Unchivalrous Jesus.

Commenter Opus wrote:

Now, as all who read here are Christians, I need hardly remind y’all that Jesus never slut-shamed. He did however when a woman came to him full of genuine contrition asking for forgiveness say to her that her sins were given and that she should go away and sin no more.

I would urge Opus to not overlook the incident in John 4 with the Samaritan woman, where He slut shamed her by asking her a question He already knew the answer to (John 4:15-18, ESV):

15 The woman said to him, “Sir, give me this water, so that I will not be thirsty or have to come here to draw water.”

16 Jesus said to her, “Go, call your husband, and come here.” 17 The woman answered him, “I have no husband.” Jesus said to her, “You are right in saying, ‘I have no husband’; 18 for you have had five husbands, and the one you now have is not your husband. What you have said is true.”

This is not the only example in the Gospels of Jesus being strikingly unchivalrous.  Consider the case of the Canaanite woman (Mat 15:22-28, ESV):

22 And behold, a Canaanite woman from that region came out and was crying, “Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David; my daughter is severely oppressed by a demon.” 23 But he did not answer her a word. And his disciples came and begged him, saying, “Send her away, for she is crying out after us.” 24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” 25 But she came and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, help me.” 26 And he answered, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.” 27 She said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.” 28 Then Jesus answered her, “O woman, great is your faith! Be it done for you as you desire.” And her daughter was healed instantly.

Consider also the case of the woman with menstrual bleeding who touched his robe and was healed.  The only chivalrous thing to do would have been to leave it at that.  But Jesus wouldn’t let it go until she publicly submitted to Him and declared what her malady was (Luke 8:43-48, ESV):

43 And there was a woman who had had a discharge of blood for twelve years, and though she had spent all her living on physicians,[f] she could not be healed by anyone. 44 She came up behind him and touched the fringe of his garment, and immediately her discharge of blood ceased. 45 And Jesus said, “Who was it that touched me?” When all denied it, Peter[g] said, “Master, the crowds surround you and are pressing in on you!” 46 But Jesus said, “Someone touched me, for I perceive that power has gone out from me.” 47 And when the woman saw that she was not hidden, she came trembling, and falling down before him declared in the presence of all the people why she had touched him, and how she had been immediately healed. 48 And he said to her, “Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace.”

Lastly, see John 2, where Jesus reminds his own mother of her proper place before performing a miracle she requests (John 2:2-5, ESV):

2 On the third day there was a wedding at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. 2 Jesus also was invited to the wedding with his disciples. 3 When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.” 4 And Jesus said to her, “Woman, what does this have to do with me? My hour has not yet come.” 5 His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.”

This last example has the potential to bring out the different perspectives of Protestants and Catholics.  This isn’t my intent, but it is instructive that both groups feel the need to explain why Christ would speak to His mother in such a way.  Protestants see him reminding her of his place as a sharp rebuke.  For from a chivalrous mind frame it is quite jarring.

I don’t know if the RCC has formal doctrine on this specific question, but here is what Joe Heschmeyer at Shameless Popery writes on the topic:

There is another interpretation, however: that Jesus is cautioning her. Mary has come to Christ with an implicit request for a miracle. Jesus responds by addressing her as “Woman.” A lot could be said of that title, and its implications for Mary as the New Eve (it’s the name that Adam first gives to Eve in the Garden of Eden, Genesis 2:23). For now, though, it’s sufficient to recognize that it’s not rude to call Mary “Woman”: Jesus does this again on the Cross (John 19:26-27) and Paul does it in Galatians 4:4, and in both places, it’s unambiguously positive.

I’ll reiterate that my intent here isn’t to poke at the Protestant Catholic divide.  Quite the opposite, my intent is to show that both Protestants and Catholics currently feel the need to explain why Jesus would respond to His mother the way He did in the first place.  Both explain that what seems unchivalrous really isn’t, but using different rationalizations.

See Also:  Call me unchivalrous.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Chivalry. Bookmark the permalink.

198 Responses to Unchivalrous Jesus.

  1. vfm7916 says:

    Anything that contradicts the complementarian image of a pacifist submissive Jesus must be opposed. A Get-A-Sword, moneylender scourging, nationalist, unchivalrous, redpill Jesus just does not fit the messaging of Complementarian, Churchian, or Judeo-Christian camps…

  2. Opus says:

    I am sorry about that but you must understand I only have the compilation album – Jesus’ Greatest Hits Vol 1 rather than the complete original studio albums.

  3. Chim Ritchalds says:

    Opus BTFO

  4. samanthawynter says:

    Can somebody explain the last example? I don’t quite understand it.

  5. Dalrock says:

    Surely Opus you can, as a lawyer, appreciate Him asking her a question He already knew the answer to.

  6. SirHamster says:

    Consider also the case of the woman with menstrual bleeding who touched his robe and was healed. The only chivalrous thing to do would have been to leave it at that. But Jesus wouldn’t let it go until she publicly submitted to Him and declared what her malady was (Luke 8:43-48, ESV):

    What I find interesting about this miracle is that the “overreaction” is necessary for Jesus to commend her faith, legitimize her healing, and to tell her to go in peace. Jesus judged that exposing the shame of her situation was necessary to her healing.

    The anti-slut-shaming types are preventing repentance, healing, and peace. It is diabolical.

  7. Paul says:

    The whole worship/adoration/veneration of Mary as ‘Our Mother/Queen in Heaven’ is eerily similar to chivalry, as I’ve argued elsewhere.

  8. The Question says:

    From “Tales of Old Testament ‘chivalry'”

    “Then an Israelite man brought into the camp a Midianite woman right before the eyes of Moses and the whole assembly of Israel while they were weeping at the entrance to the tent of meeting. When Phinehas son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, the priest, saw this, he left the assembly, took a spear in his hand and followed the Israelite into the tent. He drove the spear into both of them, right through the Israelite man and into the woman’s stomach. Then the plague against the Israelites was stopped; but those who died in the plague numbered 24,000.

    The Lord said to Moses, “Phinehas son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, the priest, has turned my anger away from the Israelites. Since he was as zealous for my honor among them as I am, I did not put an end to them in my zeal. Therefore tell him I am making my covenant of peace with him.”

  9. Darwinian Arminian says:

    This last example has the potential to bring out the different perspectives of Protestants and Catholics. This isn’t my intent, but it is instructive that both groups feel the need to explain why Christ would speak to His mother in such a way. Protestants see him reminding her of his place as a sharp rebuke. For from a chivalrous mind frame it is quite jarring.

    It’s also not the only place in the Gospels where He does something like this. Consider this instance from the book of Matthew where the same woman tries to get His attention once again, and He responds by putting her in her place:

    While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him. Then one said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You.”

    But He answered and said to the one who told Him, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.”

    Matthew 12:46-50

    That’s pretty good evidence for an unchivalrous Jesus who cares less about a social standard of respectability than He does about obedience to His commands. And come to think of it, the same story also offers a pretty good rebuttal to the “Christian” Bachelorette in the last post who insisted that there was nothing wrong with her decision to fornicate in a windmill because she had a pussy pass that had been given to her by Jesus Himself. Just don’t expect anyone in the modern corporate Church, Inc. to admit as much.

  10. Lost Patrol says:

    Quite the opposite, my intent is to show that both Protestants and Catholics currently feel the need to explain why Jesus would respond to His mother the way He did in the first place.

    Dalrock, you know the system too well. I attended an Easter service this year at a Protestant church. The incident where Jesus addressed His mother from the cross, calling her a woman, was part of the sermon. You will not be, but I was surprised when the pastor stopped briefly at this point to explain in detail how Jesus really didn’t mean it like it sounds or something like that. It took me by surprise so I did not get the exact quote. I felt like the man was apologizing on behalf of Jesus due to fears that women in the audience would be offended that He called a woman a woman.

  11. Spike says:

    Catholic priests in Australia, both the older generation Irish ones and the next-gen Indians, always play the Intercessory card when it comes to explaining Jesus’ conversation with his mother at the Cana Wedding.
    His mother hears a request /plea. She responds by asking Jesus to act on behalf of sinners, which He does….
    When I became an evangelical, this interpretation grated on me. Not only does it violate a number of Scripural verses, it also assumes that Jesus as God incarnate isn’t omniscient, how He somehow needs a helper to process all of the requests coming His way.
    I consider it a stretch at best.

  12. Random Angeleno says:

    Surely Opus you can, as a lawyer, appreciate Him asking her a question He already knew the answer to.
    LOL!

  13. donalgraeme says:

    Well, if I should be so bold as to step into the whole Catholic/Protesting thing… at least one Church Father agreed that Jesus was correcting his mother there. Out of love, of course, but it was a necessary move on the part of Jesus to establish that He, not His mother, was in charge of His mission.

  14. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Well, if I should be so bold as to step into the whole Catholic/Protesting thing… at least one Church Father agreed that Jesus was correcting his mother there.

    The Catholics note that, while Jesus might have been correcting His mother, Mary nevertheless had faith that Jesus would accede to her wishes. That’s why she instructed the servants to “Do whatever He tells you.”

    And that’s why Catholics continue to ask for Mary’s intercession. Because Jesus continues to respond to His Heavenly Mother.

  15. Oscar says:

    @ Opus

    I am sorry about that but you must understand I only have the compilation album – Jesus’ Greatest Hits Vol 1 rather than the complete original studio albums.

    How do you know you actually have the “Greatest Hits” if you haven’t heard all of it? Here you go.

    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+1&version=KJV

    You don’t even have to pay for it.

  16. GJ says:

    The whole worship/adoration/veneration of Mary as ‘Our Mother/Queen in Heaven’ is eerily similar to chivalry, as I’ve argued elsewhere.

    Mary is THE pedastalised woman.

  17. GJ says:

    she should go away and sin no more

    Calling her adultery for what it is, sin, is shaming.

  18. white says:

    @Red Pill Latecomer

    So you’re saying that everytime you ask Mary for intercession, Mary asks Jesus to do it and Jesus keeps reminding her of her place, while doing it anyway?

  19. imnobody00 says:

    “Mary is THE pedastalised woman.”

    Indeed. This is why feminism is born in Protestant countries and is stronger in Protestant countries (anglosphere, North Europe, Scandinavia)

    Without Mary to pedestalize, Protestant people started pedestalizing their women. In our times, this ended up with the pedestalization of fat sluts with tattoos.

    This pedestalization of modern women is anti-social. But the pedestalization of Mary was social. Mary is venerated because she has all the traditional feminine virtues: good mother, good wife, submit to Lord. Modern women are venerated because they have a vagina.

    A feminist woman saying she is a goddess? Ridiculous in Catholic countries: no feminist has said this: it is laughable. Only the pedestalization of modern women in the Protestant countries makes it possible.

  20. Joash says:

    But wait… there is more!

    Luke 11:27 And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked. 28 But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.

    Massive chivalry fail. Unpack that with the red pill in mind. There is gold in them thar hills!

  21. GJ says:

    Indeed. This is why feminism is born in Protestant countries

    Hardly. De amore is French and 12th century. The ‘healthy’ pedestalisation of Mary paved the way for other unhealthy kinds.

    Pedestalisation is never healthy.

  22. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    white: So you’re saying that everytime you ask Mary for intercession, Mary asks Jesus to do it and Jesus keeps reminding her of her place, while doing it anyway?

    No, Jesus doesn’t remind Mary of her (lowly) place anymore. Mary is now exalted as Queen of Heaven. (The lowly shall be exalted, and the exalted brought low.)

    Jesus simply acts on Mary’s intercession.

    Here is when Protestants ask, “Why not go directly to Jesus?”

    For the same reason that Protestants ask others to pray for them. Christians, Protestants included, are always saying, “I’ll pray for you,” and “Will you pray for me?” It’s called intercessionary prayer.

    For some odd reason, Protestants think it’s fine to ask a friend to pray for him, but strange to ask Mary or a saint in Heaven to pray for him.

  23. Opus says:

    Massive American overnight sense of humour failure. How I feel this morning:

  24. white says:

    @Red Pill Latecomer

    >”No, Jesus doesn’t remind Mary of her (lowly) place anymore.”
    >”Jesus simply acts on Mary’s intercession.”

    If I do whatever my wife tells me to, am I the head of my house or is my wife?

  25. Minesweeper says:

    @Opus, hilarious clip !

  26. Pindar says:

    @Paul

    For the ancient Jews the Queen was the mother of the king not his wife. Hence why Mary is crowned and not the Holy Church which is the bride of Christ.

    This is why it is not chivalrous to venerate Mary.

  27. TheTraveler says:

    To take the whole “Catholics are heretics who worship Mary,” nonsense to its logical conclusion: no one who says this is EVER allowed to ask someone to be a professional reference, or put in a good word, or even a ask for a helping hand.

    Because that’s, you know, elevating a mere human to the status of divinity. God’s help alone should be enough for you!

  28. Oscar says:

    Tangentially On Topic: there is no more chivalrous “Jesus” than Buddy Christ.

    https://snowgoosechronicles.blogspot.com/2019/08/buddy-christ.html

    Buddy Christ is the counterfeit Jesus most modern Christians believe in, and most modern churches preach.

    Buddy Christ is not your Lord. He’s your buddy. Buddy Christ demands nothing from you. He gives you no commandments. And he absolutely, positively, never, ever judges you. Buddy Christ is “spiritual, not religious”. He doesn’t dwell on antiquated concepts like sin, except for racism. Buddy Christ doesn’t care if you’re sexually promiscuous, practice homosexuality, mutilate your body to make it look like that of the opposite sex, or murder your baby in womb. But, if you’re a racist, or a Republican (same thing, right?), you’re in big trouble with Buddy Christ.

    Wait… didn’t I say that Buddy Christ never, ever judges you? Doesn’t accusing someone of racism sound judgmental? Isn’t that a contradiction?

    Well… sure. But reason is a racist, sexist tool of the white patriarchy, and Buddy Christ ain’t down with that, man.

    Buddy Christ is a Socialist, because Socialism is compassionate. Buddy Christ is basically your dope smoking, hippie, dorm resident adviser from college, who’s been in college for eight years because he keeps changing his major, and never studies.

    Buddy Christ is Crawl from Son in Law.

    Buddy Christ is not the Jesus of the Bible.

  29. Hmm says:

    Off topic, but fun. Gillette loses $8 billion, but doesn’t take the hint. “Get woke, go broke. Stay woke.”
    https://summit.news/2019/08/02/gillette-ceo-says-backlash-to-toxic-masculinity-ad-a-price-worth-paying-despite-8-billion-writedown/

  30. Scott says:

    It’s impossible to detect the tone of Jesus voice vis a vis “woman”

    As an army officer, if I was addressing someone of lower rank than me, and I wanted to remind them that 1. yes, I heard you, and 2. we are doing it my way because 3. I said so and I out rank you

    I would say

    “Sergeant” in a condescending tone.

    Its a tactic you should use rarely, because if you do it too much you just look weak. But it is necessary sometimes.

    I just don’t know if they had this cultural/language nuance in 30 something AD Israel.

  31. A Portuguese Man says:

    I’ll offer my two cents, not being of Anglo origin or culture whatsoever.

    Addressing wives as “woman” is something I’ve heard many times as a child. In rural areas this was common. I believe it still may be.

    To address one’s mother as such was rarer, but I nevertheless had one cousin that did it. But it would be considered vaguely odd, no doubt. Not out of any respect you specially owe to women mind you, but to your own mother, specifically.

    I have no special knowledge of the Scripture or the Church’s doctrine on these episodes. But I see nothing out of the ordinary in the way Jesus acts in them in respect to his mother.

    It is, for instance, much more puzzling for me how we were “dogs” compared to the “children of God”. No Father deserves such children is as far as I’m able take my charity. God forgive me.

    Nevertheless, I think Dalrock aims accurately.

    I feel I should remind the more fundamentalist here that the reverence of Our Lady is not as woman or wife, but very specifically as Mother of Our Lord.

    It is the Mother, and Mother only, the Catholic revere, and woman only very strictly insofar as She is Mother.

    As contrast, I submit the example of the countless woman Saints (I do not know a better term, apologies). They are in no way different of the man Saints, and never have I heard or seen the woman aspect being particularly praised, except if their holiness is directly tied to that fact, as when their martyrdom involved things that can be done only to women.

  32. Tim says:

    The veneration of Mary business has always made my skin crawl, for red pill related issues and others reasons. No talking your way out of this one guys, I’m sorry.

  33. imnobody00 says:

    “De amore is French and 12th century. The ‘healthy’ pedestalisation of Mary paved the way for other unhealthy kinds.”

    Yes, although chivalry and courtly love were created in France by small elites, the pedestalization of women was adopted by the masses in Protestant countries. Without Mary to pedestalize, they started pedestalizing normal women. The rejection of celibacy by Luther also emphasized marriage (as in marry those sluts). In traditional Catholic countries, celibacy was well considered and women were told to imitate Mary (now it has changed of course because of foreign influence: I speak about my childhood)

    I have lived in the USA, the Caribbean, Cental America and Southern Europe. The pedestalization in USA is completely ridiculous. Women are treated in a way that would be unthinkable in Catholic countries. Feminism is present in all countries but pedestalization is not.

  34. feeriker says:

    Oscar says:
    August 3, 2019 at 7:33 am

    Spot on. “Buddy Jesus” is indeed the object of churchian worship, much as they would violently and vociferously deny it. The Jesus of the New Testament would be tarred, feathered, and run out of their churches for being “divisive” and “of the devil.” Good thing for Him (but certainly not for them) that they’re unfamiliar with the Bible and thus wouldn’t recognize Him.

  35. Pindar says:

    @Tim

    See:
    Jesus and the Jewish Roots of Mary: Unveiling the Mother of the Messiah
    by Brant Pitre

    And my comment above. If you want to follow the Jewish and Christian tradition faithfully then veneration of Mary is not optional. I too found this too be a stumbling block.

  36. Incognito says:

    OT: @Anonymous Reader from several days ago:

    Thanx for your interesting post on guns. I was not aware of the Hungerford massacre, but conversely, you may not know about the Ecole Polytechnique shooting that occured around the same time and spurred the modern gun control movement here in Canada.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/École_Polytechnique_massacre

    It’s pretty crystal clear to anyone paying attention that the globalists push the same things at the same time everywhere, and have been doing this for decades – the internet has made this easier to see. But having learned about the Hungerford incident I would take it one step further and say that I would not be surprised if both the Hungerford and Montreal shootings were UN false flags.

  37. Scott says:

    Orthodox and RC marianism is pretty wired to me, coming from my background. But its not like we talk about it all the time. There are about two icons in our church ikonostasis that contain her image. 99% of the liturgy is focused on Christ and the corporate church.

  38. GJ says:

    Yes, although chivalry and courtly love were created in France by small elites,

    So we’re agreed it was born before Protestantism.

    Without Mary to pedestalize, they started pedestalizing normal women.

    This is probably true. And it is probably true that it is less destructive to pedestalise a very highly idealised woman of the distant past than to pedestalise obviously fallen woman of the present.

    Women are treated in a way that would be unthinkable in Catholic countries.

    Sure, there are two rival cults of the feminine.

  39. GJ says:

    Regarding Gebirah: the assumption that what held for ancient Jewish societies should necessary hold for the Kingdom of God is false.

    “While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.”

    He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”

    Almost a quarter of the gospels is Jesus explaining that ‘no, the Kingdom is not what you presuppose it to be’, and that a huge number of their assumptions are wrong.

  40. Pindar says:

    And yet a woman is crowned in revelation…

  41. Oscar says:

    Gents,

    Here’s another article that I think demonstrates that Pastor Doug Wilson has a giant blind spot where marriage is concerned.

    https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/like-a-float-for-the-tournament-of-roses.html

    One of the men in that Founders trailer said something like this. “If we can take a clear passage that says ‘I do not permit a woman to teach” and turn it into something like ‘I do permit a woman to teach in certain cases,’ we have gotten to the point where anything goes. There is no stopping this thing.”

    He then goes on to criticize Rachel Dehollander, who – because she was a very real victim of Dr. Nassar when she was a gymnast – is getting away with pushing some very immoral standards on the church.

    Because of the experts she is encouraging us to trust, she has a particular standard that she is appealing to. And in that appeal there is a significant deviation from the scriptural standard. In a book that she contributed to, Becoming a Church that Cares Well, we find this statement:

    “Regardless of whether the victim wants to take steps to pursue safety, there are two powerful things you can do as a ministry leader. First you can believe the victim. ‘Innocence until proven guilty’ is the appropriate legal standard, but you are a ministry leader, not a judge or investigator”

    ……….
    Saying that we must believe the victim is actually saying that we must believe any person who claims to be the victim. But if the accusation is false, the actual victim is the one who was accused of a crime he did not commit. Now what?

    If a woman says that one of her pastors molested her five years before, and the pastor concerned hotly denies it, then what is the biblical standard for what you believe and don’t believe? You don’t believe the woman, and you don’t believe the pastor. You believe the evidence. Men sin and lie about it, and women sin and lie about it. You believe the evidence. And in the meantime, while you are gathering the evidence, the presumption of innocence lies with the accused.

    Clearly, Pastor Doug is willing to swim against the cultural current, and write about it clearly, and logically. Clearly, he’s willing to gore sacred cows, and take the heat for it. But there’s one sacred cow he won’t gore.

    It can’t be cowardice, otherwise he wouldn’t criticize a woman who actually was a victim, who is now victimizing men by denying them the presumption of innocence. Goring that sacred cow invites all kinds of slander – woman hater, defender of abusers, promoter of sexual abuse, etc. Why would anyone who gladly invites that slander be afraid to invite slander in other areas?

    I think it’s a blind spot. He just doesn’t see it.

    That’s not an excuse (he’s wrong and needs to repent), it’s a possible reason (cause and effect).

  42. Pindar says:

    Sorry:

    Stephen J. Shoemaker
    Mary in Early Christian Faith and Devotion

  43. They Call Me Tom says:

    I think Jesus was reminding Mary both of her place and his purpose. And that her wants were secondary to God’s purpose. Perhaps this is included in the Bible to disuade people from a faith in God that renders God a cosmic butler, when if anything, we are his butlers. Is that more Catholic? Orthodox? Protestant? Can’t sayI know.

    I don’t think Jesus God and the Holy Spirit are egalitarians as we understand the word. Everything for his purpose, everything and everyone a different part of that purpose. The idea of egalitarianism in essence being bourne out of human envy. The parable of the prodigal son an example. Jesus was probably clarifying the heirarchy of priorities to Mary, who had lost track of them. That all purposes are not equally important.

  44. GJ says:

    In general, Jesus teaches that many of our earthly assumptions about kingdoms are invalid with respect to His Kingdom.. In specific, as King He explicitly teaches more than once that having close biological relationship to him is of relatively little to zero significance.

    The second occasion is “As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd called out, “Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you.” He replied, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.”

    Mary had a special blessing for being the woman to bear the Messiah, only one woman could have had it. But that is not a higher blessing than that given to those who obey God.

    Again, “For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.” “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.”

  45. GJ says:

    And yet a woman is crowned in revelation…

    Israel.

    For those who are interested, how Marianism birthed western feminism was discussed in this comment thread.

  46. Pindar says:

    *GJ

    “In that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you”

    “I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me.”

    “If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness.”

    “I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me.”

    Just as these passages don’t make us God. Neither do your passages put us on a level with Mary.
    —————-
    Your comment thread does not address the prominence of Marian Devotion from the first few hundred years of the church.

  47. Pindar says:

    *GJ

    “In that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you”

    “I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me.”

    “If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness.”

    “I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me.”

    Just as these passages don’t make us God. Neither do your passages put us on a level with Mary.
    —————-
    Your comment thread does not address the prominence of Marian Devotion from the first few hundred years of the church.

  48. Pindar says:

    The Cathars & Courtly Love
    The Cathars (from the Greek for “pure ones”) were a religious sect which flourished in southern France – precisely in the regions of the courts of Eleanor and Marie – in the 12th century CE. The sect evolved from the earlier Bogomils of Bulgaria and adherents were popularly known as Albigensians because the town of Albi was their greatest religious center. The Cathars rejected the teachings of the Catholic Church on the grounds they were immoral and the clergy corrupt and hypocritical.

    Catharism was dualist – meaning they saw the world as divided between good (the spirit) and evil (the flesh) – and the Church was decidedly on the side of evil as the clergy was more devoted to earthly pleasures than spiritual pursuits, and the dogma emphasized the weight of sin over the hope of redemption. Cathars renounced the world, lived simply, and devoted themselves to helping others. The Cathar clergy were known as perfecti while adherents were called credentes. A third set of people were the sympathizers – those who remained nominally Catholic but supported Cathar communities and protected them from the Church.

    The Church suspected both Eleanor and Marie as sympathizers, and this suspicion was strengthened by the actions of Raymond VI, Count of Toulouse (r. 1194-1222 CE), Eleanor’s son-in-law, who was not only a Cathar sympathizer but secretly the Cathar bishop of his region. Raymond was the most ardent defender of the Cathars when the Church finally launched the Albigensian Crusade against Southern France in 1209 CE.

    The correlation between Catharism, Eleanor, and courtly love poetry is that this genre seems to appear out of nowhere at the same time Catharism is flourishing and Eleanor is holding her courts. This theory (advanced, primarily, by the scholar Denis de Rougemont in his Love in the Western World), highlights how one of the main tenets of Catharism was recognition of the female principle in the divine which they recognized as the goddess Sophia (wisdom) and how the core of the belief was dualist. The theory then claims that courtly love poetry was an allegory in which the damsel-in-distress was Sophia, held captive by the Catholic Church, and the brave knight was the Cathar whose duty was to liberate her.

    The lady symbolized good as spirit – and so the knight could never consummate his love for her – while the marriage she was trapped in, sanctified by the Church, symbolized the evil of the world. This theory is by no means universally accepted but it should be noted that there seems to be a direct correlation between the activities of the troubadours of southern France and the spread of Catharism in the 12th century CE.

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ancient.eu/amp/1-18065/

  49. Pindar says:

    Notice that the Cathars were a proto-protestant heretic sect

  50. GJ says:

    Just as these passages don’t make us God

    I didn’t say they did.

    Neither do your passages put us on a level with Mary.

    Again, my point is that Jesus does something that would be very shocking for an earthly king. He reduces to zero importance in His Kingdom being of close biological relation to him.

  51. Pindar says:

    Jesus did indeed do something that was shocking……..

    “Give Us This Day Our Supernatural Bread”

    Perhaps no words of Jesus are more well known than those found in the Lord’s Prayer, also known as the “Our Father.” These words are recorded in two places in the Gospels (Matthew Luke but their most familiar form is from the first Gospel:

    Our Father who art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.

    Thy kingdom come.

    Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.

    Give us this day our daily bread;

    And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us.

    And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.

    (MATTHEW 6:9-13)

    Although we could say a lot about the Lord’s Prayer as a whole, given our focus on the manna, we only need to ask two sets of questions: First, what is the object of the fourth petition, “Give us this day our daily bread”? What exactly was Jesus teaching the disciples to pray for? Was he simply telling them to pray for daily sustenance, to ask God the Father for ordinary food and drink? Or is something more going on here? Second, why did Jesus repeat himself in this line? Why not just say “Give us our daily bread” or “Give us this day our bread”? Why the redundancy? Why emphasize the daily nature of the bread the disciples are to ask for?

    It seems to me that the answer to these questions lies in the mysterious Greek word epiousios, which is used in this line of the prayer. Although most English versions translate this line as if the word “day” or “daily” occurred twice, in fact, it does not. The normal word for “day” in Greek is hemera. Behind the English word “daily” lies another word, found in both versions of the “Our Father.”

    “Give us this day our epiousios bread.” (MATTHEW 6: 11)

    “Give us each day our epiousios bread.” (LUKE 11: 3)

    What is the meaning of this word? What is this epiousios bread? Unfortunately for modern scholars, our ability to answer this question is plagued by two difficulties. First, we have no way of knowing if the Greek word epiousios is a translation of an original Hebrew or Aramaic expression, and, if so, exactly what that expression was. In light of this situation—as with most of the words of Jesus—the actual Greek text is probably as far back as we can reasonably go. Second, the word epiousios is what scholars call a neologism (a “new word”). It occurs for the first time in ancient Greek literature right here in the Lord’s Prayer. In later centuries, it will make its way into the writings of the early Church Fathers, but the word ultimately comes from the New Testament. This makes it difficult to be certain exactly what the word meant in its original context.

    For these reasons, scholars continue to debate the meaning of epiousios in the Lord’s Prayer, and have proosed a number of different translations. Some suggest that the word means “for the current time” (epi ten ousan). Others suggest that it means bread “for the coming” day (he epiousa). Both of these would be appealing, except that they aren’t what the Greek text actually says. Others suggest that the word means bread “for existence” (epi ousia). This is the best guess so far, since it is closest to the Greek, and has some strong advocates.

    However, I would argue that the most accurate (and ancient) translation is the one most often overlooked. If we break up the word into its two main parts and just translate it literally, this is what we find: (1) epi means “on, upon, or above,” and (2) ousia means “being, substance, or nature.” Put these two together and the meaning seems to be: “Give us this day our supernatural bread.” Indeed, among some ancient Christian writers, it was very common to translate the Greek word epiousios as literally as possible. In perhaps the most famous translation of the Lord’s Prayer ever made, in the fourth-century Latin Vulgate, Saint Jerome writes these words:

    Give us this day our supersubstantial bread.

    (MATTHEW 6: 11)

    What is the meaning of Jerome’s translation? He himself tells us elsewhere: the bread of the Lord’s Prayer is supersubstantial because “it is above all substances and surpasses all creatures.” In other words, it is supernatural. And Jerome is not alone in this understanding.

    Significantly, Saint Cyril, bishop ofJerusalem in the fourth century A.D., also says of the Lord’s Prayer: “Common bread is not supersubstantial, but this Holy Bread is supersubstantial” (Mystagogic Lectures, 23.15). Likewise, Saint Cyprian of Carthage, writing in the third century A.D., says in his treatise on the Lord’s Prayer that the bread Jesus speaks of is “heavenly bread,” the “food of salvation.”

    At this point you might be thinking, It’s all Greek to me! But it’s also all very important. If Jerome was right and the “Our Father” is a daily prayer for supernatural bread, then in a first-century Jewish context, it can only be referring to one thing: the new manna from heaven. While modern ears may miss the echoes of the Old Testament, any ancient Jew who heard a prayer for bread that was both daily and supernatural would have immediately thought of the manna of the exodus. This is especially true if the prayer for daily supernatural bread also mentioned the final coming of the “kingdom” of God (Matthew 6:10). Remember, on another occasion, Jesus commanded his disciples not to worry about earthly food—”what you shall eat” or “what you shall drink”—but to seek first the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 6:25—33; Luke 12:22—31). If everything else in the Lord’s Prayer is focused on things spiritual, things “in heaven,” then it makes good sense to say the same of the mysterious epiousios bread.

    In sum, the hope for the new manna from heaven stands at the very center of the Lord’s Prayer, the one prayer that we know Jesus taught to his disciples. Before his disciples were to ask for anything else for themselves— the forgiveness of their trespasses, protection from temptation, or deliverance from evil—they were to ask first for the new manna of the new exodus, the supersubstantial daily bread. By instructing his disciples to say each day, “Give us this day our supernatural bread,” Jesus taught them to ask God for the miraculous food that the Messiah himself would give them during their journey to the new promised land. As the Anglican New Testament scholar N. T. Wright put it in his comments on the Lord’s Prayer:

    Manna was not needed in Egypt. Nor would it be needed in the promised land. It is the food of inaugurated eschatology, the food that is needed because the kingdom has already broken in and because it is not yet consummated. The daily provision of manna signals that the Exodus has begun, but also that we are not yet living in the land.

    It should go without saying that if this was the meaning Jesus intended for the “Our Father,” then he saw himself as the Jewish Messiah who would once again rain down the new manna from heaven.

    Jesus’ Bread of Life Sermon in the Synagogue

    By far the most explicit reference to the Jewish hope for the new manna occurs in one of Jesus’ most famous and most controversial teachings: the so-called bread of life discourse (John 6:35—58). According to the Fourth Gospel, this teaching was given in the synagogue at Capernaum, a small village in Galilee. Anyone familiar with the centuries-old

    debate over how Jesus understood the Last Supper also knows that this particular sermon stands at the very heart of the controversy. For this is where he uttered the words with which we began our investigation:

    Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. (JOHN 6: 53—55)

    What could Jesus possibly have meant by saying such things? Was he speaking literally, or only symbolically? How did he think he was able to give others his flesh and blood to eat and drink?

    In order to answer these questions, we need to not only pay close attention to the words ofJesus but also to interpret those words in their original context. When we do this, we discover something very important: namely, the whole context ofJesus’ bread of life discourse is centered on the Jewish hopes for the coming of a new Moses and the return of the manna from heaven.

  52. GJ says:

    Notice that the Cathars were a proto-protestant heretic sect

    Gnostic.

    courtly love poetry is that this genre seems to appear out of nowhere …

    …after the bridal mysticism of Bernard’s, as noted at Cane’s.

    The acceptance of courtly love in medieval times occurred together with a growing cult of Mary in the twelfth and thirteenth century.

  53. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    GJ: And yet a woman is crowned in revelation…

    Israel.

    Israel?

    I believe it’s the New Israel, i.e., the Church.

  54. GJ says:

    Wonderful, a wall of text of distraction. Doesn’t change the fact that in Jesus’ Kingdom there is no significance for close biological relationship to him. This was clearly taught by Him.

  55. So you are saying that even if Jesus was unchivalrous it wouldn’t matter either way for Catholics or Protestants since that isn’t a problem anyway?

  56. Pindar says:

    And he said to this disciple, “Here is your mother.”

    One his last teachings. Must be pretty important.

    I recommend reading about catharism and the origins of courtly love above…

    Also, more importantly, what the ‘our father’ actually means in greek.

    If you can handle the text

  57. Pindar says:

    You missed some. “The cathar sect evolved from the earlier Bogomils of Bulgaria”

    Long before Bernard

  58. Pindar says:

    Mary in Early Christian Faith and Devotion
    Front Cover
    Stephen J. Shoemaker
    Yale University Press,

    For the first time a noted historian of Christianity explores the full story of the emergence and development of the Marian cult in the early Christian centuries. The means by which Mary, mother of Jesus, came to prominence have long remained strangely overlooked despite, or perhaps because of, her centrality in Christian devotion. Gathering together fresh information from often neglected sources, including early liturgical texts and Dormition and Assumption apocrypha, Stephen Shoemaker reveals that Marian devotion played a far more vital role in the development of early Christian belief and practice than has been previously recognized, finding evidence that dates back to the latter half of the second century. Through extensive research, the author is able to provide a fascinating background to the hitherto inexplicable “explosion” of Marian devotion that historians and theologians have pondered for decades, offering a wide-ranging study that challenges many conventional beliefs surrounding the subject of Mary, Mother of God.

  59. GJ says:

    And he said to this disciple, “Here is your mother. One his last teachings. Must be pretty important.

    Handing off the earthly responsibility to a particular man.

    I recommend reading about catharism and the origins of courtly love above…

    Go read about how the rise in courtly love paralleled the rise in the medieval cult of Mary.

    Also, more importantly, what the ‘our father’ actually means in greek.

    A transparent distraction from this discussion.

    You missed some. “The cathar sect evolved from the earlier Bogomils of Bulgaria”

    …that was derived from proto-gnosticism in the first century. This is irrelevant.

  60. GJ says:

    I believe it’s the New Israel, i.e., the Church.

    The woman gives birth to Christ, which to me indicates that it can’t be the Church.

  61. Pindar says:

    I’ve already read all your sources

    “Through extensive research, the author is able to provide a fascinating background to the hitherto inexplicable “explosion” of Marian devotion that historians and theologians have pondered for decades”

  62. Pindar says:

    “I believe it’s the New Israel, i.e., the Church.

    The woman gives birth to Christ, which to me indicates that it can’t be the Church.”

    Exactly. The woman who gives birth to Christ is crowned!

    The mother of the King’s of Israel are crowned!

    Jesus is descended from David.

    Biological links are VERY important in the Bible

  63. A Portuguese Man says:

    I humbly suggest to GJ and others like him, to come visit the deep rural Europe of Portugal, Spain, France or Italy – we too, have our “flyover country” – and see for themselves what the devotion and, more importantly, the devoted of Our Lady actually look like.

    We do not all live in castles or burgeois flats, or even nice houses in the prairie with a porch, nor are we colonists in the New World perhaps infatuated with the superficial aspects of Old World culture…

    To pretend that courtly love has had a determinant effect on the popular devotion of Our Lady, after Whom we have countless and countless toponyms that stubbornly remained even after the republican and jacobin Terror ravaged those lands with it’s “systems” and “progress” is simply to know nothing of the actual reality.

  64. GJ says:

    I’ve already read all your sources

    Please then describe to me when courtly love arose, and with important milestones how the medieval cult of Mary grew during the same time period.

    “Through extensive research, the author is able to provide a fascinating background to the hitherto inexplicable “explosion” of Marian devotion that historians

    What is this background other than the obvious? That in Mary there is the combination of very strong cultic archetypes, the virgin goddess, the mother goddess, and the queen (of heaven) goddess?

  65. GJ says:

    To pretend that courtly love has had a determinant effect on the popular devotion of Our Lady,

    To clarify, my position is that the growth in the medieval Mary cult with Bernard and others was one major cause of courtly love. Not the other way around.

  66. Pindar says:

    What is this background?

    That Catholic belief in Mary as mother of God, Queen of heaven and her veneration origonate from the very beginning. Long long before courtly love.

  67. GJ says:

    The original and whole point is that Mary is the pedastalised woman, and pedestalisation of her led to pedestalisation of other women.

    Long long before courtly love

    Precisely.

  68. Pindar says:

    To clarify, my position is that the growth in the medieval Mary cult with Bernard and others was one major cause of courtly love. Not the other way around.

    The Bogomils had the same belief as the cathar and were present before Bernard.

    To clarify, my position is that Marian devotion and cults of Mary were present in the church from the very beginning. And so cannot be primarily responsible for courtly love.

  69. Pindar says:

    Courtly love coinsided with the cathars and bogomils.

    But not with Marian devotion

  70. GJ says:

    The Bogomils had the same belief as the cathar and were present before Bernard.

    You just argued that ‘Catholic belief in Mary as mother of God, Queen of heaven and her veneration origonate from the very beginning’. Presumably that means that the veneration of Mary predates the Bogomils.

  71. GJ says:

    And so cannot be primarily responsible for courtly love.

    And why is this impossible? The veneration of Mary precedes the veneration of the other women. Exactly my point. Veneration of Mary made it permissible to pedestalise other woman.

  72. Pindar says:

    “Presumably that means that the veneration of Mary predates the Bogomils”

    The Catholics predated the prodestants. That doesn’t make them protestants. The Catholic Church thought a Crusade against cathars and pronounced them and the bogomils heritics

  73. GJ says:

    Courtly love coinsided with the cathars and bogomils.

    But not with Marian devotion

    Older Marian pedestalisation was the basis of further developments by Bernard and others. And these further developments were concurrent with the birth of courtly love.

    The theory then claims that courtly love poetry was an allegory in which the damsel-in-distress was Sophia, held captive by the Catholic Church, and the brave knight was the Cathar whose duty was to liberate her.

    A very big stretch. How on earth one read de Amore that way is astonishing.

    The rise of courtly love is perfectly accounted for by the rise in medieval Marianism, and does not require a highly dubious allegorative reading of de Amore (“It’s no longer about sex and lust, it’s about hidden Sophia and…”)

  74. Pindar says:

    “And so cannot be primarily responsible for courtly love.

    And why is this impossible? The veneration of Mary precedes the veneration of the other women. Exactly my point. Veneration of Mary made it permissible to pedestalise other woman.”

    Veneration of female Saints are also at the very very beginning of the church. So cannot be responsible for courtly love otherwise it would have happened a thousand years sooner.

  75. Pindar says:

    Not such a big stretch considering the audience were cathars.

  76. GJ says:

    So cannot be responsible for courtly love otherwise it would have happened a thousand years sooner.

    There weren’t knights a thousand years earlier. What we actually know of is Bernard and others elevating Marianism even higher, and shortly after that the rise in courtly love. What we do not have any evidence for is a dubious (to put it mildly) rereading of de Amore.

    Not such a big stretch considering the audience were cathars.

    The audience were horny men and women who should have known better. This nonsensical allegorical rereading that is merely a stupid academic novelty for novelty’s sake.

  77. Pindar says:

    GJ

    Sorry but, horny men and trubidores generally don’t spend their time reading works by benidictine monks.

  78. Pindar says:

    The most famous poet of the trobar leu was Bernart de Ventadorn. The trobar clus regularly escapes modern scholarly interpretation. Words are commonly used metaphorically and symbolically and what a poem appears to be about on its surface is rarely what is intended by the poet or understood by audiences “in the know”.

  79. GJ says:

    Sorry but, horny men and trubidores generally don’t spend their time reading works by benidictine monks.

    On Bernard, “So great was his reputation that princes and Popes sought his advice…” He had massive influence.

    The most famous poet of the trobar leu was Bernart de Ventadorn. The trobar clus regularly escapes modern scholarly interpretation. Words are commonly used metaphorically and symbolically and what a poem appears to be about on its surface is rarely what is intended by the poet or understood by audiences “in the know”

    Finish the logic. Does de Amore belong to trobar clus or trobar leu? Or trobar ric?

  80. OscarWildeLoveChild says:

    Dalrock, the whole Josh Harris thing isn’t on your radar? Curious what your take is. I have seen him preach live a few times, and the last time I did, I told my wife “this guy won’t be a preacher in about five years”, that was about 5-6 years ago.

    Take a look at pics of his wife now. Looks pretty clear what’s going on and where this is going. (Hint: Peter Pan haircut).

  81. Novaseeker says:

    Take a look at pics of his wife now. Looks pretty clear what’s going on and where this is going. (Hint: Peter Pan haircut).

    If you look around the internet, she’s had that haircut since at least 2012. Nothing new. Classic “mom hair”.

    The new development is her rekindled music career. That’s new, but the haircut isn’t.

  82. Anonymous Reader says:

    OscarWildeLoveChild
    Dalrock, the whole Josh Harris thing isn’t on your radar?

    It’s been discussed in comments. Perhaps Dalrock regards that as sufficient.

    NovaSeeker
    The new development is her rekindled music career.

    There’s obviously some unhaaaaapiness associated, one way or another.

  83. A Portuguese Man says:

    GJ,

    Noted.

    The original and whole point is that Mary is the pedastalised woman, and pedestalisation of her led to pedestalisation of other women.

    How do you reconcile this statement with, say, the example of Helen of Troy?

    Your whole point stretches so thin one cannot help but to discount it as pure sectarianism.

    Your arguments seem to imply that the idealisation of women, wether sublime or base, the whole lot, wholly and originally comes from this cult *you* have deemed heretic in nature.

  84. Anonymous Reader says:

    For any interested in Josh Harris, Deep Strength has a couple of thoughts here:

    https://deepstrength.wordpress.com/2019/07/26/joshua-harris-divorces/

  85. A Portuguese Man says:

    One can just as easily, in fact much more easily, make the argument that this so called pedestalisation of women is a burgeois macaquerie of the aristocratic ritual intrigue of yore, which was very definitely kept in the courts and abodes of such people, which did not mingle with the people, until said burgeois took power and proceeded to freely emulate such behaviour and spread it to the masses with, and for, their money, market, “systems” and “progress”.

    The people, as in what we, over here, call the people – which is not everyone – does not have founding fathers, is not made of consumers, and has certainly never spelled, or even wanted to spell, by the way, a single letter of any constitution, had not “pedestalized” women until such behaviour was forced down their throats by mass media.

    It seems to me you fundamentally ignore the reality of popular Catholicism. And even though I know next to nothing about it, I’d be willing to wager Orthodox Christianity too.

  86. Scott says:

    Orthodox Christianity is so obscure in America that in the wedding scene for “my big fat Greek wedding,” they had to add the Lohengrin bridal chorus so American audiences could connect with it.

    (You will never hear this in an orthodox wedding. It’s not part of the rite and strictly out of bounds)

  87. P says:

    The douay rheims and a some others translate John 2:4 as “how does that concern us” basically. The douay rheims says “what is that to me or to thee” which doesn’t have the same tenor as “what do I have to do with you.”

  88. OscarWildeLoveChild says:

    Thanks for the link to DeepStrength, was unaware of the site until now. Some interesting comments.

  89. Paul says:

    @RPL For some odd reason, Protestants think it’s fine to ask a friend to pray for him, but strange to ask Mary or a saint in Heaven to pray for him.

    Well maybe because you can go and see a friend to ask him, but cannot long-distance ‘pray’ to him to ask him to pray for you? So how would it be possible to long-distance ‘pray’ to deceased persons? They are not gods that they are omniscient or omnipresent and can hear prayers directed at them by thousands of people at the same time from all over the world that can cross the barrier between this life and the afterlife. Or billions in the case of Mary.

    Not that odd a reason at all. But if you somehow insist that this is what Christians should do, please show it to me from the clear recorded instructions of the apostles, which God has left us for instruction.

  90. Paul says:

    … and another reason that it is not that odd, is that Scripture clearly and repeatedly forbids to consult with deceased persons, even calls that detestable to God. Why should that be any different for deceased Christians?

    We have ONE intercessor and mediator to God the Father for us: our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have access to the Father, and the Holy Spirit to “helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans.” (Rom 8:26) But even non-Christians can directly ask the Father: “how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!” (Luk 11:13) and “And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.” (Heb 11:6)

  91. Novaseeker says:

    The devolution here into relitigating the Reformation is tiresome folks. You all very well know that no-one on either side will be convinced. It isn’t the purpose of this website, was explicitly stated by the blog host as not being the purpose of the post (which has not been discussed even remotely as much in this thread as Catholic/Protestant Reformation-era disagreements that are fundamentally insoluble). Shame.

  92. Anonymous Reader says:

    OscarWildeLoveChild
    Thanks for the link to DeepStrength, was unaware of the site until now.

    You’re welcome. His site is a part of the manosphere that deserves attention and careful reading.
    Are you aware he has published a book on Christian marriage? I recommend it to all young men, regardless of their religious status, because he has written well with a clear pair of The Glasses on.

  93. Paul says:

    @Novaseeker

    Dalrock has shown how modern feminism had its precursor in chivalry. He even discusses how red pill Jesus was. It’s fully on topic to discuss the veneration/pedestalization of Mary as precursor to chivalry, especially in this post. Whether you’re Protestant, Roman Catholic or otherwise is irrelevant. I think Protestant/Evangelical Christianity already has had its fair share of bashing due to its deviant teaching regarding incorporating feminist ideas, so let’s not shy away from being equally critical of such tendencies in Roman Catholicy/Eastern Orthodoxy.

  94. Scott says:

    Nova

    Agreed. Right now I’m watching the 80s police helicopter action film “Blue Thunder” which is way cooler than re-arguing the entire Protestant reformation.

  95. wihte says:

    @Nova

    If there is chivalry in-built into any denomination then sooner or later the Christian Manosphere will have to tackle it anyway.

  96. vandicus says:

    Nobody in heaven is dead. The saints(which is by definition any human in heaven) clearly do pray per Revelations. Canonization is contingent on miraculous interactions. The first intercessor noted in the Bible is quite obviously Abraham, and it is indicated time and again that we are to intercede(pray) for one another. Catholics very often pray together across time and space, we are after all of one body in Christ. But this can hardly be considered controversial in comparison to our belief that “unless you eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of Man, you have no life in you.” It would seem to me that those who deny the miracles given to us tend to run chasing after signs and the like.

    On the topic of pedalization, it would be patently absurd for women to compare themselves to Mary, her circumstances are pretty unique. The correlation between feminism and Protestantism or Catholicism doesn’t seem to indicate any relation with Catholicism. If anything, in the first world it is the least Catholic countries which tend to be the most feminist/chivalrous. Moreover, logically speaking, shouldn’t the abundance of male saints and apostles have a corresponding effect regarding men if veneration leads to elevation of a gender? Veneration of the saints is ultimately a humbling experience. It is very easy for a man to become puffed up when he does not spend much time considering the superior qualities of those who have come before us.

  97. Anonymous Reader says:

    @vandicus

    What do you suppose that whooshing sound over your head might be?

    HINT: Not a helicopter…

  98. Don Quixote says:

    Jesus called the Canaanite woman a ‘dog’ because it was a Jewish name for gentiles and the ungodly. See Psalm 22:16

  99. GJ says:

    How do you reconcile this statement with, say, the example of Helen of Troy?

    The case of Helen is simple. A steals B’s wife, so B gets friends to help kill A. No pedestalisation, just a quarrel over ownership.

    Your arguments seem to imply that the idealisation of women, wether sublime or base, the whole lot, wholly and originally comes from this cult *you* have deemed heretic in nature.

    I have also implied that the cult of Mary evolved from pagan cults.

    The people, as in what we, over here, call the people – which is not everyone – does not have founding fathers, is not made of consumers, and has certainly never spelled, or even wanted to spell, by the way, a single letter of any constitution, had not “pedestalized” women until such behaviour was forced down their throats by mass media.

    I’ve already addressed this point above, in response to imnobody00. These two cults of the feminine are rivals, so where the cult of Mary is strong the other is weak.

  100. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Portuguese Man: How do you reconcile this statement with, say, the example of Helen of Troy?

    I don’t think Homer pedestalized Helen. Paris might have. And perhaps Helen’s husband (whose name I can’t spell offhand). But those are characters in the book, not the author’s point of view.

    Helen doesn’t come across as idealized to me. She seems vain and shallow. And the Greek and Trojan men aren’t fighting over Helen. They’re fighting to avenge their honor, or to uphold their alliances, etc. And the gods have their own ulterior motives for backing one side or the other.

  101. GJ says:

    Paul:
    It’s fully on topic to discuss the veneration/pedestalization of Mary as precursor to chivalry, especially in this post. Whether you’re Protestant, Roman Catholic or otherwise is irrelevant.

    At some point the issue has to be addressed. You can’t thoroughly address the pedestalisation of women without addressing the pedestalisation of that one woman.

    vandicus:

    Moreover, logically speaking, shouldn’t the abundance of male saints and apostles have a corresponding effect regarding men if veneration leads to elevation of a gender?

    What is the point of this statement? You know well that Mary is attributed a much higher status than all other saints.

  102. Opus says:

    If my memory is correct; in The Odyssey, Helen who is by that time married to Menelaus, says of her former self that she was a shameless hussy.

  103. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Helen was married to Menelaus even before she ran off with Paris. She was worse than a mere hussy. She was an adulteress. (But seeing as even Zeus, king of gods, committed adultery on a regular basis, Helen’s behavior was scandalous, but hardly shocking.)

  104. A Portuguese Man says:

    If starting a war over a woman – which happens to be described as the most beautiful in the world, probably meaning “of all times”, which herself was said to be promised by a goddess(!), isn’t pedestalizing her, I don’t think we will find much in the way of agreement.

    GJ,

    You seem to be dominated by a tendency to a simplistic framing of reality: weak/strong, punish/reward, plomo o plata. Maybe it’s an effect of the boundless horizons of the New World.

    I’ve referred before the example of the woman saints, which are popularly venerated in no way differently of the male saints by anyone. No one talks or thinks more of them because of their being woman.

    More importantly, no one praises them for being closer to Mary, but rather for being closer to Jesus.

    Were you aware of this?

  105. BillyS says:

    Asking a friend to pray for you is far different than asking Mary, if you believe what some here claim to believe. Jesus always has to do what Mary asks, if she is the “Queen of Heaven” or some exalted state. Your friend does not have that role.

    The only references I see to the “Queen of Heaven” are not good, though I do take what is Written more seriously than tradition, so what do I know?

    Venerating Mary, at least if that means what most people think, is definitely not right. She is not and never will be God. She should be honored for the role she played and her own obedient response in spite of many tall hurdles, but she should not be venerated.

    I know it is listed as “honor” at https://infogalactic.com/info/Veneration but I don’t see that in the way most people approach her.

    She wasn’t even mentioned in the Hall of Faith in the Book of Hebrews unless I am missing something. She probably was the one referred to in 2 John for those interested. Jesus saying, “behold your mother” was to John, not the other disciples nor anyone else.

    Believe what you want, but Jesus is the only One to whom every knee will bow and every tongue confess He is Lord.

  106. BillyS says:

    Vandicus (and others): Nothing in the Bible clearly states that those on Earth can directly contact those who are not. The implications go against it, but nothing in the positive supports it so the more logical thing is to believe it doesn’t happen.

    God turns on the “movie screen” view of the Earth in part of the Book of Revelation so those there can watch, but nothing indicates they pray for specific individuals, just for general righteousness to come about. Many under the throne got there from being martyred too, so their prayer almost certainly arises from that, given the context of who is praying for justice.

    Please cite specific verses if you want to claim otherwise.

    Though the RCC made all of Revelation figurative once they became in charge of things, so holding it too literally definitely goes against their view. I assume the Orthodox Church is close, but I have no idea for sure.

  107. wodansthane says:

    How did we get to the point that we think that we need to explain and justify the words of Christ. Everything He said and did is our model for appropriate behavior in all situations. Good grief.

  108. Pindar says:

    @BillyS on August 4, 2019 at 7:46 am
    Vandicus (and others): Nothing in the Bible clearly states that those on Earth can directly contact those who are not.”

    Didnt Jesus himself teach us to pray the our father?
    Don’t you pray to Jesus?

  109. Scott says:

    There was this one time when I read a comment in a blog post that made me completely re-think my entire worldview, my relationship to Christ, what the “church” is, how to understand tradition, who and what saints are, what a sacrament is, and how to interact with the sacred texts.

  110. Lost Patrol says:

    There was this one time when I read a comment in a blog post that made me completely re-think my entire worldview, my relationship to Christ, what the “church” is, how to understand tradition, who and what saints are, what a sacrament is, and how to interact with the sacred texts.

    Amen.

  111. GJ says:

    If starting a war over a woman – which happens to be described as the most beautiful in the world, probably meaning “of all times”, which herself was said to be promised by a goddess(!), isn’t pedestalizing her, I don’t think we will find much in the way of agreement.

    As you hail from the rural areas from the ‘Old World’, it’s surprising you don’t comprehend the demands of honour, as Red Pill Latecomer mentioned.

    I’ve referred before the example of the woman saints, which are popularly venerated in no way differently of the male saints by anyone. No one talks or thinks more of them because of their being woman.

    I’m reaching the stage where I have to repeat myself: “What is the point of this statement? You know well that Mary is attributed a much higher status than all other saints.”

  112. GJ says:

    There was this one time when I read a comment in a blog post…

    For those of us who have more to contribute than snark, there is an interesting question to ponder:

    Is Mary the ‘Queen of Heaven’? If she actually is, then she deserves the title. If not, she is pedestalised.

  113. GJ says:

    BillyS:

    I know it is listed as “honor” at https://infogalactic.com/info/Veneration but I don’t see that in the way most people approach her.

    Yes, de jure it’s all aboveboard. As we all know, de facto many treat her as a goddess.

  114. Scott says:

    GJ

    You’re new around here so I’ll cut you some slack on your ignorant foolishness that all I contribute is “snark”

    Have you helped any men improve their lives lately? Their marriages? Under what name did you did so?

  115. Anonymous Reader says:

    GJ
    For those of us who have more to contribute than snark, there is an interesting question to ponder:

    Is Mary the ‘Queen of Heaven’?

    What does that have to do with the original essay by Dalrock? The essay that included this text:

    I’ll reiterate that my intent here isn’t to poke at the Protestant Catholic divide.

    Reading is fundamental…why are you poking at the divide in question?

  116. Scott says:

    AR

    I’m just amused at the snark thing.

    Even my most vociferous detractors around here know what I’m about.

    Yes, I offer levity when I think it’s appropriate or needed.

    But my wife and I have worked tirelessly as individuals and as a team to create a sense of hope that somewhere out there is a normal
    Christian hierarchical marriage with a couple who care about men.

    A cursory glance at my website, or the archived ones I have authored or the nearly a decade of activity in the manoshere bears this out.

    The venue for discussing whether or not Mary is the queen of heaven is elsewhere.

  117. Eric M says:

    The sarcasm is about as productive as the denomination squabbles. If you are trying to discourage their fruitless arguing at least do it from a genuine approach.

    I for one *HAVE* had blog post comments cause me to considerably rethink my world view – particularly Dalrock’s when I was decently into the bluepill mindset. I had heard people say that women shouldn’t be allowed to vote but I assumed they were just online trolls, or bitter/angry/unsuccessful men just lashing out. But after seeing mature, non-sarcastic, explanations (and statistics!) about how women vote for themselves over their family, their lack of cause-and-effect, and the high-impulsivity it caused me to change my position on it, and that is a HUGE position to change IMO. Children, animals, and the mentally disabled are disenfranchised from the right to vote, but we still protect, care for, provide, treat them with dignity, and even sacrifice our own comforts for their well-being. There is nothing offensive about treating women the same way.

    For the on-topicness, it appears to have gone particularly downhill when Imnobody00 strutted in like a pigeon knocking over the chess pieces declaring absurd falsehoods about ‘Protestant countries’ and ‘Catholic countries’. There is no such thing as a Protestant country, the only theocracies in the entire world are primarily Islamic, and the Vatican which is still subject to international law. One may also put forth a strong argument that the Vatican’s behavior is not a shining example of what Catholicism should be but we can leave that alone. Some of the highest % Protestant countries are places like Liberia, Zambia, and obscure tropical islands that don’t even have 5-digit populations. These are no more ‘Protestant countries’ in practice than my turkey sandwich is a Protestant lunch, perhaps nominally at best.

    I feel Dalrock and some of the commentors struck to the heart of the matter when they spoke of how both denominations will find different ways to apologize for Christ’s words and actions because they may offend women in modern times. Is it truly the infestation of chivalrous culture. I still don’t fully understand how this weird subculture akin to cuckoldry fetishism managed to take such deep root in the mainstream culture. Perhaps the appeals to honor for men?

  118. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    BillyS: Jesus always has to do what Mary asks, if she is the “Queen of Heaven” or some exalted state.

    Jesus doesn’t have to do what Mary asks. He wants to.

    And Jesus outranks the Queen of Heaven. Mary’s position ranks below the Trinity.

  119. Anonymous Reader says:

    Eric M
    I still don’t fully understand how this weird subculture akin to cuckoldry fetishism managed to take such deep root in the mainstream culture. Perhaps the appeals to honor for men?

    Semi wild guess: it’s entangled with the “church of Nice”, which has been a thing at least in the US since 1950, and perhaps earlier – 1920? Earlier – 1870? “Church of Nice” is part of the feminization of the churches, for sure.

    Very wild guess: the current “church of nice” is in some ways a reaction to the world war (World War 1.0 and 2.0) in the first half of the 20th century. It didn’t roll in all at once, though. Looking at the runup to War 1.0 there was a great deal of enthusiasm for it, everyone was going to march out into a glorious neo-Napoleonic series of battles, only to come home before the leaves fall. There was a lot of unity from the elites down to shopkeepers, farmers and factory workers. When events turned far away from this romantic, grand illusion plenty of people just chucked everything – bathwater, washcloth, little yellow duckies, etc. — all of it was found wanting in a giant “guilt by association” event.

    Or maybe i”m just free-associating…

    However I will stand by the idea that in the current year, Church of Nice and chivalry of the “My Lord Mary Lee” kind are intertwined very deeply. Can’t cut one away without hacking at the other. Perhaps that’s why there’s such a doubling-down in some churches on the whole “Jesus, My Besty!” concept?

  120. Random Angeleno says:

    There was a thread over at Vox Day awhile back regarding the tendency of Christians to prioritize shooting each other over standing together to face the existential threats from the globalists and the Muslims.

    I am a Catholic. I would much prefer the non-Catholic Christians to have my back when the real shooting starts than to find myself unable to trust them. The time to discuss doctrinal differences is definitely not today, definitely not this year. If you believe in Jesus and Western Civilization, the rest is just details. Save ’em for later.

  121. GJ says:

    Anonymous Reader:

    Reading is fundamental

    Yes, reading is fundamental. He was clarifying his intent behind his posted words.

    Scott:

    The venue for discussing whether or not Mary is the queen of heaven is elsewhere.

    On the contrary, as I have already said, how can the issue of women being pedestalised in the West ever be thoroughly addressed if the questions about Mary are not?

  122. GJ says:

    Anonymous Reader:

    Semi wild guess: it’s entangled with the “church of Nice”, which has been a thing at least in the US since 1950, and perhaps earlier – 1920? Earlier – 1870? “Church of Nice” is part of the feminization of the churches, for sure.

    ‘Niceness’ is a core part of the demasculinisation of Christianity, which is old. The seeds were planted by bridal mysticism of the Middle Ages. And the key figure there is (wait for it) Bernard of Clairvaux, again.

  123. GJ says:

    There was a thread over at Vox Day awhile back regarding the tendency of Christians to prioritize shooting each other over standing together to face the existential threats from the globalists and the Muslims.

    I am a Catholic. I would much prefer the non-Catholic Christians to have my back when the real shooting starts than to find myself unable to trust them.

    If Protestants discussing typical Protestant beliefs makes you distrust them, well, what can I say?

    You do realise that if you actually get what you wish, increasingly nationalistic/tribal-like and Christian societies, that there is a good chance of interdenominational conflict reasrising?

    Sure, there are serious short-term problems. But we don’t have to put all our focus on them; not all of them are treated in this blog, for example. And there is plenty of attention there, plenty of people talking about them. Personally, I’m more interested in exploring the older and deeper issues.

  124. Paul says:

    @Pindar Nothing in the Bible clearly states that those on Earth can directly contact those who are not.” Didn’t Jesus himself teach us to pray the our father? Don’t you pray to Jesus?

    The context was of course talking about deceased humans. The exact point is that ONLY GOD by His very nature is able to be prayed TO, because of his omniscience and omnipresence. NO HUMAN has these properties and hence NO HUMAN can be prayed TO. We can ask humans to pray TO God for us, or to pray TO God together with us, but that’s it.

    And if praying TO humans is not possible — deceased or not –, than the whole point of intercessory prayer either to deceased saints or to Mary — deceased or not — becomes something impossible, and therefore absurd, even heretical.

    I would say it’s a pretty important point. The whole concept of veneration of Mary centers not around some abstract consideration on her works and her position, but specifically focuses on praying TO Mary. Therefore for all practical purposes she is elevated to the position of goddess due to an attributed ability of omniscience and omnipresence to simultaneously listen to prayers of billions of humans, responding to such prayers, and interceding with Jesus.

    It is exactly this elevated position of a (semi-)goddess that reflects the mindset of the believer that has pedestalized her. It needs to be discussed, like it or not.

    First of all, there is NOTHING in the gospels or the epistles that REQUIRES praying to Mary to be able to be saved, or to lead a good Christian live. And if it is NOT required, then WHY did Christians feel the necessity to elevate Mary to such a position?

    Behind such behavior are deeper emotions and attitudes that are worth to dig into in the context of this blog.

    And no, that is not an attack on the RCC nor the OC, but it probably goes against some fundamental dogmas in these churches. So be it.

  125. Anonymous Reader says:

    Free associating again:
    Trabzon / Trebizond is a city on the Black Sea coast in eastern Turkey. It was probably founded by Greek traders from Sinope in 756 BC. Lots of history. Marco Polo caught a westbound ship there.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trabzon

    This caught my eye for some reason.

    The Black Death arrived at the city late 1346, probably via Kaffa. At that time the local aristocracy was engaged in the Trapezuntine Civil War.

    Probably just free associating again. Never mind.

  126. Anonymous Reader says:

    GJ
    Personally, I’m more interested in exploring the older and deeper issues.

    Those could be great topics for essays on your own blog.

  127. GJ says:

    Some other day, maybe. Currently I get sufficient critical engagement for my ideas by commenting at various place in the tradsphere. If my comments happen to help others, even better.

    In this case, a scriptural refutation of Mary as ‘Queen of Heaven’ – which succeeded marvellously. On to the next idea.

  128. Pindar says:

    @ “First of all, there is NOTHING in the gospels or the epistles that REQUIRES praying to Mary to be able to be saved, or to lead a good Christian live. And if it is NOT required, then WHY did Christians feel the necessity to elevate Mary to such a position?“

    While you may not agree with it. The Catholic position is that God placed her. If God chooses something then its his choice.

    Interestingly, St Bernard, St Aquinas, St Bonaventure and many other theologians in the west were against the doctrine of the immaculate conception. While the Eastern Christians held it from the beginning and referred to her as pre-pure. Yet courtly love didn’t develop there. The Ethiopian orthodox hold that position and they are far more patriarichical than western Christians.

    Revelation 5.8
    If we can pray to the saints in heaven then how can they offer our prayers to God?

  129. Anonymous Reader says:

    GJ
    Some other day, maybe.

    Soon?

    Currently I get sufficient critical engagement for my ideas by commenting trolling for flames on other people’s blogs at various place in the tradsphere.

    FIFY.

    In this case, a scriptural refutation of Mary as ‘Queen of Heaven’ – which succeeded marvellously.

    So you admit that all you wanted was to threadjack, to revive the endless and pointless inter-denominational disagreements & thereby distract from the original topic?

    Thanks for the honesty, I guess.

    On to the next idea.

    Perhaps you could troll for flames somewhere else?

  130. TheTraveler says:

    Arguing about Mary’s theoligical status is a lot like the US and Britain ignoring Nazi Germany to fight about “who was right” in 1776.

    It doesn’t matter. As someone else mentioned, it’s Christians against the godless hordes. The hordes worship a deity whom many regard as a cleverly-disguised Satan. So…

    Big Picture: we must defeat the hordes. They regard us all–anyone who calls himself a Christian–as The Enemy, to be destroyed. These silly theological arguments won’t matter if Christendom is largely wiped out.

    Think about that.

  131. GJ says:

    Anonymous Reader :

    *can’t beat the argument, accuse of trolling/flaming*

    FTFY, that’s all you can manage.

    TheTraveler:

    Big Picture: we must defeat the hordes.

    Bigger picture: there were hordes, are hordes and there will always be hordes. Something more insidious and more dangerous is the survival of ancient cultic strains within Christendom.

    If you’re not convinced of the importance of the past, fine, we can talk about something other than Mary. Why are most churches demasculinised? The cause is centuries old, the medieval bridal mysticism where Jesus is the individual believer’s lover or boyfriend in modern terms. Naturally, that repels men.

    Understanding this centuries-old tradition will help you fight it – and this is necessary because demasculinised churches are ill-equipped to oppose hordes.

  132. GJ says:

    If you want to fight against the extremely strong cultural current and remasculinise churches, you need to understand why and how it was demasculinised. It’s simply a fundamental requirement.

    And the answer lies in the dusty past.

  133. info says:

    Courtly love probably exploited the vulnerability posed by marian practices. Which resulted in the pedestalization of women.

    The ethiopian orthodox and eastern orthodox were lucky to have escaped this cultural tidal wave. Because that could have similarly reacted with their marian cults to produce this cuckoldry.

  134. info says:

    Here is what happens when marian devotion reacts with the culture of the west since 12th century:

    Women being venerated as counterparts to the holy virgin.
    https://gynocentrism.com/2017/01/02/mariolatry-and-gynolatry-1897/

    https://gynocentrism.com/2018/03/07/the-virgin-mary-chivalry-gynocentrism-feminism-1897/

  135. info says:

    As a result of this view women became viewed as immaculated conceived and pure.

  136. Anonymous Reader says:

    GJ
    *can’t beat the argument, accuse of trolling/flaming*

    You have no argument. Just bait to troll Catholics with. Nothing new, or original, or useful in that. Plus it is a threadjacking away from the original topic, which remains relevant.

    Nowhere did I accuse you of flaming, therefore you are not accurate. What is your purpose here?

  137. GJ says:

    You have no argument.

    Such denial. My answer is Scripture:

    “Then one said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You.” But He answered and said to the one who told Him, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.”

    &

    “As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd called out, “Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you.” He replied, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.””

  138. Expat Philo says:

    A few weeks ago, I said that I would do some research on the origins of French courtly love. I have found something quite interesting: courtly love is, in fact, Muslim.

    Courtly love got stupid popular in France in the 11th century or so, seemingly from nowhere. Notable example of this popularity is Chretien de Troyes telling of the story of King Arthur and De Amore.

    At about this same time, the First Crusade was winding down, and a large number of Frenchmen, mostly the aristocratic knights, return from their happy toils bearing cultural artifacts from Arabia. Something similar was also happening in Iberia with the Reconquista.

    Immediately prior to and during this period, four concepts concerning love are major themes of Arabic and Islamic culture: one, love for love’s own sake; two, exaltation of the beloved lady; three, the ennobling power of love; and four, the unfulfilled desire native to love. These are to say: love is worth pursuing because it is love, even if social convention dictates otherwise; classic pedestalization; love makes you a better or more enlightened person; and love is best when it can never be acted upon, where both participants forever pine after each other. As our host has compiled previously, these points are exactly what can be found in European notions of courtly love, though more expanded and cringey in De Amore. Examples of these are everywhere in the Literarure, Poetry, and Philosophy of the Muslim World at the time, with one of the more concise examples being the Treatise on Love by Ibn Sinna.

  139. Yet Another Commenter, Yet Another Comment ("Yac-Yac") says:
  140. info says:

    @expatphilo

    Those dastardly frenchmen. Why do they cuck so much?

  141. TheTraveler says:

    GJ
    Your bigotry is showing. And it stinks to high heaven.

    Reality check: the hordes see us as the same thing. We are baptized, acknowledge Christ, and follow the Bible. You may say I’m doing it wrong, and my baptism is invalid because my “cultic sect” is the “whore of Bablyon,” or something.

    Alas for you, good buddy, the hordes don’t make those fine distinctions. What we SAY we believe is enough for the Satanic evildoers to lump us together into one big group: Christians = enemies to be slain.

    We have people like you in my faith, too. The Catholic versions of you babble about “The Magisterium” and “canon law” and constantly wield, like a sledgehammer-to-the-skull, the non-sequitur of, “infallible teaching of the Church.” Slightly different vocabulary, same ideas: “believe what I say, or you’re going to Hell.” Kind of like the hordes, actually.

    Newsflash, Mr. Theology: the stupid (and yes, they are VERY stupid) distinctions so important to you and to a lot of backward Catholics– make zero difference to the hordes. None.

    Every time I try to make common cause with an Evangelical, emphasizing common ground, they turn it into an offensively aggressive attempt to convert me. Their script (ex-Evangelicals reveal that there is, in fact, a script) is for lifelong Evangelicals to say, often untruthfully, “I used to be a Catholic till I saw the true light.”

    Here’s another Newsflash, Ace: everyone thinks their own religion is the One, True Faith. Otherwise, what’s the point of belonging to it? Mainline Protestants got squishy on that idea, and look at where it got them. I mean, look, if you can still find a group of them that isn’t a couple of old ladies.

    Sounds like you would prefer to be conquered by the Satanic hordes than to make common cause with Christians who you don’t see exactly eye-to-eye with. Because “heresy” or “purity,” or something. Catholic blockheads, with their precious “Magisterium” etc. feel the same way.

    In my opinion, it’s because, deep down, all you rigid folks admire the arbitrary, brutal, ultimately unprincipled deity of the hordes. You seem less interested in finding common cause for survival than in thumping your chest, declaring that you’re right, and everyone else is doomed. Your divine being (like that of the hordes) seems mainly interested in condemning for all eternity every single human being whose beliefs don’t tally exactly with some checklist that the deity’s human followers came up with.

    It would be ironic if western civilization collapsed because false Christians are too sinfully prideful to admit that maybe there is room in Heaven for someone besides them.

  142. Scott says:

    Night two of watching movies (Mychael is out of town with the kids for a couple days), eating popcorn and checking in occasionally on this thread.

    Tonight: “Rocky IV”

    I never really noticed before but the movie is an hour and thirty one minutes long, and about an hour and twenty five minutes of it is pump-you-up musical montage.

  143. Scott says:

    And every time I see Carl Weathers face, all
    I hear is “baby, you got a stew going.”

  144. Anonymous Reader says:

    Off topic:
    It has not been a good fortnight for megachurches. First Josh Harris kissed religion goodbye, now Matt Chandler’s church sued for a bunch of money in sexual abuse case.

    https://christiannews.net/2019/07/30/matt-chandlers-village-church-sued-for-over-1-million-after-girl-allegedly-molested-by-childrens-minister/

  145. Scott says:

    In all seriousness, The Traveller has the right of it.

    In this ostensibly ecumenical forum, the Prot/RC/Orthdox debate never moves the ball forward.

  146. BillyS says:

    Pindar,

    Didnt Jesus himself teach us to pray the our father?
    Don’t you pray to Jesus?

    They are clearly the exceptions. I should have added the word “human” to things, though Jesus is fully God and fully man now, so He would still be the exception.

    Big leap from praying to the Father and praying to Mary however.

  147. BillyS says:

    RPL,

    Jesus doesn’t have to do what Mary asks. He wants to.

    And Jesus outranks the Queen of Heaven. Mary’s position ranks below the Trinity.

    Not if He always wants to do what she requests. That puts her in charge.

    You sound like my former brother in law: “I run my marriage and what I say goes. And I say she (his wife) gets whatever she wants.” A chauffeur leader is not a leader nor in charge.

    Scott,

    I would agree that we should not be spending a lot of time on this here, but it would definitely help if those who push Mary so much would tone it down quite a bit. (Not you, but others.) I would say about it if it wasn’t pushed so much. That is the problem with this topic. It can’t be completely ignored.

    Hopefully I didn’t add snark though, that was not my intent. I do see it as incorrect pedestalizing with other implications, but others clearly disagree.

    I never exalted Mary significantly even when I was a faithful part of the RCC though. (I was confirmed and an altar boy at one point.) I find some do, but most use it as an excuse to not do what they should do, just like the Protestants they bad mouth. Plenty of that to go around so don’t get self-righteous on either side.

    My firm conviction is that one must be “born again” as Jesus noted to Nicodemus. (Romans 10:9-10) You can do that as a Protestant or a Roman Catholic, or even an Orthodox believer. The rest is ultimately up to God to clean up, but you should be open to that if you really have Him as your Lord, not a system of men.

    This has to do with this blog in that few people really take the Scriptures seriously, even those who claim to do so, unfortunately. Thus we ignore firm Scriptural commands as Dalrock regularly notes. Or we twist them to mean the exact opposite of what they mean.

  148. Anonymous Reader says:

    GJ
    You are trolling for flames from Catholics. No different than Catholics trolling for flames from Protestants; waste of time, waste of energy, really boring and eventually pointless.

    Scott:
    Carl Weathers as “Action Jackson” catches a cab. Language is not safe for work.

    Endeavor to persevere…

  149. Anonymous Reader says:

    BIllyS
    I would agree that we should not be spending a lot of time on this here,

    Then….stop it.

  150. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Paul: First of all, there is NOTHING in the gospels or the epistles that REQUIRES praying to Mary to be able to be saved, or to lead a good Christian live. And if it is NOT required, then WHY did Christians feel the necessity to elevate Mary to such a position?

    I agree, the Bible does not require prayer to Mary to attain salvation. But it helps. Just as the Sacraments of the Church help in attaining salvation. Persistence in pursuing grace throughout life is important. The state of your soul at the time of your death is important.

    Unlike the evangelical Christian belief (I don’t know if all Protestants share it), that all you need do to be saved is to profess Jesus. Do they even require you to read the Bible? I know it’s encouraged, but is reading the Bible a requirement for salvation? I think it’s just believe in Jesus and you’re saved, and you’ll never lose salvation, no matter what else you do or don’t do.

    I’ve even heard evangelical Christian preachers dismiss the Good Works Doctrine as an insult to Jesus, because it implies that the Blood of the Cross is not enough for salvation.

    I don’t mean this as an attack on Protestants. But RCC beliefs make more sense to me.

  151. Anonymous Reader says:

    I don’t mean this as an attack on Protestants. But RCC beliefs make more sense to me.

    Great.
    Now stop it.

  152. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Paul: The whole concept of veneration of Mary centers not around some abstract consideration on her works and her position, but specifically focuses on praying TO Mary. Therefore for all practical purposes she is elevated to the position of goddess due to an attributed ability of omniscience and omnipresence to simultaneously listen to prayers of billions of humans, responding to such prayers, and interceding with Jesus.

    Not true. Attributing those powers to Mary does not make her omniscient or omnipresent. It only makes her more powerful than mortal men.

    Angels are more powerful than mortal men. It doesn’t make angels, or Mary, equal to God. No one is saying that Mary can create universes, or something out of nothing. She can listen to the prayer of billions, and can ask Jesus for intervention.

    The very fact that Mary must ask for something shows that she is not omniscient or omnipresent.

  153. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Anonymous Reader, a civil disagreement is not an attack. I’m engaged in a polite discussion, as I think are most here.

  154. info says:

    @RPL

    What proof is there that saints in heaven can process billions of requests at the same time?

    Especially the mother of Christ.

    I dont think unless there is ample proof that such a capability belongs to anyone but god.

  155. P says:

    The Berean Literal translation is pretty interesting and definitely doesn’t have the reproving feel:

    1And on the third day a wedding took place in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there, 2and also Jesus was invited, and His disciples, to the wedding. 3And of the wine having been deficient, the mother of Jesus says to Him, “They have no wine.”

    4And Jesus says to her, “What to Me and to you, woman? My hour is not yet come.”

    5His mother says to the servants, “Whatever He may say to you, do it.”

  156. Paul says:

    @Pindar Revelation 5.8
    If we can pray to the saints in heaven then how can they offer our prayers to God?

    I suppose that’s a typo and you mean’t can’t pray

    Revelation 5:8
    And when he had taken it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of God’s people.

    First of all, there’s only 24 elders. If you insist on such a far-fetched interpretation, at least you should acknowledge that you can therefore ONLY pray to these 24 elders, no one else. Mary is not even mentioned. Isn’t that strange if she supposedly is the prime saint to pray to?

    Second, it does not mention how prayers are converted into incense. More specifically, it is nowhere mentioned, nor is it required, that that is a result of praying TO these 24 elders.

    What is left is pure speculation, not Scriptural support to the doctrine of being able to pray TO deceased humans.

  157. Paul says:

    @RPL I agree, the Bible does not require prayer to Mary to attain salvation.

    Great! Let’s be sure to acknowledge that while there are differences in views, we can certainly agree on what are core beliefs. Which is confirmed by the mutual declaration between the RCC and multiple protestant denominations that their views on justification are essentially the same.

    And let me repeat, I’m not interested in bashing the RCC nor OC, nor “converting” anyone here, but I want to specifically address how historically Christians have theologically elevated Mary from the position she had in the early Church (i.e. not worth mentioning in any of the NT writings after pentecost, i.e. the “official start” of the NT Church), to the elevated position above any other saint, nearly equal to the King of Heaven as “Queen of Heaven”, nearly equal to Our Father in Heaven as “Our Mother in Heaven”, who is able to request anything of her Son, Who will fulfill her request because she bore Him, making her the person to direct prayers TO, instead of directly praying to Jesus or the Father. In any other religion such a person would be called a (semi-)goddess, and there ARE many religions with female deities, some even literally called “Queen of Heaven” (Jeremiah chapters 7 and 44).

    Because of this cultivated theological non-essential doctrine, millions of people feel Jesus and the Father to be more distant than her, and feel spiritually more intimate with her, than with the INDWELLING (!) Trinity, Who declared :

    “Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.”

    (And ‘knowing’ here means intimate knowledge, symbolized by the marriage relationship, as the Jews already knew who God was, but did not yet receive the Holy Spirit)

    Hence, such the doctrines on praying TO Mary are not theologically neutral, and can even alienate people from God.

    Again, from the perspective of the topic of this blog, why did Christians feel the need to elevate Mary into such a position in later theological discussions, which are absent in the early Church?

  158. Paul says:

    @RPL Not true. Attributing those powers to Mary does not make her omniscient or omnipresent. It only makes her more powerful than mortal men.

    Angels are more powerful than mortal men. It doesn’t make angels, or Mary, equal to God. No one is saying that Mary can create universes, or something out of nothing.

    That would make her omnipotent, which I did not state. You seem to misunderstand what omnipresent, omniscient, or omnipotent mean.

    She can listen to the prayer of billions, and can ask Jesus for intervention.

    Hence she has properties associated with omnipresence (being everywhere) and omniscience (knowing everything).

    The very fact that Mary must ask for something shows that she is not omniscient or omnipresent.
    No, it does not, as omniscience and omnipresence are unrelated to omnipotence. Her ‘asking’ is not about not knowing, but about not having the power.

    The most important question remains: how can deceased humans listen and respond to requests from millions of living humans from all over the world, at the same time? What is the logical and what is the scriptural support that this is possible, this is allowed by God, and this is even requested from Christians to help develop their faith?

    In the context of this blog, how did praying TO Mary become preferred over praying TO some of the other saints, or even preferred over praying TO Jesus or TO God the Father?

  159. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Paul: Who will fulfill her request because she bore Him, making her the person to direct prayers TO, instead of directly praying to Jesus or the Father.

    The RCC does not teach that we should pray to Mary instead of to Jesus or the Father. But rather that we should also pray to Mary.

  160. Paul says:

    @RPL Unlike the evangelical Christian belief (I don’t know if all Protestants share it), that all you need do to be saved is to profess Jesus. Do they even require you to read the Bible? I know it’s encouraged, but is reading the Bible a requirement for salvation? I think it’s just believe in Jesus and you’re saved, and you’ll never lose salvation, no matter what else you do or don’t do.

    As I already stated, in a joint statement some larger protestant denominations agreed with the RCC their views on salvation are essentially the same.

    SOME evangelical churches (there are no real evangelical denominations as such) have devolved from ‘justification by faith alone, good works are the sign you’re a true believer’ to ‘good works don’t matter’ to ‘if you sin, Jesus still loves you’ to ‘you can keep on sinning, because Jesus will still love you’. That is of course not supported by Scripture, which — not surprisingly — is getting less and less attention in these same churches.

    Personally, I don’t believe in the “once saved, always saved, no matter what you do” doctrine, nor do I think either Luther or Calvin believed that (I think they would have said that in the end a person without works was never a TRUE believer after all). It’s sad to see that it has however become a major belief among people who call themselves evangelical Christians.

    “my people are destroyed from lack of knowledge. “Because you have rejected knowledge, I also reject you as my priests; because you have ignored the law of your God, I also will ignore your children.” (Hosea 4)

  161. Paul says:

    @RPL The RCC does not teach that we should pray to Mary instead of to Jesus or the Father. But rather that we should also pray to Mary.

    Of course the RCC is theologically very careful to not teach obvious heresy, HOWEVER the effect for millions of Roman Catholics has exactly the effect I described, which is completely logical if you follow the doctrine — at least as it is popularly understood — to its logical conclusion:

    * Jesus will do whatever His mother asks of Him
    * Mary will ask Jesus whatever we ask if we pray to her
    * Therefore, whatever we ask of Mary if we pray to her, Jesus will do

    Or, you can think of it from another perspective:

    * Jesus is God and if Mary is not god, praying to Jesus is superior to praying to Mary
    * If praying to Jesus is superior to praying to Mary, praying to Mary does not add any benefits
    * However, the RCC teaches that praying to Mary does add benefits
    * Therefore praying to Jesus is not superior to praying to Mary
    * Therefore Mary is a god

    Now, these are not official lines of thoughts, but they certainly are perceived by many as such.

    And official statements by high ranking RCC clergy certainly help to reinforce such ideas;

    Popes were highly important for the development of doctrine and the veneration of the Blessed Virgin.They made decisions not only in the area of Marian beliefs (Mariology) but also Marian practices and devotions. Popes promulgated Marian veneration and beliefs by authorizing: new Marian feast days, Marian prayers and initiatives, acceptance and support of Marian congregations, indulgences and special privileges, and support for Marian devotions. The formal recognition of Marian apparitions [..] has also been influential. [..] popes have promoted Marian devotion through encyclicals, Apostolic Letters and with two dogmas (Immaculate Conception and Assumption), the promulgation of Marian years [..], visits to Marian shrines [..] and by actively supporting the fathers of Vatican II as they highlighted the importance of Marian veneration

    And next to the four official Maria dogmas (First, Mary is the Mother of God (Council of Ephesus, 431). Second, she is a Perpetual Virgin (Lateran Council, 649). Third, Mary was conceived without original sin, or her “Immaculate Conception” (Bl. Pius IX, 1854). And fourth, Mary was assumed body and soul into heaven, or her “Assumption” (Pius XII, 1950)), a fifth doctrine is still being pushed for acceptance into official dogma:

    It is now time for the church, at the summit of this Marian era, to proclaim and define the fifth and final Marian doctrine, that is, Mary’s universal mediation as Coredemptrix, Mediatrix of all grace, and advocate for the people of God. [..] Mary uniquely participated in the redemption of the human family by Jesus Christ, Our Lord and Saviour. [..] Mary freely cooperated in giving the Second Person of the Trinity his human body which is the very instrument of redemption[..] Mary’s intense sufferings, united with those of her Son, as Pope John Paul II tells us, were, “also a contribution to the Redemption of us all”

    “Devotion to Mary is not spiritual etiquette; it is a REQUIREMENT of the Christian life, [..] The gift of the Mother, the gift of every mother and every woman, is most precious for the Church, for she too is mother and woman. If our faith is not to be reduced merely to an idea or a doctrine, all of us need a mother’s heart, one which knows how to keep the tender love of God and to feel the heartbeat of all around us. [..] She intercedes, aware that as a mother she can, indeed, must, make present to the Son the needs of men, especially the weakest and most disadvantaged.” Pope Francis

    If those last statements by the current pope does not tickle your red pill nerves, nothing will.

    (who is in the foreground, and who are in the background?)

    Enough for one post…

  162. PotE says:

    “As you hail from the rural areas from the ‘Old World’, it’s surprising you don’t comprehend the demands of honour, as Red Pill Latecomer mentioned.”

    More about guest-friendship, “Xenia”:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenia_(Greek)#In_the_Iliad

  163. A Portuguese Man says:

    GJ,

    The reason why you’re repeating yourself is because you are not addressing my point: if Mary is above the female saints, and the female saints are not above the the male saints, then that can only mean that Mary is revered specially for something other than merely being female.

    This is elementary logic.

    Otherwise, if the relevant aspect actually were the cult of the feminine as you say, then woman saints would necessarily rank above the man saints, which they do not, formally or informally.

  164. A Portuguese Man says:

    Paul,

    I’m sorry but you are full of (sectarian) manure.

    It is easily deductible, from your name and command of the English language, you have no practical knowledge of what effects anything might have on “millions” of Catholic.

    You are either wittingly misrepresenting for the purpose of sectarian agitation, or you believe the reality of America (assuming your conjecture is accurate even there, which I ignore) is the reality of the world and vice-versa. Let me tell you: it’s not.

    By all means criticise the Pope and his statements. You’d be joining eminent Catholic clergy and theologians in doing so. There is plenty there for everyone.

    But this perception you attribute to “millions” of Catholic is, of my knowledge, not true anywhere in Catholic Europe. We do not consider Mary a god or God Himself.

    You will be either mocked, or ostracized and/or firmly rebuked if you affirm or evidently imply anything to that effect anywhere around here, except amongst urban “progressives”, which are most likely de facto heretics already even if they still call themselves Catholic.

  165. vandicus says:

    @BillyS

    I think some clarification would be helpful for you here. The Catholic belief is that in heaven, you are perfectly conformed to God’s will. One of the things God wills is for us to ask for things relating to other people(intercession).

    So as for God wanting to do what Mary asks him to do, this is also true of any Saint, given the above understanding. The Saints would not pray for something contrary to God(which is not to say that someone who asks the Saints to pray for them will necessarily get what they wanted). If somehow this were possible than obviously God has his own prerogatives.

  166. vandicus says:

    @ Paul

    If you want to critique Catholic doctrine, you should start with the Catechism(which is a compilationof Catholic doctrine). There’s no requirement to adhere to every statement ever made by a Pope.

    As for the art piece, there are plenty of art pieces with other individuals featured more centrally. The main topic of that piece happens to be Mary. Plenty of pieces with Paul on the Road to Damascus primarily focus on Paul for instance.

  167. Wood says:

    Is Mary the ‘Queen of Heaven’? If she actually is, then she deserves the title. If not, she is pedestalised.

    As a Catholic, I say this is an excellent formulation.

  168. Paul says:

    @APM But this perception you attribute to “millions” of Catholic is, of my knowledge, not true anywhere in Catholic Europe. We do not consider Mary a god or God Himself.

    Well, I was talking about worldwide. I’m aware no Roman Catholic would call Mary a god theologically, but her de facto role comes very, very, very close when compared with the role of gods in other religions. I do not have exact numbers, do you have them for your statements?

    It is undeniable that historically that role has been theologically increased from at best recognition of her blessedness as mother of the incarnated Son to declaration of her sinlessness almost 2000 years later, with a strong push to declare her co-redemptrix. No other saint has been given such elevation, not even arguably the most influential one, the apostle Paul. And that elevation is coupled both to motherhood and womanhood, and seen as the ultimate representation of the (sexless) feminine, the “new Eve”. It’s impossible not to see the parallels with chivalry/courtly love.

  169. sipcode says:

    Gentlemen do not follow Jesus Christ, for Jesus was no gentleman.

    Jesus was gentle at times, as should be those men that would be His disciples, but they must usually be confrontational and occasionally angry.

    The church will not allow this, for the church does not speak His language …the effeminate church.

  170. A Portuguese Man says:

    Paul,

    I do not have numbers, but I don’t think those would be of any use. You evidently do not have them yourself, otherwise you would’ve put them forth already to support your case, and that hasn’t stopped you from making it.

    I appeal to my own authority of someone whose culture is virtually indistinguishable from Catholicism. Where I am from, you will probably will not find three contiguous places the names of which do not contain at least one of a saint. And you will not find a single one, not one, the annual festivities of which are not named after a saint, Our Lady, the Sacred Heart of our Lord or the Holy Spirit.

    Perhaps it hard for you to fathom just how ingrained it is here. Generally speaking, it is not viewed as a religion, but as the religion.

    Our neighbours are no different, and are even more militant of temperament. Even atheists and republicans can be better defined as anti-Catholic rather than areligious or anti-religious, for that is really their religion.

    And apart from Latin America, with which culture we are intimately familiar given that it comes from our own, and is no different in that respect, I do not see where you will find these “millions” of Catholics you speak of. The same can be said of Africa.

    Theologically you may argue whatever you wish. The fact remains that in terms of practice, of popular perception, what you say simply is not true.

    In fact, that is precisely why Dalrock’s critique is accurate. That those infatuated with the error he denounces feel the need to paper over the contradictions of their position to the people is precisely because it is not widespread as you claim, or there would be no need for their rationalisations.

  171. A Portuguese Man says:

    Don Quixote,

    Thank you.

    That makes sense.

  172. Red Pill Christianity says:

    A Portuguese Man: are you a Portuga or Brasileiro?
    (Are you from Portugal or Brazilian)

    Eu sou gringo, mas falo bem Portugues. 🙂 Raro encontrar Portugueses na Internet em Ingles.

    (I am American, but I speak Portuguese well. It is rare to meet Portuguese people in English-language websites).

  173. A Portuguese Man says:

    Português!

    Fala e escreve, também.

    Cumprimentos!

    Portuguese!

    You speak, and write [well] too.

    Best regards!

  174. Oscar says:

    @ Paul & A Portuguese Man

    Catholics in Catholic countries worship Mary. I say that because I was born in a Catholic country in Central America, and I saw it there. And it happens in Europe, as well.

    This one’s from Spain.

    https://www.elnortedecastilla.es/v/20110926/segovia/somos-pueblo-mariano-20110926.html

    It’s said in some corners that we are more Marians than Christians; that’s not an insult, or even an inaccuracy… Of course, do not be afraid that they might criticize us for being a Marian people, because the shortest and simplest path to Christ is the Virgin Mary.
    ~ Ángel Rubio, Bishop of Segovia.

    Kind of like Jesus is the way to the Father; right?

    This one is from Nicaragua. The translation of the title is “Marian people turn out on the streets of Managua to celebrate”.

    https://www.el19digital.com/articulos/ver/titulo:64445-pueblo-mariano-se-vuelca-a-calles-en-managua-para-celebrar-la-griteria

    The Virgin Mary is our advocate… ~ Byron Delgado

    I’m very devout toward the Virgin because she’s our Intercessor before God, I owe her so many favors… we’re returning to her a little of everything with which she blesses us all year. ~ Norma María Pérez

    Just like Jesus is our advocate, intercessor, mediator before God; right?

    The Apostle Paul said that “there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim 2:5), but Catholics in Catholic countries are being taught that Mary is their “Intercessor before God”. They can’t both be right.

    Definition of worship
    1 : reverence offered a divine being or supernatural power; also : an act of expressing such reverence
    2 : a form of religious practice with its creed and ritual
    3 : extravagant respect or admiration for or devotion to an object of esteem

    You know what it’s called when you build an altar to, pray to, sing to, and bring offerings to a supernatural being in religious rituals?

    It’s called worship.

    And here’s one in English appropriately titled, “Chivalry and Our Lady” that links chivalry to “veneration” (really, it’s worship) of Mary.

    https://catholicism.org/chivalry-and-our-lady.html

    The author, by the way, means that as a compliment.

    Yet, now and then something will happen that suggests chivalry, moribund as it may be, is not quite dead.
    ……….
    Anyone who knows Argentina will probably agree that even today it is the most Marian land in ex-Christendom. Eighteen years ago, it was still more the case. This was to the extent that Our Lady, by law, was Commander-in-Chief of the nation’s armed forces.
    ………..
    Now, Argentina being a Marian land, many of the working men who attended Mass at the church used the time to say a Rosary. This rankled the liberal priest. He thought all the men should “participate” in the Mass. So it happened, I was told, that one morning the priest stopped the action of the Mass and began repeating, over and over, “Buenos dias, buenos dias .”

    Naturally this got the attention of the men. They stopped saying their rosaries. When this happened, the priest said to them, “You see how stupid it sounds when I repeat Buenos días . Do you think it is any different when you keep saying ‘Hail Mary’?”

    At that, one of the men in the church stood up, and with his beads still in one hand, reached into his jacket with the other, pulled out a pistol, pointed it at the priest and said, “Finish the Mass for us without another word, Father, or I’ll drop you where you stand.”

    The priest did as he was told.

    When the Argentine gentleman who told me this story saw a look of wonder and some shock on my face, he decided an explanation was needed.

    “I suppose such a thing would never happen in your country,” he said. “That is because the U.S. is not Catholic. The same feeling for Our Lady does not exist. That man in Córdoba was not going to let his Mother be insulted by anyone, not even a priest. Perhaps especially not a priest, who ought to know better.”

    His Mother? Insulted? The gentleman did not say it, but what he meant was that the man in Córdoba was being chivalrous. That is, at the heart of chivalry is the defense of those who cannot defend themselves. That would include Our Lady, who has no one in this world to defend her except her spiritual children.

    Mr. Potter goes on to praise King Arthur’s Court (never mind Guinevere’s adultery with Lancelot), and Eleanor of Aquitaine and her Courtly Love. He even links the young men’s “adoration” (i.e., worship) of the young women in Eleanor’s Court, and their submission to them, and links it all to Mary worship.

    Again, Mr. Potter means all of this as a compliment.

    You can deny it all you want, but Mary worship is the source of Courtly Love.

  175. Paul says:

    @APM The fact remains that in terms of practice, of popular perception, what you say simply is not true.

    That’s just your opinion, which you cannot substantiate. I agree, I cannot give exact number, but I equally know from multiple observations, both personal and from others, and reports that such popular perception is real. Already in 1300 William of Ware described the tendency of some believers to attribute almost everything to Mary. That is not to say it’s the only perception.

    And to come back to the core of the argument; it’s very peculiar indeed that the accomplishments of Mary (giving birth to a child — granted a unique Son, but a regular birth — just as billions of other women have done) is elevated far above the accomplishments of let’s say the apostle Paul who was most influentual in spread the gospel among the gentiles and almost single-handedly defined Christian theology. It is even more peculiar that NOTHING about ANY of the accomplishments of Mary is explicitly referred to in that Christian theology. NOTHING. AT ALL. Every single piece of Marian theology, except the virgin birth of the pre-incarnate Logos, is highly speculative, with hardly any scriptural support whatsoever. EVERY. SINGLE. PIECE.

    Now what force led Christians to go speculate without scriptural support to elevate a female human being to a position nearly indistinguishable from a goddess?

  176. A Portuguese Man says:

    Oscar,

    And?

    No one denied that courtly love has benefited from Marian devotion. Just as abuse of Christians has benefited from “turn the other face”. Just as socialism has benefited from “the eye of the needle”.

    The points in contention are whether,

    a) The cult of Mary amounts to pedestalization of women
    b) Mary is worshiped or venerated as God or as a god by Catholics

    It’s false on both accounts.

    If what you say about where you were born is true, then you also know this.

    It is pointless citing Scripture at me. I’m not a one-man church, and I do not pretend to have authoritative interpretations of Scripture.

    My contention is with assertions a) and b). If you wish to be a one-man inquisition and declare the Marian cult heretic, it is your choice. You wouldn’t be the first and surely not the last. The next one-man church will just as easily declare you a heretic. You can have fun with them over all that.

  177. A Portuguese Man says:

    Paul,

    You cannot expect me to take you seriously when you go from “multiple observations” to 14th century…

    As for your description of Christmas, I am truly perplexed.

    Out of my perplexity, I’ll indulge on a bit of interpretation with you, risking contradicting myself above, to point out three aspects:

    – Jesus Christ could’ve perfectly descended from Heaven just as he arose, perfectly human and incarnate. Yet God chose to have Mary give birth to Him. Unlike any one of the billions of other women…

    – If touching even Jesus’ clothes could cure you of anything, as I believe is undisputed by anyone here, who can even imagine what did having Him born out of your own womb?

    – Like Mary, did not Paul become who he became by grace of God?

  178. emery says:

    I’m a lightweight when it comes to this history stuff but I dispute your interpretations

    – Jesus Christ could’ve perfectly descended from Heaven just as he arose, perfectly human and incarnate. Yet God chose to have Mary give birth to Him. Unlike any one of the billions of other women…
    Response: The incarnation as man from the line of David was supposed to be important somehow. David’s not elevated to godhood. Abraham is not worshiped as a god. The Word became flesh, flesh in human terms comes from women’s vaginas. Otherwise it would be a distinct creation from Man, and Jesus came to save Man.

    – If touching even Jesus’ clothes could cure you of anything, as I believe is undisputed by anyone here, who can even imagine what did having Him born out of your own womb?
    Response: Jesus said that it was by her faith she was saved. The Centurion didn’t even need as much as touching Jesus he had so much faith just hearing Jesus was enough for his servant to be healed.

    – Like Mary, did not Paul become who he became by grace of God?
    Response: I do not understand your point. I think you arguing against Paul the Poster who said Mary should not be elevated in particular. If I reverse that it’s that you argue that she should be elevated in particular. But your statement puts Mary and Paul equally beneath God, so it does not follow that Mary should be elevated at all. Especially since the Apostles tend to go on about how it’s through Jesus Christ that the power is, not any of them.

  179. BillyS says:

    AR,

    I can’t sit by when only dubious posters oppose those who push the Mary message. Tell those doing that to stop and it will cease.

    You could follow your own advice too!

    Though you may, since you did hit the other side too.

    RPL,

    I agree, the Bible does not require prayer to Mary to attain salvation. But it helps.

    Nothing in the Scriptures indicate that is true. I choose to believe what is Written, not extra-Biblical additions like this.

    Vandicus,

    Then praying to Mary adds no value. Just pray directly to the Father. Still not clear evidence (in the Scriptures) that Mary hears a single prayer.

    Unlike the evangelical Christian belief (I don’t know if all Protestants share it), that all you need do to be saved is to profess Jesus. Do they even require you to read the Bible? I know it’s encouraged, but is reading the Bible a requirement for salvation? I think it’s just believe in Jesus and you’re saved, and you’ll never lose salvation, no matter what else you do or don’t do.

    Read Romans 10:9-10 – Only belief and confession is necessary for transformation. Add in 2 Cor 5:17 for details about the transformation that happens. Many other things are useful and should be an expected part, but God chose to only require confession and faith, not works. Works should proceed and those who do not have them will end up with little to no rewards then.

    It is possible some claim to follow Him, but Jesus only noted that once (“Depart from Me, I never knew you”) so it is not the common path. The Fall brought inner transformation (and death to the spirit that took a long time to work out to the body) and the New Birth does the same in reverse.

    This is not what all Protestants hold to, but it remains Biblical truth.

    Few people understand the difference between salvation and rewards. You can have the first with nothing remaining (after it is burned off) in the latter.

    Emery,

    It wasn’t touching Jesus that cured anyone. We are told many touched Him, but we only learned of one woman who was healed, at that time. Nothing magic about the touch. It was the faith behind the touch. Jesus notes faith is the key part many times.

  180. Scott says:

    Day three of the “I’ll see you ten Hail Marys and raise you twenty Bible verses and a sola scriptura” cage match to the death.

    Number of conversions to the other side: zero
    Number of men who got a sweet homecoming from their wives tonight: zero

  181. A Portuguese Man says:

    You’re begging the question… You, Paul, and the others are the ones saying Mary was somehow elevated to godhood or is worshiped as such. I contend otherwise.

    Whatever happened to the centurion is about the centurion. Does not change that Mary is the Mother of Jesus.

    I am arguing Paul the poster yes. And I am implicitly arguing that Mary in particular was elevated to be Mother of Jesus by the grace of God, yes.
    It does not follow that Mary stands equal to St. Paul unless I’d argue that grace is somehow dispensed equally, which I do not.
    This was in answer to Paul’s observation of St. Paul’s achievements in spreading the gospel.

    Furthermore, it seems obvious to me that the grace dispensed to Mary is far above the one dispensed to St. Paul. In fact, I cannot fathom any grace above it.

    But being given the most precious grace is obviously not being God Himself, just as recognising it does not imply any elevation to godhood whatsoever.

    If you wish to argue that giving birth to Jesus is not above being one of the Apostles, then do so at will. Like I said, I’ve no claim of authoritative interpretation of Scripture. I’m merely relating to what seems natural to me. I defer to whatever the doctrine of the Church says about it. And whatever it is, I’m certain it is not that Mary is God, a god, or equal to God.

    What I do claim is that Mary is not worshiped as God or as a god by Catholics. Furthermore I also claim that devotion to Mary is not pedestalising woman. That is all.

  182. Lost Patrol says:

    Day three of the “I’ll see you ten Hail Marys and raise you twenty Bible verses and a sola scriptura” cage match to the death.

    How are the gate receipts?

  183. Scott says:

    LP

    No idea. But tonight’s feature is “Minority Report.”

    Can’t believe this movie is from 2002. But I
    Remember seeing it in the theater at Fort Bragg, NC and I was an E-4 then.

  184. Mad_Kalak says:

    The comment section is not the same without Zippy, he managed to engage the Jack Chick tract commentariat in such a way as to alleviate strife rather than build it.

    If God isn’t above sending the Babylonians to punish Israel, I can plenty see him allowing Muslim hordes to punish feckless Cristiandom.

  185. Oscar says:

    @ A Portuguese Man

    The points in contention are whether,

    a) The cult of Mary amounts to pedestalization of women
    b) Mary is worshiped or venerated as God or as a god by Catholics

    I’m glad you referred to it as a “cult”.

    a) No one said that “the cult of Mary amounts to pedestalization of women”, but that it lead to the pedestalization of women, which it did, as the article from catholicism.org proves approvingly.

    b) I didn’t make up the definition of the word “worship”. Here’s the definition again.

    Definition of worship
    1 : reverence offered a divine being or supernatural power; also : an act of expressing such reverence
    2 : a form of religious practice with its creed and ritual
    3 : extravagant respect or admiration for or devotion to an object of esteem

    You know what it’s called when you build an altar to, pray to, sing to, and bring offerings to a supernatural being in religious rituals?

    It’s called worship.

    If you disagree with the definition of the word “worship”, then your disagreement is not with me. Your disagreement is with the dictionary.

    It is pointless citing Scripture at me.

    I’m aware of that, and I’m glad you admitted to it as well.

    If you wish to be a one-man inquisition and declare the Marian cult heretic, it is your choice.

    Where did I refer to anyone as a “heretic”? Can you provide a quote? Or, did you just make that up in your head and project it onto me?

  186. feeriker says:

    If God isn’t above sending the Babylonians to punish Israel, I can plenty see him allowing Muslim hordes to punish feckless Cristiandom.

    He’s already started that by having them flood Western Europe.

    While Western Europe is at least semi-open and unashamed about proclaiming itself “post-Christian,” you’ll find no such honesty here in the U.S. Here the people claim to be a “Christian” nation while engaging in behavior that makes the apostates seem pious be comparison. For this reason I believe that God is going to punish the U.S. even more severely than Europe for blaspheming the Lord through hypocrisy and calling evil good, and good evil.

  187. Christian Nicholes says:

    The thing I like best about the story of the woman caught in adultery is that it’s missing from the earliest extant manuscripts.

  188. c matt says:

    A Portuguese Man (APM):
    What I do claim is that Mary is not worshiped as God or as a god by Catholics.

    Oscar:
    Definition of worship
    1 : reverence offered a divine being or supernatural power; also : an act of expressing such reverence
    2 : a form of religious practice with its creed and ritual
    3 : extravagant respect or admiration for or devotion to an object of esteem

    You know what it’s called when you build an altar to, pray to, sing to, and bring offerings to a supernatural being in religious rituals?

    It’s called worship.

    If you disagree with the definition of the word “worship”, then your disagreement is not with me. Your disagreement is with the dictionary.

    APM seems to have the better of the argument.
    Oscar’s definition itself proves it. Definition one (offered to divine being) does not apply, because no where does APM claim reverence to Mary is offered as a divine being – in fact the opposite, he disavows it. Oscar improperly applies this definition even though he admits there are two others, and they involve admiration/esteem of non-divine beings/things. (Curious, what altar has been built to Mary? Is St. Paul’s Cathedral in London an altar built to St. Paul?). Definition 2 seems simply inapplicable. Definition 3, which could apply, makes no mention of the object having to be divine. No doubt if Oscar is American, he “worships” the U.S. Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and the American Flag in the sense of definition 3. And rightly so, as these are objects of esteem worthy of respect, admiration and devotion. How much more so is the very Mother of God? (Of course, if you deny Mary is the Mother of God, you ultimately have to deny Christ’s own divinity, the efficacy of His sacrifice on the cross, and any other number of Christian dogmas that eventually unravel the whole thing. Tread with caution.)

  189. c matt says:

    Every single piece of Marian theology, except the virgin birth of the pre-incarnate Logos, is highly speculative, with hardly any scriptural support whatsoever. EVERY. SINGLE. PIECE.

    Well, except for that whole St. Gabriel addressing her “full of grace” and the logical implication of that requiring the immaculate conception. And the fact that she asked her Son to help out a newlywed couple, and even though He said His time had not yet come, He did it anyway, which logically implies she has some influence, dare we say, even intercessory influence with Jesus, Who, by the way is God. Therefore, also logically implies she can intercede with God (unless of course, you deny Christ’s divinity?). But why let logic get in the way of a good rant.

  190. A Portuguese Man says:

    Oscar, I’m confounded. Is not worshiping anything that is not God, as if it were God, at the very least, “heretic”?

    That is what I would say of someone who actually worshipped the Virgin in the imaginary way you purport is reality.

    Nevertheless, I’m glad to see that in the end we seem to be in agreement that the Marian cult in not heretic.

    As to it possibly leading to pedestalization of women, I’ll repeat what I wrote above: Hasn’t, by the same token, the doctrine of “giving the other cheek” lead to abuse of Christians and care-bear Christianity? Hasn’t the “eye of the needle” facilitated socialism even amongst the clergy?

    Whose fault is it? The doctrine’s?

  191. A Portuguese Man says:

    There was once a famous Portuguese Jesuit missionary preacher, who spent much of his time in then colonial Brazil, and died there. He was a master of oratory. His sermons are considered to be masterpieces of Portuguese literature. He was called Padre António Vieira.

    One of his most famous sermons is the “Sermon of St. Anthony”, also called Sermon to the Fish, all of it allegoric. It starts from Matthew 5:13. I’ll piece together a crude translation that I find relevant.

    I recommend you find a Spanish translation, which should be easy enough, because I fear the English language cannot do justice to his idiosyncratic Portuguese style.

    «Vos estis sal terrae

    You – says Christ Our Lord, speaking to preachers – are the salt of the earth. And He calls them the salt of the earth because He wants them to do on earth that which the salt does. The salt’s effect is to prevent corruption; but when the land is as corrupted as is ours, there being so many with the job of being its salt, what is, or what could be, the cause of such corruption? Either it is that the salt does not salt, or that the earth refuses to be salted. Either the salt does not salt, and preachers do not preach the true doctrine; or that the earth refuses to be salted, and listeners, despite the doctrine they’re given being true, do not want to receive it. Either the salt does not salt, and preachers say one thing and do another; or that the earth refuses to be salted, and listeners would rather imitate the preachers’ deeds rather than heed their words. Either the salt does not salt, and preachers preach themselves rather than Christ; or that the earth refuses to be salted, and listeners do not serve Christ, but serve instead their own appetites. Isn’t this the truth? So much the worse.»

  192. Paul says:

    @c matt that whole St. Gabriel addressing her “full of grace” and the logical implication of that requiring the immaculate conception

    No it doesn’t. That’s speculative.

    the fact that she asked her Son to help out a newlywed couple, and even though He said His time had not yet come, He did it anyway, which logically implies she has some influence, dare we say, even intercessory influence with Jesus,

    No one is disputing that Mary had some influence. It’s pure speculation to use her asking Jesus on the wedding as proof that after her departure she is now listening to billions of Christians worlwide at the same time and putting their requests forward to Jesus, who will then somehow listen to that more than if the same request was directly asked of Him.

    Therefore, also logically implies she can intercede with God

    ALL Christians can by the same logic intercede with God by asking Jesus. They don’t need Mary.

    But why let logic get in the way of a good rant.

    Unless it’s your bad logic

  193. Paul says:

    @APM You cannot expect me to take you seriously when you go from “multiple observations” to 14th century…

    I lost my care about your opinion of me the moment you called me full of manure. Namecalling is always a sure sign of weak arguments. I will engage your arguments for all to see however.

    Jesus Christ could’ve perfectly descended from Heaven just as he arose, perfectly human and incarnate.

    No, He could not; how would it have been possible to be a descendant of David? How would He have been circumcised on the eight day into the covenant? How would He have been a proven Israelite?

    Yet God chose to have Mary give birth to Him. Unlike any one of the billions of other women…

    By logic, if Jesus needed to be born out of a woman, God had to choose a single woman anyhow. And once you’re a pregnant Israelite woman, giving birth is inevitable, and hardly an accomplishment compared to other pregnant Israelite women.

    If touching even Jesus’ clothes could cure you of anything, as I believe is undisputed by anyone here, who can even imagine what did having Him born out of your own womb?

    Regarding Mary, speculation goes into overdrive. Countless people have touched Jesus, without being healed. It proves nothing.

    Mary is worshiped or venerated as God or as a god by Catholics

    I’ve been careful to note that she is not officially considered as such, but in practice, when compared to role of (semi)gods in other religions, it comes very, very, very close, to the point where in popular belief she functions as a replacement for Jesus.

    We agree that intercessory prayer by Mary is NOT necessary for salvation.
    We agree that Mary is NOT God.
    We agree that Jesus is THE intercessor and mediator for us with God the Father.

    Now we ought to worship Jesus for His redemptive work, for His regeneration of us, for His sanctification of us, etc. etc.

    If in this life, we have a mediator presenting our case to another party, and someone comes along and proposes to introduce an extra mediator between you and the mediator you already know and trust, and that secondary mediator cannot accomplish more than the first mediator, would you accept such a mediator? And if people are actually making use of such a mediator, would not the first mediator blend into the background, and would not the focus shift to the second mediator?

    To me it seems this is exactly what’s happening in case of Mary as mediator and advocate.

    Now, the question to be discussed remains, why did this historically happen? And how did it influence chivalry.

  194. A Portuguese Man says:

    Yes. Of course you will engage the arguments about Scripture. It’s all you seem interested about: endless hair-splitting about what’s written.

    Had you restrained yourself to that business, I wouldn’t have engaged you in the first place.

    But you decided to write some bullshit – that’s the proper term – about the praxis of popular Catholicism. So I called it out. And I still do. In that respect, sorry, but full of manure to the brink.

    It’s not a weak argument, it’s not even an argument: It’s testimony.

    I testify that your claims are false, and I invite everyone to come see for themselves how Catholics practice their devotion to Mary with their own eyes.

    For the last time: She does not popularly function as a replacement for Jesus. That is precisely and exactly the manure you are full of. No more no less. That’s the only claim I have issue with, including and specially the “popularly” qualifier.

    Your recourse to that claim – evidently because you cannot attack the “official” Church doctrine, which is your true aim – is what gives you away rather than being the clever device you think it is. It only works for people that don’t know the reality.

    It just so happens I know it, and was passing by. Though luck.

    Next time, stick with interpretation.

    I am sorry for the name calling, but I think you can take it.

    Dixit.

  195. Oscar says:

    @ A Portuguese Man

    Oscar, I’m confounded. Is not worshiping anything that is not God, as if it were God, at the very least, “heretic”?

    It’s a sin, called idolatry, but not necessarily a heresy.

    That is what I would say of someone who actually worshipped the Virgin in the imaginary way you purport is reality.

    You’re still avoiding the definition of the word “worship”, unsurprisingly. Let’s look at the definition again.

    Definition of worship
    1 : reverence offered a divine being or supernatural power; also : an act of expressing such reverence
    2 : a form of religious practice with its creed and ritual
    3 : extravagant respect or admiration for or devotion to an object of esteem

    Please answer the following questions.

    Do Marians offer reverence to Mary? Do they consider her a supernatural being with supernatural power? Do they express such reverence?

    Is the Marian cult a form of religious practice with a creed and rituals?

    Is the Marian cult a form of extravagant respect or admiration for or devotion to Mary? Do Marians consider Mary an object of esteem?

  196. Paul says:

    @APM I am sorry for the name calling, but I think you can take it.

    Saying you’re sorry followed by ‘but I think you can take it’, is just pretending to be sorry. You’re being a hypocrite.

    It’s all you seem interested about: endless hair-splitting about what’s written.

    You’re projecting your prejudices about Protestants. That’s interesting to hear from you who extrapolates from the woman touching Jesus robe being healed as a “proof” that something special happened to Mary when Jesus touched her while in the womb and going through the birth canal.

    Next to that, I clearly stated what my interest was; to discuss the historical development of worship of Mary as precursor to chivalry.

    evidently because you cannot attack the “official” Church doctrine, which is your true aim

    Do you have psychic abilities now too?

    She does not popularly function as a replacement for Jesus.

    Again, you state that without any proof whatsoever, whereas I and others have given examples how in popular belief Mary is seen as a near-goddess at least by a significant enough large group that theologians have written about it, and how theologically Mary has been elevated to the role of mediator and advocate, roles which according to Scripture are reserved for Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Either Jesus is mediator between us and God, or Mary is. Many people would therefore call that replacement. And even while we agree seeking mediation of Mary is not necessary for salvation, but mediation by Jesus is essential, even the pope tells that devotion to Mary is required for the Christian life.

  197. Paul says:

    As an in this context interesting fact: the dogma of the infallability of the pope when speaking ex cathedra is a relatively new invention from the late 19th century. The ONLY dogmas to have ever been declared ex cathedra are two Marian dogmas. Not about God. Not about Jesus. Not about the Church. Not about Christian life. About Mary.

    The first one from 1854 (!) is about the Immaculate Conception (not to be confused with the virgin birth of Jesus): that Mary was born without original sin. In addition to that she is considered to have never sinned in her life.

    The second one from 1950 (!) is about the Assumption of Mary: that Mary was bodily taken into heaven at the end of her life, either alive or dead. Note that the Eastern Church teaches that Mary died and rose from the death on the third day before being taken up to heaven, while the RCC leaves open the possibility that she did not die at all.

    Note how these two Marian dogmas explicitly impose a special status onto Mary comparable to the special status of Jesus, who was truly sinless, and who was bodily taken into heaven alive during the Ascension after his resurrection.

    And because these are dogmas, all Roman Catholic MUST believe this, or be anathema.

  198. Andraos Al-Sulh says:

    “Commenter Opus wrote:
    Now, as all who read here are Christians, ”

    I would not be too sure about that. I have been lurking here for for around five years and I am not a Christian.

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.