mediterranean rim began to bleed into one another to some extent. But that is a rather different matter from the pseudo-history constructed by Hislop, tying all of these different traditions into a single wellspring = Semiramis.

Woodrow's later book ("The Babylon Connection?") lays out a devastating critique of the Hislopian tradition which he once embraced. The book is easy to read, and may help sensitize a reader to specific interpretive pitfalls that lead to half-baked analysis.

Shalom,
Emmet

[Guest]

Hi, TK,

Thank you for your response!

but what i cannot understand, and find abominable, is the "hiding" by the RCC of the clear teaching that a person must be born again. do the RCC leaders believe this, or not? if they do, why is it not taught? why do hardly any of the RCC masses seem to know this? wouldnt this seem to be a vital teaching of Christ? i mean, the letters are in red and everything.

Seth already touched on this, but I suppose one reason Catholic tradition in the West may have neglected that particular metaphor may be because for centuries the Catholic church was not evangelistic in the West. All citizens were members of the church, and had been raised in its bosom from the cradle. There is a common enough feature in church history: evangelistic traditions, that emphasize a "born again" kind of experience, run into some difficulty when they start spawning their second and third "in-house" generations. Many of these individuals are raised in relationship with Jesus from their earliest consciousness ( or even before). As such, they often enough find some difficulty looking back to a time and a place where they have been "born again." These individuals will look to other metaphors to better understand their Christian experience.

Of course, not every Christian tradition equally emphasizes and celebrates all of the metaphors and theological constructs found in the bible. Rather, most Christian traditions tend to highlight some that seem more meaningful, while neglecting others. In the case of Catholics and Protestants, because of the conflict between the two sides, there has been a polarizing process whereby some features of the catholic tradition have become, in effect, the exclusive property of one side or the other.

Then again, I don't know that "new birth" language is utterly absent from the Catholic church. It's been quite a while since I went through RCIA classes. But I imagine that "born again" has a derogatory taste for some Catholics, largely out of partisanship - and also perhaps because the conversion-paradigm is not so much a part of recent Catholic experience in the West.

i realize, emmett, that you will respond that they cant be saved even if they know it

I apologize - I don't get what you're referring to here.

Thanks again for your response.

Shalom,
Emmet

[Guest]

Hi, Steve,

Thank you for your responses!

How could the RCC encourage millions of people to pray to Mary to intercede for them simultaneouly if they did'nt believe she could process these millions of simultaneous prayers which only a divine being could.

I'm not sure how they imagine that this happens, but I'll throw out a couple of possibilites: (1) God facilitates the logistical accomplishment miraculously; and/or (2) Mary, having been taken up into heaven with God, is seen as outside time - a partaker in eternity - and so relative time might be as meaningless for her as it is for God. But in any case Catholics also believe that the other saints process many, many prayers (at least for the more popular ones), and there is no confusion of the other saints with divine status. Neither so in the case of Mary (amongst the properly educated, anyway).

At different times the RCC has presented Mary in varying ways i.e. i think one Pope called her a co-redemptrix.

The "Co-redemptrix" nomenclature has surfaced, but I am not aware that it has been officially approved by the church. Naturally, a religious body as large and diverse as the Catholic church has spawned a great many folk doctrines and pet theologies. Not all receive the fundamental validation of the church.

Jesus existed long before Mary and he did'nt have a mother. She did birth him as a human but not as a divine being.

If you will allow me to respond rhetorically for a moment, knowing that as a person of Jewish faith I do not buy into the Christian dogma of the Incarnation:

How on earth, then, should this have taken place? Was Jesus not God while in the birth canal? How about during the years when he was nursed and diapered and even taught - to wit, mothered by Mary? Was he not God during those years?

If God actually became human in Jesus Christ, then why should people flinch from acknowledging that he became a being who could be birthed and mothered?


Thank you again for your responses, Steve!

Shalom,
Emmet

[Guest]

Hi Emmet,

Semiramis would seem to be an early point along a continuum, rather than a wellspring. It seems as if in your insistence on invoking and discrediting Hilsop (who, again, I have not read) you are minimizing the likelihood of a powerful culture influencing the religions of surrounding or subsequent cultures. History is rich with examples, however, of cultures borrowing from (in part or whole) or having forced upon them the pantheons of other nations.

Are you only focusing on the Semiramis component or are you also using the association to Hilsop in regards to the Cybele/Diana/Magna Mater connection to Mary, which is much more direct and germane to the topic at hand?

[Guest]

emmett wrote:

Quote: (TK wrote)
i realize, emmett, that you will respond that they cant be saved even if they know it


I apologize - I don't get what you're referring to here.

i thought i might not be clear- sorry about that. i was arguing the importance of Jesus' teaching about being born again (and how the RCC seems to downplay or ignore it).

but it is my understanding that you do not currently "buy into" the born again concept, so, in your view, it would seem irrelevant whether someone understands what it means to be born again.

of course i dont want to speak for you! perhaps i made an improper assumption.

TK

[Guest]

Hi, Mort,

Thank you for your reply. Please pardon my very tardy response.

Regarding Semiramis, perhaps it would be more appropriate to characterize her as a later point amidst a spectrum, rather than an early point in a continuum. Goddess worship was probably well-entrenched many centuries before the advent of Semiramis.

I certainly would acknowledge that the religious paradigms of surrounding cultures had an impact on Christianity in its ongoing formation. I expect that various goddess-constructs contributed to Marian thought along the way, and these probably included the traditions of Asia Minor which you have identified.

Yet, this must be approached sensitively. The issue of external influence is often handled in a cavalier manner, but it is a very delicate matter. Influence exerts itself in varying degrees, and often in concert with a number of coincident variables. It would be overstating the case to assert that Marian doctrine is simply goddess-worship from the cults of Asia Minor. Marian doctrine draws upon a number of different vectors in Christian and non-Christian thought.

Thank you again,
Emmet

[Guest]

Hello, TK,

Thank you for your reply. Please pardon my very tardy response.

Would you say that it is necessary for someone to understand what it means to be "born again"? Or would it be sufficient for them actually to have been "born again" in their relationship with God, without their being aware of that particular language or imagery?

Shalom,
Emmet

[Guest]

hi emmett, long time no see.

a rose by any other name still smells as sweet, so no, i dont think that "born again" terminology needs to be used; Jesus simply used the language as a picture of what happens when someone is quickened by the Spirit. that being said, i do think there are certain facts that need to be understood (and believed and acted upon) in order to enter the kingdom that Jesus described.

TK