I hear the earnestness in your words, and I appreciate the desire to honor both Mary and Christ within the mystery of the Incarnation. But brother, clarity matters—especially when speaking of the things of God. What you’re describing blends truths with imagination until Scripture and speculation become indistinguishable. That’s not reverence—it’s confusion.
Mary is not the “God of Mercy,” nor does Scripture ever refer to her as such. That title belongs to the Lord alone (Exodus 34:6; Psalm 86:5). She is not sanctified flesh incarnate or divine essence. She is the faithful servant who said yes to God’s plan, and that’s her glory: “Behold, I am the servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.” (Luke 1:38). That’s submission, not elevation into divinity.
Jesus’ baptism wasn’t for cleansing—it was “to fulfill all righteousness” (Matthew 3:15), identifying with sinners, not purifying Himself. He is the Lamb without blemish (1 Peter 1:19), not a man in need of sanctification. To say He became “well-pleasing to God” through baptism implies imperfection prior—that is not the Gospel. He was always the beloved Son in whom the Father was well pleased.
The two natures of Christ—divine and human—are united in one Person (the hypostatic union), yes. But that truth doesn’t make room for others to share in His divinity by nature. Mary is not assumed into co-redemptive glory. She is redeemed, like us, by grace.
OMNILogic may be your personal framework, but we don’t need a new logic—we need to return to the clear testimony of Scripture. Mary is honored. Christ is exalted. The Gospel is preserved.
Mary, as mother of the God-Man Jesus Christ, is correctly called Theotokos meaning “God-bearer” though more specifically “God-birther”, Mary gave birth to God Incarnate. This term became incredibly important in the Christological debates of the 5th century. A Christian bishop by the name of Nestorius argued that Mary should only be called Christotokos; the problem with this was that in Nestorius’ Christology (as best as we can tell, there are lingering historical questions whether Nestorius was himself fully Nestorian) the Divinity and Humanity of Jesus were separated. It gets into some pretty deep Christology, but essentially Nestorius appears to have thought of Jesus as a human being united to the Logos, thus Jesus Christ (the man) and the Divine Logos (God) were sufficiently separate. I suspect that Nestorius may have been trying to over-correct an earlier Christological error called Apollinarianism, named after Apollinarius. Apollinarianism argued that Jesus did not have a human soul and mind, but rather Jesus had a human body, but that the Logos took the place of the soul. There are all kinds of problems with that view obviously, but getting back to Nestorius, it was perhaps Nestorius intention to avoid Apollinarianism, and in so doing tries to overcorrect but then gets into the problem of separating Jesus’ humanity and Divinity to such an extent that it seemed to many that Nestorius was saying there were two Jesus’s: one human and one Divine, a human person and a Divine Person, united together.
The strongest condemnation of this came from Cyril of Alexandria, who put forward a strong Christian defense of the unity of Christ’s Person: Jesus is God and man, without division or separation. One Person: Jesus Christ, fully God and fully human. In the same century other debates would lead to the Council of Chalcedon, and (largely semantic issues) would result in a schism in the Church between the Chalcedonians on the one hand and non-Chalcedonians on the other–and ancient divide that is, in modern times, slowly healing through dialogue. Thankfully.
However, it is because Nestorius seemingly insisted on separating the humanity and divinity of Jesus in such a way that it appeared to present two “persons” rather than the single person of Jesus, the term “Theotokos” for Mary became a line drawn in the sand. It wasn’t about Mary at all, but about Jesus–by insisting that Mary is Theotokos, that Mary gave birth to God (as opposed to only giving birth to a man), the insistence is then that Jesus is fully God and fully man united in His single undivided Person. After all, mothers don’t give birth to natures, mothers give birth to children, to persons. In the case of Mary the Person she gave birth to is God; and because God the Son became human in Mary’s womb, God (in this sense) chose His own mother. The One Mary conceived and gave birth to is her own Creator, Lord, and Savior.
As far as some other terms used in the Roman Catholic tradition in regard to Mary. Well, I’m a Lutheran, so while I don’t have as strong of a knee-jerk reaction as some other Protestants; I do believe that Roman Catholic Mariology goes quite excessive. Mary is important, she’s the holy and blessed mother of God, and she deserves our respect, all of God’s saints who came before us deserve our respect as our dear mothers and fathers in the faith. But I think the best way, ultimately, we honor the mother of God is by taking her lead when she points to her Son as in the story of the wedding at Cana, “Do whatever He tells you”.
Our Catholic friends’ arguments sound good in theory. In practice, however, Mary is treated as a kinder, gentler goddess. See “The Glories of Mary,” by St. Alphonse de Liguori, p. 80:
“Mary is our life, because she obtains for us the pardon of our sins.”
Come on, now, man! Doesn’t that sound just a wee bit like a blasphemous parody of the work of the Son and the Holy Spirit?
“There are all kinds of problems with that view obviously, but getting back to Nestorius, it was perhaps Nestorius intention to avoid Apollinarianism, and in so doing tries to overcorrect but then gets into the problem of separating Jesus’ humanity and Divinity to such an extent that it seemed to many that Nestorius was saying there were two Jesus’s: one human and one Divine, a human person and a Divine Person, united together.” Theology Nerd,
TO me logically through the Two Natures from the God of Abraham is where the confusion always becomes from finite disciplines unable to explain undefiled infallibility because of failed earth and choice. I always use logic to resove the truth, to me.
To me confusion will reign in all, Logically mankind is in infancy, and this is what He Came to do, unite the natures as one in being in One Body, Spirit and life together, and all can never see until The Logic becomes clear, to me I call it OMNILogic and then the silencing begins, from some. I begin to hear who He is not or can’t be or what He never was or even can never be in some form of reasonable fascimile, and I mean it in a good way, for logic somehow requires much more energy to resolve yet requiring to me less intelligence to understand? To me I am a logical hard working slow learner. We wait for the one who can logically explain the Mind of God which is what I am doing, new Eyes for all new logical eyes to be able to see God, to me logically. Why me? And I always remember, it is not a “ME” thing, salvation is for all as One in being.
“God consigned all to disobedience in order that He might have mercy on all” (Romans 11:32).
Born again from the living waters of Baptism from the New Eve, Mary logically in the Trinity before creation was ever created was even created as Mother of God of the Holy Spirit and Mother of Son of Man through the flesh in undefiled intelligence logic preexisting infallibly even before before ever, God of Mercy, to me. And all mankind is logically and even more profoundly through faith saved through the Holy Spirit Family One God in being same with Life in the New Adam becoming The Christ from Sacrifice through Penance, forgiven in all mankind becoming again One Holy Spirit Family One God in being.
Peace to all,
To me we choose the Holy Spirit Family power to manifest through the soul to manifest by the Power of The Holy Spirit Family to become the image through our own Personal Christ becoming in all mankind becoming again One Holy Spirit Family One God in being, logically, really and most promised by God sworn by His own Name, through The Faith of Abraham.
Who would argue to the logic? To become like God in two natures, spirit and life becoming again in One Body, logically, faithfully verified and truly God.
Surly, We all know we are saved by Faith in Jesus.
To me logically, born again and saved is through two natures in one Body, rationally.
From the failed created spirit and life natures through Adam and Eve The Family of God’s Mercy is returned through the Three Powers of The Universe from the Father through the Mother for the Son becoming The Christ in all mankind, immortality now becoming divine from the God of Mercy becoming the New Eve in all from Baptism into the Church of Christ becoming Holy Spirit Incorruption from Jesus, God of Justice in the New Adam through the Christ from Sacrifice through Penance, forgiven in all mankind becoming again One Holy Spirit Family One God in being, logically.
Never before has undefiled logical infallible intelligence been explained rationally and logically to creation until Logic, from Stephen by the Power of the Holy Spirit Family One God in being. Delivered not by preaching or proselytizing, and only through generalization do we become to know, “The Mind of God".
Your words flow like a theological river, wide and deep—sometimes hard to trace, but clearly moving toward a union of divine purpose and human restoration. I can see that your logic, which you call OMNILogic, is your compass. And while we may chart different courses, I hear your desire to unify the two natures of Christ, to make sense of the Incarnation not just by mystery, but by reason infused with faith.
But here’s where I pause: you speak of Mary “logically in the Trinity before creation,” and that treads on territory the Church has never dared to define. Mary is the Mother of God after the Incarnation, not before creation. She is exalted, yes. She is Theotokos, yes. But she is not eternal. She is not divine. To place her within the Trinity—even logically—is to place her in the very essence of God, and Scripture gives no such license. That’s not clarification, brother—it’s confusion cloaked in piety.
Yes, Christ’s two natures—fully God and fully man—are hypostatically united in one Person. That’s Chalcedon. That’s Scripture. That’s truth. But our calling is not to logically climb into the Mind of God and redraw what He has revealed. It is to receive with awe what He has made known: the Word became flesh (John 1:14), not Mary became God.
Mary’s “Yes” was real, and it was mighty. But her holiness is derivative, not original. Her glory is granted, not innate. Her motherhood is miraculous, not metaphysical.
So I thank you for your passion, Stephen. But let’s keep the flame of devotion from becoming the fire of speculation. Mary points to Christ. Always. And the logic of heaven will always lead us back to Him.
Ahm Ahm @Dr_S, even though im EO, imma take stance here to defend theotokos. @SincereSeeker, @StephenAndrew , lets check this out:
Catholic theology unequivocally affirms singular mediatorship of Jesus CHrist, as seen in 1 Timothy 2:5
“For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”
Christ’s unique role as the divine-human bridge (i talked abt this on why Jesus need to attain fully human nature with fully divine nature) effecting reconciliation through His paschal mystery. The CCC 969 clarifies on Mary’s role : “Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving offive but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us gifts of eternal salvation” This intercession is not a parralel mediatorship but a cooperative particiaption in CHrist’s redemptive work rooted in the communion of saints.
St Alphonsus Liguori’s assertion that “Mary is our life, because she obtains for us the pardon of our sins” employs devotional rhetoric to express Mary’s intercessory efficacy. The term “Life” (vita) aligns with the Johannine concept of spiritual life in John 10:10, which is restored through divine grace. Mary “obtains” pardon by petitioning God, not by possessing autonomous soteriological authority, which remains the exclusive prerogative of the Triune God. This is affirmed by What I learnt from Lumen Gentium 60 as in
“Mary’s function as mother of men in no wise obscures or diminishes this unique mediation of Christ, but rather shows His power.” @DR_S charge of blasphemy mistakes Liguori’s language as ascribing divine attributes to Mary. Catholic theology differentiates between latria, dulia and hyperdulia.
Catholic Mariology is grounded ins cripture with passages illuminated by their original languages and typological connections.
We see in
Luke 1:28-30
The angel Gabriel’s greeting as in Chaire, kecharitomene, employs a perfect passive participle unique in the NT, indicating a completed enduring state of divne grace bestowed upon Mary. The verb charitoo (to endow with grace) derives from charis (grace), signifying Mary’s singular election as the vessel for the Incarnation. THis aligns with the Hebrew concept of chen (favour as in Gen 6:8) as seen in Noah but elevated in Mary’s due to her role as Theotokos. Her graced states enables her intercessory potency as in St Bernard describes her as the “finder of grace” in THe Glories of Mary Chapter 2, section 2.
John 2:1-11
At the wedding at Cana, Mary’s intercession prompts Jesus’ first miracle. Her statement, “They have no wine” (οἶνον οὐκ ἔχουσιν), reflects her maternal solicitude, and Jesus’ response, despite his initial demurral saying “My hour has not yet come,” demonstrates her influence. The cana Narrative establishes Mary as an intercessor who directs attention to Christ’s power:
“Do whatever he tell you” John 2:5
This even prefigures her ongoing heavenly intercession.
John 19:26-27 we see
At the crucifixion, Jesus entrusts Mary to John, saying
“Behold, your mother”
This act transcends mere familial provision, establishing Mary as the spiritual mother of the church, a doctrine formalised by Mater Ecclesiae. The Greek mētēr connects with the hebrew em (mother, Gen 3:20), connecting Mary to Eve as the “new Eve” who cooperates in redemption thorugh obedience
(St.Ireneus, Against Heresies)
We see in revelation 12:1, 17 (I had a ligit 2 days debate on this topic, here i what i learnt in short):
The “woman clothed with the sun” is identified in Catholic tradidiotn as Mary, mother of the Messiah and of “those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus”. This apocalpytic imagery raws on the hebrew archetypes like the “daughter of Zion” (bat Tsion, Isaiah 7:14) affirming Mary’s eschatological role as intercessor for the Chruch.
The Hebrew scriptures provide typological foreshadowing. Mary as the “new Eve” reverses the fall through her fiat (meaning fiat mihi, Luke 1:38), contrasting with Eve’s disobedience. The ark of the Covenant (Exodus 25:10-22) prefigures Mary as the bearer of the Word Incarnate, a patrisitc interpretation we see in Lumen Gentium 52. These typologies show her cooperative role in salvation wihtout equating her to Christ, “new Adam” (Romans 5:14)
St.Irenaeus in Against Heresies, Irenaus articulates the Eve-Mary paralleism
“As Eve was seduced by the word of an angel to flee from God, so Mary by the word of an angel received the glad tidings that she would bear God.”}
This establishes Mary’s role as a cooperative agent in redemption. I got this from Book 3 Chapter 22, its important to learn some of the books like Against Heresies, Against Praxeas, etc many books are there, to gain knowledge from it.
Council of Ephesus proclaimed Mary as Theotokos affirming her role in the hypostatic union. The greek term theotojos safeguards Christ’s divinty and Mary’s unique vocation grounding her intercessory dignity. We can discuss about it too.
St Bernadine of Sienna asserts that God’s mercy post-fall was influenced by His foreknowledge of Mary’s role as we can connect this to The Glories of Mary:
“God did not destroy man after his sin because of the singular love He bore to this holy Virgin”
(Chapter 2, section 2)
The Second Vatican Council, we see in Lumen Gentium chapter 8, systematises Mariology, stating that
“The Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix. This, however, is so understood that it neither takes away anything from nor adds anything to the dignity and efficacy of Christ the one Mediator”
@DR_S, i aint done, lets go to the Communion of Saints and intercessory Prayer. @SincereSeeker, @StephenAndrew
lets go
The doctrine of the communion of saints undergirds Mary’s intercessory role as in CCC 956 states 956
The intercession of the saints. “Being more closely united to Christ, those who dwell in heaven fix the whole Church more firmly in holiness. … They do not cease to intercede with the Father for us, as they proffer the merits which they acquired on earth through the one mediator between God and men, Christ Jesus . … So by their fraternal concern is our weakness greatly helped
Revelation 5:8 depicts the elders presenting the prayers of the saints (” golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints"), affirming heavenly intercession. Mary, as the preeminent saint, exercises this office with unparalleled efficacy due to her unique relationship with Christ.
The Glories of Mary recounts the instance of Helen, a sinner whose devotion to the rosary led to repentance and sacramental confession, illustrating Mary’s role in guiding souls to Christ’s forgiveness as in Chapter 2, section 2. This aligns with Pauline’s exhortation to intercede for one another (Romans 15:30) amplified in Mary’s case by her maternal bond with the Redeemer. @DR_S accusation that Ligori’s statement is a “blasphemous parody” of Christ’s and Holy Spirit’s works mistakes the Catholic soteriology. Christ’s redemptive act on the cross (hilastērion, as in Romans 3:25) is the sole source of salvation, applied by the Holy Spirit (pneuma hagion). We discussed abt it in the Trinity vs Oneness argument. Mary’s intercession is a secondary, subordinate act within the oikonomia analogous to a petitioner before a king.
St.Louis de Montfort explains in the True Devotion to Mary (Another amazing book, brother) its written
“We only pass through Mary to reach Jesus” and it has been in my mind ever since.
The devotional hyperbole of “Mary is our life” reflects her role in obtaining grace, not supplanting Christ or the Spirit.
The “blasphemy” thing brought in the posts abt this topic, ignores the linguistic and cultural context of the 18th-century Catholic piety. Liguori’s rhetoic is rooted in the affective piety of the Baroque era and thus employs a poetic exaggeration to inspire devotion not to assert a doctrinal equivalence This was completely ignored by @DR_S. The Glossa Ordinaria and other medieval commentaries similarly used fervent language to honour Mary without compromising monotheism.
Eastern Orthodox reinforces Catholic teaching emphasizing Mary’s role in theosis. The Theotokion hymns praise her as the “protection of Christians” interceding unceasingly before the Trinity. THe Orthodox concept of Synergia (cooperation with divine grace) parallels with Catholic teaching on Mary’s cooperative role as seen in her fiat (Luke 1:38)
The Paraklesis service invokes her as “Mediatrix” yet always in subordination to Christ aligning with Lumen Gentium 62.
Peace
Sam
1 Timothy 2:5 (ESV) “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”
→ Paul’s statement is clear and unambiguous. Christ is the mediator—not a mediator, not one of several, not the chief among others—but the only one. The Greek word used here, εἷς (heis, “one”), is emphatic and exclusive.
→ The role of Mediator in this context refers to the sole, sufficient, and effective intercessory work of Christ, who reconciles humanity to God by His atoning sacrifice. No one else—angel, saint, or Mary—can fulfill this role without undermining the sufficiency of Christ’s unique mediatorship.
2**. The notion of “mediatrix” or “co-mediatrix” with Christ creates confusion and redundancy:**
The Catholic attempt to say this “does not take away from Christ” is logically and theologically incoherent. If Christ is the only Mediator, then by definition, adding another “mediator” alongside Him–even in a subordinate or cooperative capacity–undermines His exclusive role.
→ Even if one claims Mary’s intercession is dependent on Christ, the very act of attributing to her the title “Mediatrix” introduces a second layer of mediation not taught anywhere in the New Testament.
The New Testament never uses these titles for Mary:
Not once is Mary referred to as Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, or Mediatrix in any inspired text.
→ These roles are instead reserved for the Holy Spirit and Christ:
John 14:16 (ESV)
“And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper (παράκλητος, paraklētos), to be with you forever…”
1 John 2:1 (ESV)
“…we have an advocate (paraklētos) with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.”
→ The Holy Spirit is the Helper (Greek: paraklētos), and Christ is the Advocate (paraklētos), not Mary. Scripture assigns these specific functions and titles to the persons of the Godhead. To transfer or share these with Mary is without biblical warrant.
The danger of elevating Mary in titles and roles is explicitly warned against by Paul:
Colossians 2:18–19 (ESV) “Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind, and not holding fast to the Head…”
→ While Mary is not an angel, the warning still applies: any practice or doctrine that shifts the focus from Christ as the sole Head—introducing other figures as recipients of veneration, prayers, or mediatory roles—draws believers away from the sufficiency of Christ.
Mary herself never receives such veneration in Scripture:
In all of Acts, which records the birth of the Church, Mary appears only once (Acts 1:14), simply as one among the believers praying. She is never singled out for veneration, invoked for help, or described as a mediator. Instead, the apostles and the early church proclaim Jesus alone as Lord, Savior, and Intercessor.
So–
Any teaching that ascribes to Mary the roles of “Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix”—even if stated as subordinate to Christ—contradicts the plain teaching of the New Testament. Scripture not only fails to support such titles but directly excludes the possibility by declaring that Christ alone is our Mediator, Advocate, and High Priest (Hebrews 7:25; 1 Timothy 2:5; Romans 8:34). No tradition, no council, and no ecclesiastical decree has authority to supplement or override what is written.
Let us hold fast to what Paul affirmed:
“For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.” (1 Corinthians 2:2)
OOO nice one, @Johann, i’ll study abt it and come tomorrow, because i gotta sleep early, tomorrow is Church..My love and prayers with you, May God bless you. Pardon me for my late response on this topic but yea i studied abt it a month ago but since it takes time to compile and learn from other sources, I would prefer replying tomorrow and it would be better/
Love
Peace
Sam
Mary is the mother of the human child Jesus; yes, he is deity because his Father is God. Jesus was as human you and I, but he is a perfect human without sin as he had no earthly tainted father. Mary was shown no reverence from Jesus in the few encounters with him in the scriptures. When she approached him about the wine at Cana, Jesus said, “What have I to do with thee woman”. When Jesus died on the cross, "He told John, “Take her into your house as your mother”. When Joseph and Mary had left him behind after paying taxes, they finally realized on their way home that Jesus was not with them. They went back and found him in the Temple teaching others 12 years of age). When they asked him why he did not return with them, he asked, “Don’t you know that I must be about my Father’s business”? Jesus was Mary’s son in the flesh, but not in his divine purpose in the world. Mary was special in that she found favor with God; he knew her heart and new she would be the right mother for him. There should be no Icons or Idols for Mary as she is no different than other goodly women. She has to have faith in Jesus and the words from his Father just the same as any other person. There is no power in praying to Mary or any other person. The only effective prayers are in the name of Jesus, the mediator between God and man. I believe all Popes are on dangerous grounds as they think they can forgive sins. Only God and his son has this ability.
YEE @Johann , im back brother, i studied the 5 points you gave and its strong, this is what i expect from a strong Christian who takes the scriptures seriously..praise be to God, through you, I’m learning so many concepts. Praise be to God. @StephenAndrew , can also join in, @DR_S can also join @SincereSeeker
While I accept that your points are clearly based on scripture, I don’t have much counterpoints from the scripture, but
I can put forward from CCC and other Catholic books. I also put forward some scriptures and how i interpret, but i dont have a clear scriptural answer. Talking about point 1, I agree that the title “Mediatrix” is not taught given to Mary and isnt taught anywhere in New Testament, but …here’s what I feel
The greek term mesitēs and heis underscore Christ’s singular role as the divine-human bridge effecting reconciliation through His atoning sacrifice (hilastērion, Romans 3:25)/ However, Catholic theology does not posit Mary as a rival mediator but as a subordinate participant in Christ’s mediation. I also read the points u made abt subordinate mediation.. but i think
1 Timothy 2:1-6 Paul urges “supplications, prayers, intercessions and thanksgiving be made for all men” (enteuxeis meaning intercessions). This communal intercession doesnt negate Christ’s mediatorship but participates in it, as believers share in His priestly office as we read in 1 Peter 2:9. Mary’s intercession as articulated in Lumen Gentium 60
“flows forth from the superabundance of the merits of Christ, rests on His mediation, depends entirely on it and draws all its power from it.”
Her role is analogous to the intercessory prayers of the faithful amplified by her unique status as Theotokos.
Catholic doctrine distinguishes between Christ’s ontological mediatorship (meaning reconciling God and humanity through His incarnation and paschal mystery) and subordinate intercession which facilitates the application of CHrist’s merits. The term “Mediatrix” in Catholic theology as used in Lumen Gentium 62 denotes Mary’s cooperatve role in dispensing grace, not a parallel or independent mediation. This avoid the charge of “reduncy” by sitating her intercession within the communion of saints.
If intercessory prayer by believers as in Romans 15:30 does not diminsh Christ’s mediatorship, neither does Mary’s intercession which is uniquely effcacious due to her role as the Mother of God.
Coming to Titles like "Mediatrix, Advocate, Helper are unbiblical and reserved for Christ and Holy Spirit, now i agree with it, but we need more finer lines and we need to look into the finer strands of this fabric.
John 14:16 and 1 John 2:1, lets discuss about that. The greek term paraklētos (meaning adovcate or helper) is used for Holy Spirit, true. But in Catholic theology doesnt now use paraklētos to mary in univocal sense. Her titles being Advocate (advocata), Helper (auxiliatrix) and mediatrix are dervied from her intercessory function not from an appropriation of Trinitarian roles. For example, we see in Lumen Gentium 62, states that these titles “are to be so understood that they neither take away from nor add anything to the dignity and efficacy of Christ the one Mediator”. Mary’s advocacy is maternal, petitionary and subordinate, akin to the intercession of the saints we see in Revelations 5:8 (“golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints”) Mary’s intercessory role is explicitly biblical, i think. even though ur points 1,2 3 are strongly embedded in scirpture, i would view and many orthodox and catholic view this as the epitome of intercession instance at the wedding in Cana, John 2:1-11, her request (“They have no wine”) prompts Christ’s first miracle, demonstrating her effective intercession. Her directive “Do whatever he tells you” underscores her Christocentric role, pointing to Jesus as the source of grace. Similarly, John 19:26-27 establishes her as the spiritual mother of the Church, a role formalised as Mater Ecclesiae.
Early Church Fathers affirm Mary’s intercessory role without equating it to Christ’s or the Holy Spirit’s. St Irenaeus (Against Heresies, book 3, chapter 22) describes Mary as the “new Eve” whose obedience facilitates redemption. St. Ephrem calls her “the advocate of the human race” a title we see in The Glories of Mary (chapter 2, section 1). Colossians 2:18-19
The warning against the “worship of angel” shifts the focus in worship from Christ as “head”
In Colossians 2:18-19, Paul critiques proto-Gnostic practices involving thrēskeia tōn angelōn (Worship of angels) and visions that detract from Christ (tēn kephalēn, the Head). But again Catholic veneration of Mary (hyperdulia) is distinct from worship (latria) as articulated by Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologiae). Unlike the Colossian heresy, which involved speculative angelology, Mariology is grounded in Christ’s incarnation through Mary.
Catholic doctrine explicitly guards against diverting focus from Christ.
Lumen Gentium 62 states
“No creature could ever be counted along with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer.”
Mary’s veneration directs believers to Christ as seen in her own words at Cana and devotions like Rosary, which meditates on Christ’s life (CCC 971) Acts 1:14
In Acts 1:14, Mary is explicitly named (hē mētēr Iēsou, “the mother of Jesus”,) a unique designation among the gynaikes (women) and adelphoi (brethren). The term homothumadon (with one accord) situates her within the proto-ecclesial community awaiting the Paraklētos (Acts 2:1-4). Her presence evokes the Hebrew shekinah (divine presence, Exodus 40:34-35) as Mary, the new Ark of the Covenant (aron ha-brit), bears the Word Incarnate (St. Athanasius, On the Incarnate). This typological continuity aligns with Luke 1:35 (pneuma hagion epeleusetai epi se, “the Holy Spirit will come upon you”), positing Mary as a pneumatological bridge between the Annunciation and Pentecost.
Mary’s role in Acts 1:14 prefigures her eschatological intercession in the ecclesia orans. Revelation 12:1-17 depicts her as the “woman clothed with the sun” (gynē peribeblēmenē ton hēlion), mother of the Messiah and the Church (tōn tērountōn tas entolas tou Theou). Her presence in Acts signifies her as Mater Ecclesiae, mediating the Spirit’s outpouring through her prayer as affirmed by St.John Chrysostom
“She who bore the Word now prays with the Church for the Spirit’s descent”
(Homilies on Acts)
St Augustine (De Sancta Virginitate) interprets Mary’s presence in Acts as emblematic of her maternal oversight, linking her to the koinōnia of the Chruch (Acts 2:42). Her role is not merely passive but dynamically intercessory as seen in the Sub Tuum Praesdidium (studied about it last month, so thought of adding it), which invokes her as “the one who alone fights for us” No tradition, no council, no ecclesiastical decree has authority to supplement or override what is written: this is what i think closely associated with sola scriptura
2 Thessalonians 2:15 commands believers to “hold fast to the traditions” (parateirēte tas paradoseis), whether oral or written traditions. The greek paradosis (traditions) encompasses the Church’s living transmission of revelation as seen in the canon’s formation (Council of Rome, 382) and doctrinal development (like Trinity, homoousious). Mariology doctrines like Theotokos and Mediatrix emerge from sensus fidelium under the Holy Spirit’s guidance (paraklētos, John 16:13)
The council of Ephesus defined Mary as Theotokos to safeguard Christ’s divinity (hypostatic union), not to elevate her unduly (New Advent). Lumen Gentium 62 integrates Mariology into the Church’s mystery, articulating her as “Mediatrix” within Christ’s mediation. This development reflects the analogia fidei ensuring doctrinal coherence. (CCC 80-83)
What i meant is, the complexity of divine revelation necessitates an authoritative interpreter to enure fidelity to the depositum fidei. In Acts 15:28, the Jerusalem Council declares “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us” (doxen tō Pneumati hagiō kai hēmin) to resolve doctrinal disputes, demonstarting the Spirit-guided authority of the apostolic community. The Magisterium, as the successor to this authority, functions as the servus Verbi (servant of the Word), safeguarding the sensus fidei. The Ethiopian enunch’s question in Acts 8:31, “How can I [understand scripture] unless someone guides me?” shows the need for authoritative exegesis. The Magisterium’s role in defining Mary as Theotokos and Mediatrix ensures doctrinal coherence, grounding her intercessory role in the hypostatic union and the communio sanctorum.
Catholic hermeneutics employs sensus plenior of scripture, recognising that divine revelation unfolds progressively through the Spirit’s guidance (John 16:13 “He will guide you into all truth”). The sensus plenior of texts like Luke 1:28 (kecharitomene) and John 2:1-11 (“They have no wine”) shows an intercessory role. For example, the typological identification of Mary as the “new Eve” (chawwah, Genesis 3:20) by St.Irenaeus draws on Genesis 3:15 (etsvah, enmity between the woman and the serpent), fulfilled in Mary’s fiat (genotio moi, Luke 1:38). The sensus plenior also informs the identification of Mary as the “woman clothed with the sun”, mother of the Church, a doctrine developed through patristic exegesis. (like St.Ephrem, Hymns on the Nativity)
The catholic synthesis of scripture, tradition, and Magisterium rests on a realist epistemology, contra the nominalist tendency of the Protestant sola scriptura. Drawing on Thomistic metaphysics, revelation is a participatio divinae naturae (meaning “participation in divine nature”, 2 Peter 1:4) mediated through the Church as the corpus mysticum Christi (Ephesians 1:22-23). The Magisterium, as the intellectus fidei (understanding of faith) ensures that Mariological doctrines such as Mary s role in the dispensatio gratiae remain coherent with the depositum fidei.
**This contrasts with Protestant reliace in private interpretation, which risks hermeneutical fragmentation ( as in 2 Peter 1:20, “no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation”)
Sola scriptura is a debatable topic, but the canon of scripture itself derives from the Church’s tradition (Council of Rome, 382; Carthage, 397). The absence of explicit Marian titles in scripture doesn’t negate their legitimacy as the sensus plenior reveals implicit truths (as in Luke 1:43, “mother of my Lord”). The Protestant rejection of tradition, I feel, ignores the historical reality that the early Church relied on oral paradosis before the canon’s codification ( eg, Acts 2:42 “the teaching of the apostles”). Mariology, including Marian titles like Mediatrix, is a legitimate development as seen in St.Bernard’s invenitrix gratiae and the Mater Ecclesiae doctrine. Coming back to the devotional rhetoric of The Glories of Mary such as “Mary is our life because she obtains for us the pardon of our sins” must be understood in its historical context, i feel
Liguori’s 18th century work shows the Baroque spirituality which employs poetic hyperbole to inspire devotion. The phrase “our life” connects with Johannine zōē (spiritual life, John 10:10) signifying grace mediated through Mary’s intercession, not her autonomous power. St.Bernard’s description of Mary as “the finder of grace” clarifies that she obtains grace from Christ. (referred to The Glories of Mary, Chapter 2, section 1).
Liguori cites Helen, a sinner led to repentance through rosary, illustrating Mary’s role in guiding souls to Christ’s sacraments. This aligns with James 5:16 (“pray for one another”), showing intercession as a communal act.
But Im oriental orthodox but here I feel i should take the stance of the Catholic since the orthodox and catholic doctrine on Mary is very similar.
My love with you, @Johann
Peace
Sam
@Samuel_23
If you agree that the Scriptures are sufficient and should be our primary source for truth and study, then why would I need to answer your question based on Catholic books?
As it is written: “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16 KJV).
If the Word of God is enough–as you now affirm–then let’s stay rooted in it.
yes, but i dont believe in sola scriptura, but i believe in scriptures as the inspired Word of God. I have explained why we have to learn from Catholic books, The Magiesterium, the works of St.Irenaeus, St. Saint Louis-Marie de Montfort etc. thomistic metaphysics etc in the later part, i dont agree sola scriptura, but I have explained by stance in the latter part of the posts, my brother. Not only Catholic books but the whole library containing Christian theological books, we need to look at the entire picture…
If you read my posts, my brother, you would see the stance. I am still an EO and i take the catholic stance..
This is a deep topic, thus one cannot grasp it, without learning it entirely. I have written abt such questions and their answer.
Without reading the entire post, its like seeing the tip of the iceberg but the real depth is in the latter part.
I know its a long post, take ur time, and just read it one by one and thus u will understand why I think tradition+Church’s authority+scripture+councils+works of saints, we need Sensus Plenior (again explained in the post) works and not sola scriptura, for sola-scriptura ignores the things like “progressive revelation” etc I have explained abt the a lot in the posts, thats why brother, im begging you to read the rest
Please brother, I have explained abt it
(In simple words, I reject Sola Scriptura but I uphold the Scripture’s authority within the context of the Living Church.)
Always
My love be with you
peace
Sam
Brother Sam, I hear your heart and your desire to honor God, the Church, and the saints who’ve walked before us—but I must respond plainly, with Scripture as the final court of appeal. Let me go point by point, using the Word of God to clarify why Sola Scriptura—the belief that Scripture alone is the ultimate authority—is not only a Reformation principle but a biblical necessity.
Scripture declares itself to be sufficient and God-breathed—able to make the believer complete.
2 Timothy 3:16–17: “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”
Paul did not say Scripture plus tradition, magisterium, or metaphysics would complete the man of God. Scripture alone is declared sufficient.
The Bereans were called noble for testing Paul’s apostolic teaching against Scripture, not tradition.
Acts 17:11: “Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.”
If Paul, an apostle, could be tested by Scripture alone, how much more ought we to test all teachers—including Church Fathers and councils—by the same standard?
Jesus rebuked the elevation of tradition above God’s Word.
Mark 7:7–9, 13: “In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men… You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men… thus making void the word of God by your tradition.”
This was not a rejection of all tradition, but of any tradition that nullifies or obscures the Word of God. Any tradition, even from respected Church sources, must bow to Scripture.
Scripture is what Jesus and the apostles constantly referred to as the authoritative Word.
Luke 24:27: “And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.”
Christ pointed them not to the rabbis, not to the Talmud or oral tradition, but to Scripture.
1 Corinthians 4:6: “…that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written.”
Paul warns against adding teachings not grounded in the written Word.
Even Church Fathers appealed to Scripture as supreme.
You mentioned Irenaeus. He did indeed affirm apostolic tradition, but he argued from Scripture to refute heresy, not above it:
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III, Ch. 6.1: “We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us… which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures.”
Irenaeus used Scripture to defeat the Gnostics, not the “magisterium.”
Scripture condemns adding to God’s Word.
Proverbs 30:5–6: “Every word of God proves true… Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar.”
Revelation 22:18–19: “If anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book…”
This does not mean we cannot read commentaries or benefit from history, but it does mean Scripture alone must be the measuring rod (κανών).
“Progressive revelation” is already completed in Christ and the apostolic witness.
Hebrews 1:1–2: “Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son…”
Christ is the final revelation. Not the saints. Not later theological systems. He gave His Word, His Spirit, and His apostles. All later councils must be weighed by what is already revealed.
The command to “contend for the faith” refers to a body of doctrine already delivered.
Jude 1:3: “…contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.”
“Once for all” (ἅπαξ) means it is not evolving. Tradition must reflect that original faith, not expand it.
Scripture has the power to bring salvation.
James 1:21: “Receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls.”
Romans 10:17: “Faith comes by hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.”
The gospel message is contained in the Word, not in later metaphysical systems or ecclesial pronouncements.
Sola Scriptura does not reject church history, but it insists Scripture is the final authority.
We honor the saints, but we do not make them the standard.
We read Irenaeus, Basil, Athanasius—but we test them by Scripture, as the Bereans tested Paul.
In love, Sam—this is not a rejection of the Church, but a return to her roots.
The early Christians didn’t have the Catechism of Trent or Vatican I. They had the prophets, apostles, and the Scriptures. That is what we are called to test and hold fast to:
1 Thessalonians 5:21: “Test all things; hold fast that which is good.”
We test everything—including tradition—by the Word of God.
May the Lord give you clarity not based on man’s authority, but upon what is written.
