Movie Review: The Passion of the Christ (Part Three)

To John M.Esparolini: “I hope they’ll read the book,” says Gibson after using additives from a Catholic mystic’s imagination to twist and tweak the crucifixion narrative. Now that this bleeding Catholic action-icon is “going to and fro on the earth,” those who’ve been whipped up by the movie will be reading the Word of God with Gibson’s mariolatrous mischief imprinted on their minds.

John M.Esparolini writes, “Yeppir! Gotta get rid of all that mariolatrous mischief. ;-)”

Gibson’s extra-biblical inventions and so-called “plausable embellishments” to the Gospel account are the work of man, not God. The scripture does not have Mary awakening and speaking lines from the Jewish liturgy, examining Jesus’ carpentry skills, being called “Mother” by Peter, kissing a stone floor, seeing Gibson’s custom-made Satan, saying “My son, when, where, how will you choose to be delivered of this,” wiping up Jesus’ blood, rescuing a fallen child or taking Jesus down from the cross. Gibson’s not portraying the biblical Mary but shaping her into a Romanist artifact. The same blasphemous spirit works in Catholicism’s vast wasteland of plastic statues and bleeding heart icons made in the imagined likeness of the ‘Queen of Heaven.’ Strike away the movie’s Catholic “improvements” and you end up with a considerably less Hollywoodian spectacle. Thankfully, Christians don’t need Gibson’s idolatrous abomination but can trust in God’s inerrant, glorious Word for the truth that both honors Mary and exalts the Lord Jesus alone.

John M.Esparolini writes, “How’s about all them Dispensationalist embellishments in the “Left Behind” novels and movies?”

The “Left Behind” trash doesn’t attempt to fortify the Gospels with Marian fantasies. Gibson told Zenit, “I’m telling the story as the Bible tells it [a pious lie]. The Gospel is a complete script, and that’s what we’re filming [a viewable lie].” He has expanded what he called “a complete script” into a Catholic gorefest and then says, “The Holy Ghost was working through me on this film, and I was just directing traffic [a blasphemy].”

John M.Esparolini writes, “the only ‘Marian fantasies’ which appear are perfectly in line with both Scripture (esp. Luke and John) and common sense.”

Since Catholic embellishments are born from this vague notion of “in line with,” the possibilities for imaginative infections of the Gospel narrative are unlimited. The nine specific instances cited earlier expose the entire film as a Marian fantasy, as Gibson’s 30-million-dollar, bloody crawl through the Stations of the Cross. His Mary speaks the line, “Flesh of my flesh, heart of my heart, my son, let me die with you,” an additive derived from the mystic Emmerich: “the Blessed Virgin, filled with intense feelings of motherly love, entreated her Son to permit her to die with him.” It isn’t found in the divine Word, but it does pump up the Marian fantasy.

John M.Esparolini writes,“Do you believe that Mary conceived, carried, gave birth to, and nursed Jesus the God-man or only Jesus the man?”

Appealing to the authority of “common sense ALONE,” and the issue of Jesus’ Davidic lineage, and the heartbreak of parental loss is a diversion. The point is this—Emmerich’s mystical handle on maternal feeling doesn’t translate into a divine permission to conjure “missing pieces” of the Gospel account which can be used to feed the Catholic cult of Mary.

I believe the Word of God:

And the angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God. (Luke 1:35)
And when they had come into the house, they saw the young Child with Mary His mother, and fell down and worshiped Him. (Matthew 2:11)
And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:14)

These Christ-centered scriptures clearly proclaim Mary’s blessed, human motherhood and the deity of the man Jesus. However, they do not validate Gibson’s appetite for Marian fantasies… an obsession he shares with Jim Caviezel who said: “This film is something that I believe was made by Mary for her Son.”

John M.Esparolini writes,“Do you believe that Mary conceived, carried, gave birth to, and nursed Jesus the God-man or only Jesus the man?”

On March 9, 2004 11:48 PM Harmon Gottlieb wrote, “I believe the Word of God:

And the angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God. (Luke 1:35)

And when they had come into the house, they saw the young Child with Mary His mother, and fell down and worshiped Him. (Matthew 2:11)

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:14)

These scriptures address the statement, “that Mary conceived, carried, gave birth to, and nursed Jesus the God-man.” Explain: 1) why they do not answer the question, and 2) how they imply the “Gnostic assertion that the Incarnated Son of God was NOT the ‘flesh of [Mary’s] flesh.’”

John M.Esparolini writes, “So far the only “Marian fantasies” you’ve been able to point out in this film is that Mary and Jesus loved each other and that they shared a deep mother-and-son bond. Yep, sure sound like “Marian fantasies” to me. LOL”

On March 8, 2004 02:38 PM Harmon Gottlieb wrote, “The scripture does not have Mary awakening and speaking lines from the Jewish liturgy, examining Jesus’ carpentry skills, being called “Mother” by Peter, kissing a stone floor, seeing Gibson’s custom-made Satan, saying “My son, when, where, how will you choose to be delivered of this,” wiping up Jesus’ blood, rescuing a fallen child or taking Jesus down from the cross.” God’s Word affirms the mother-son bond without these extra-scriptural fantasies drawn from the Marian cult.

John M.Esparolini writes, “So how’s about giving us some links to the actual sources from which you quote?

Interview: Jim and Kerri Caviezel, and Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ”
http://www.medjugorje.hr/Int%20Caviezel%20ENG.htm

A “PERSONAL artistic meditation” on the Stations of the Cross which follows, somewhat, a sequence lifted from the Gospels is nothing more than that—a personal vehicle for Gibson’s mariolatry.

John M.Esparolini writes, ”…merely parroting Bible verses without telling me what YOU think they mean is NOT the same thing as answering the question. Capiche?

But the Catholic parrot, it seems, has a problem with the all-sufficiency of God’s Word (2Timothy 3:16). If one believes scripture, and scripture directly answers a question, why should it create disatisfaction, seeing that whatever meaning one ”thinks” will be measured, finally, by the scripture.

”I said that your objection to Mary’s line in Gibson’s film —“flesh of my flesh, heart of my heart”— implies the Gnostic assertion that the Incarnated Son did not derive His flesh and blood from her.”

How is Gnosticism even remotely implied in stating that Emmerich’s ecstatic invention “isn’t found in the divine Word, but it does pump up the Marian fantasy“ ?

”Uh, Harmon, that “fallen child” is supposed to be the child Jesus. You seem to be the only person I’ve come across who didn’t get that. Btw, the Apostle Paul once referred to Rufus’ mother as his mother, too. Obviously he did so out of respect and/or affection for her. The last time I looked, there was nothing “unbiblical” about that either.”

Well, duh! :-) Grabbing the ‘fallen child=Jesus’ thing is sheer desperation—much like the escape through Paul’s “mother” metaphor—or is this a twisted Catholic way of saying that Rufus’ and Paul’s mother was Mary?

”Are you also going to argue therefore that this makes Michelangelo’s famous Sistine Chapel painting “unbibical”???

The Sistine Chapel painting occupies the same level of open-ended ‘biblicalness’ as “The Last Temptation of Christ.” Kazantzakis, after all, believed “that part of Christ’s nature which was profoundly human helps us to understand him and love him and to pursue his Passion as though it were our own,” and Scorsese claimed, “I believe that Jesus is fully divine.” So, the big “creative“ can you open for your dancing Jesus, Emmerich’s mystical supplements and Gibson’s marian fantasies is the same one that Kazantzakis and Scorsese eat from.

John M.Esparolini writes, ”The Arians invoked the very same “argument” at Nicea. They were against the orthodox definition of Christ’s divinity, as well as the Trinitarian formula, on the grounds that the orthodox Christians (i.e., the “Catholics”) were going “outside Scripture” by adopting terms borrowed from Greek philosophy.

So are you referring to Scripture’s material all-sufficiency or formal all-sufficiency? There’s a mighty big difference, y’know.

And in what sense and context? The Bible does not “directly answer” all questions on all issues, after all.

For example, whether abortion is murder or mere manslaughter. Or which books really belong in the NT canon.

Those issues are and were settled thru extra-biblical means using extra-biblical resources in addition to the biblical texts.”

What does this obfuscating trip through Nicea, material or formal all-sufficiency and contextuality have to do with the scripture’s full and satisfactory answer to your question?

You implied that the “flesh of my flesh” line was false, not merely missing from Scripture.

Show us the offending text, and then explain how it implies “that the ‘flesh of my flesh’ line was false, not merely missing from Scripture.”

ROTFLMBO!!! So Michelangelo equals Martin Scorcese??? Too much! Either Michelangelo is rolling in his grave at Mach speed, or Scorcese just got promoted to the rank of “genius.”

Michaelangelo equals Scorsese equals Gibson because they all dip into scripture to produce artifacts that fade away. Michaelangelo’s work is no more “biblical” than Scorsese’s or Gibson’s. None of it can improve, replace or illuminate the Word of God.

Harmon, one thing I’ll say for you: You’re enormously entertaining. :-)

And then there’s the eternity you could spend with marian Mel Gibson, being endlessly entertained by the “artistic license” in his horror-flic parody of truth.

”What does this obfuscating trip through Nicea, material or formal all-sufficiency and contextuality have to do with the scripture’s full and satisfactory answer to your question? “

John M.Esparolini writes,“=sigh= Nothing. But that wasn’t either my point or my question, was it?”

The scripture answered your question—so what is your point?

“Show us the offending text, and then explain how it implies “that the ‘flesh of my flesh’ line was false, not merely missing from Scripture.

Okey-dokey. Here goes:

(Harmon): His Mary speaks the line, “Flesh of my flesh, heart of my heart, my son, let me die with you,” an additive derived from the mystic Emmerich: “the Blessed Virgin, filled with intense feelings of motherly love, entreated her Son to permit her to die with him.” It isn’t found in the divine Word, but it does pump up the Marian fantasy.

Obviously, this means that Gibson’s “Marian fantasy” includes the proposition that the Incarnated Son of God was “flesh of [Mary’s] flesh.” If that proposition is part of a fantasy then it necessary follows that it too is a fantasy, which in turn amounts to a tacit denial of the Incarnation. That places your Christology within the Gnostic camp and in opposition to the very NT passages you quote as allegedly representing your position.”

Awesome casuistry(!) …the way you force-feed Gnosticism into the observation that a) the incident (and the line) is not found in the divine Word, and that b) Gibson has imported this Emmerichia into his film to pump up his Marian fantasy.

By that “logic,” all Christian music should also be done away with unless it consists of Bible passages, and only Bible passages.

That’s your “logic.” Painters, film-makers and musicians—faithful and faithless—can do whatever they want—pretty or ugly—with scriptural material. However, trying to hang the divine seal from any of it is blasphemy. Mariolater Gibson claims “The Holy Ghost was working through me on this film, and I was just directing traffic,” and his Jesus, Jim “humble molehill” Caviezel, says, “This film is something that I believe was made by Mary for her Son.”

And then there’s the eternity you could spend with marian Mel Gibson, being endlessly entertained by the “artistic license” in his horror-flic parody of truth.

I wouldn’t be so presumptuous if I was you, friend. You might be in for quite a rude awakening on Judgment Day.

Gibson’s bleeding Catholic action-icon and its defenders have already been condemned by the Word of God. Judgment Day holds no terror for those who trust God’s promise: “In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.” (Ephesians 1:13,14)

John M.Esparolini writes, ”No, I ‘force-fed’ Gnosticism into your implied ‘observation’ that the line itself is false because it “is not found in the divine Word.”

You’re crashing around in the darkness of the “implied,” desperate to get your Gnosticism label to stick. The verity or falsity of the line was never an issue. The line does not appear in the crucifixion account from God’s Word, but Mel uses it to fatten the marian content of his movie. It’s that simple—with no place for your Gnosticism.

”First of all, just because the words “flesh of my flesh” do not appear in the Bible, it does not necessarily follow that the concept itself does not appear in the Bible. The word “Trinity” doesn’t appear in the Bible either, but “by good and necessary consequence [it] may be deduced from Scripture” (as the original Westminster Confession puts it) that God is three Persons. Likewise the nature and substance of the Son’s Incarnation and Mary’s actual role in that process.”

The lesson in “good and necessary consequence” is unnecessary and inconsequential because scripture has already clearly stated “Mary’s actual role in that process”: ”And the angel answered and said to her, ‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.’”

”Scripture —including the passages you quote— plainly tells us (explicitly) that the Son took on a human nature and (implicitly, “by good and necessary consequence”) that He obtained that nature from Mary, that she was His mother in every sense of the word because she conceived Him.”

And so?

”Second, since you seem to deny that Jesus’ human nature came from Mary —i.e., that He was (and remains) “flesh of [her] flesh” (which fact Scripture clearly alludes to!)— that is where the Gnosticism lies:”

“Seem to deny”? Only in your Catholic confusion. Certainly not in the quoted scripture which, once again, says, “And the angel answered and said to her, ‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.’”

”You can’t reject the biblical reality that the Son derived His human nature from Mary on the one hand, yet accept the biblical reality of the Son’s Incarnation on the other, for the two realities are inextricably linked. Bottom line: You can’t have it both ways.

“Can’t reject” and didn’t. Bottom line for Catholicism: the inextricable linkage of these two realities: mother-human is to Jesus-human as Jesus-God is to mother-God. That’s how your ‘Queen of Heaven’ dogma gets its mojo (Jeremiah 7:18).

“Gibson’s bleeding Catholic action-icon and its defenders have already been condemned by the Word of God.”

”But only as that Word is interpreted by Jack Chick. ;-)”

So you actually name your chickens?!

You’re crashing around in the darkness of the “implied,” desperate to get your Gnosticism label to stick. The verity or falsity of the line was never an issue. The line does not appear in the crucifixion account from God’s Word, but Mel uses it to fatten the marian content of his movie. It’s that simple—with no place for your Gnosticism.

Well, interpretations are like noses: Everyone has them.

Not everyone has your nose for the Gnostic.

“Flesh of [Mary’s] flesh” is therefore nothing more than a reiteration and confirmation of the doctrine of the Incarnation —which doctrine one MUST accept if one is going to call oneself a Christian.

Ah…you found the “Incarnation Doctrine Test” hidden in Gibson’s marian script!

The line has little or nothing to do with any of the specifically Catholic Marian dogmas (e.g., Immaculate Conception, Assumption, Perpectual Virginity), two of which are shared by the Orthodox Churches.

Would you expect Morgenstern Mary to recite dogma from “The Catechism” ? Once again, the incident offering the words, “Flesh of my flesh, heart of my heart, my son, let me die with you,” was an Emmerich fiction imported by Gibson into the Gospel he claimed he was following.

I take this to mean, then, that you accept the Theotokos (“God-bearer”) doctrine. You could have said so three exchanges ago. :-)

One post after your question I cited the answer provided by God’s Word in Luke 1:35, Matthew 2:11 and John 1:14, but you were too busy with the Gnostic-hunt to recognize it.

(1) The Catholic, Orthodox, and historic Protestant view (e.g., Luther and Calvin) is virgin-mother-human is to Jesus-the-God-man as any-human is to his/her mother-human. The orthodox, biblical doctrine is that Mary conceived Jesus the God-man, not just Jesus the man.

And what does this do for Gibson’s Hollywood/religious flic? It allows him to marianize the Gospel. It produces “a gift from Mary to her Son.”

One OT verse which refers to the gebirah is:
“Say to the king and the queen-mother, ‘Take a lowly seat, For your beautiful crown Has come down from your head.’” (Jer. 13:18, NASB)

Nonsense. This “gebirah” ploy only works for your marian eisegesis.

The Christ-replacing spirit that feeds Gibson’s gorgeous rendering of marian heresy is revealed in the The Glories of Mary (Tan Books, 1982) by Alphonsus de Liguori— “saint” and “doctor of the Church”:

“All power is given to thee in heaven and on earth, and nothing is impossible to thee, who canst raise those who are in despair to the hope of salvation.” (p.154)

“Thou art the Mother of God, and all-powerful to save sinners, and with God thou needest no other recommendation; for thou art the Mother of true life.” (p.155)

“At the command of Mary, all obey, even God.” (p.155)

“Yes, Mary is omnipotent.” (p.155)

“God has placed the whole Church, not only under the patronage, but even under the dominion of Mary.” (p.155)

“This great Virgin, who is the Mother of your God and Judge, is also the Advocate of the whole human race : fit for this office, for she can do what she wills with God.” (p.171-172)

“We often more quickly obtain what we ask by calling on the name of Mary than by invoking that of Jesus.” (p.228)

“The whole trinity, O Mary, gave thee a name after that of thy Son above every other name, that in thy name every knee should bow, of things in heaven, on earth, and under the earth.” (p.234)

“Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” —Colossians 2:8

Nonsense. This “gebirah” ploy only works for your marian eisegesis.

Sez you.

No, “sez” your marian eisegesis.

Did you even READ the material I provided to suppport it???

Yes, and there’s nothing (except for what you’ve read into it) to connect those “mother-queen” observations to that ornate, mariolatrous entity which Catholics call “the Queen of Heaven.”

Instead of just casually dismissing my argument and evidence —the latter of which is from Protestant sources in addition to Scripture!— how’s about actually addressing yourself to it and presenting a rebuttal of my alleged, so-called “eisegesis”?

Your Protestant pass is useless. You haven’t yet formed an argument to rebut, so the “evidence,” as you call it, just talks to itself. You also bypassed the same site’s negative “Queen of Heaven” article.

(1) WHERE in Gibson’s film does he include anything reflecting any of Ligouri’s Marian theolegoumena (theological opinions) which you quoted?

Please give us some examples.

Examples of what? Again, you want actors quoting de Liguori? Gibson, himself, has stated, “The film is so Marian”; and his Jesus, Jim Caviezel, has the heartfelt conviction (personal, but totally Catholic) that this marian opus is “a gift from Mary to her Son.” The entire film is cooked in mariolatry.

(2) As for Ligouri’s views about, so what???

Bottom line: The fact that so-and-so has been named as a “Saint” and “Doctor of the Church” does not mean that the Church endorses each and every item they ever uttered.

Your “Bottom line” fades because de Liguori’s dejecta has flowed freely through generations of Catholic laity. The quotes, moreover, are in-your-face testimonials to the official preeminence of the dogma he glorifies. The worshipful non-worship of Hyperdulia Mary is not just de Liguori’s obsession, but it remains in perpetual, screaming need of papal life-support; see Redemptoris Mater (1987.03.25), Ad Caeli Reginam (1954.10.11), Ineffabilis Deus (1854.12.8), etc.

Ah…you found the “Incarnation Doctrine Test” hidden in Gibson’s marian script!

THEY [Athanasius,Council of Ephesus]—not I, or Gibson— made the Incarnation of the Son of God a test of orthodoxy to smoke out the Gnostics in the Church.

You, not THEY, made an “Incarnation Doctrine Test” out of having a positive/negative response to Gibson’s marian meddling. And you smoked out nothing.

Harmon invokes St. Paul against my gebirah argument thus:

You pretentiously presume. Colossians 2:8 condemns the unspeakable blasphemies in the de Liguori quotes which preceded it.

I can hear poor ol’ Paul spinning in his grave right now. LOL

Not surprised. The Esparolini Limbo Centrifuge also had Michaelangelo, “rolling in his grave at Mach speed.”

You have GOT to be kidding. Let’s try this again as a syllogism:

Major premise: The mothers of the Jewish Kings held a major advisory/intercessory position in their sons’ courts known as “gebirah” (“queen-mother”).

Minor premise: Mary is the mother of the last of the Jewish kings, Jesus.

Conclusion: Therefore, Mary is ____________ ?

(I’ll let you fill in the blank.)

Your doofus syllogism is a desperate attempt to do what scripture has not done—to set up a hard-wired marian connection between “gebirah” and a Catholic quasi-deity called “the Queen of Heaven.”

The Major premise presupposes that Jesus was a Jewish monarch reigning over a visible ethno-political realm—which He wasn’t—and even resisted (John 6:15). Jesus, nevertheless, considered Himself “King” of the Jews (Mark 15:2). Since the Minor premise maintains the Major’s historical-cultural locus, you might conclude: “Therefore, Mary is Queen of the Jews,” but God’s Word never applies this title to Mary. Besides, it doesn’t bring a bloom to the cheeks of marian dogma.

Jesus’ statement “My kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36),” is the flimsiest of hopes for your eisegesis, and it requires a typological transfer of Mary’s earthly “gebirah” status to the “not of this world” realm ruled by the Lord Jesus. That’s the mojo which loads the Catholic conclusion: “Therefore, Mary is Queen of Heaven.” Your so-called “syllogism” intends to allow Catholic dogma to convert Mary’s ethnic “gebirah” status into a right to co-rule over Her Son’s heavenly Kingdom. But there’s nothing in the scripture that states or even suggests that Jesus thought His mother was “not of this world,” or would give her “a major advisory/intercessory position” in His supernatural kingdom.

Please tell us where in any Catholic literature you ever found the notion that Mary personifies the moon, rules the night sky, and should be worshipped as the receptive power of nature?

“We beseech You, our Lady, that You who are the morning star, cast out the cloud of diabolical suggestion shrouding the land of our minds; that You who are the full moon fill our emptiness, dispel the darkness of our sins, that we might merit to come to the fullness of eternal life, to the light of unending glory. May He grant this who made You our light, who to be born of You made You be born today. To Him be the glory and honor for ever. Amen. “ —ON THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY, St. Anthony of Padua

The article says NOTHING AT ALL about the ancient Catholic and Eastern Orthodox view of Mary as “Queen of Heaven” being modeled on the pre-Christian pagan Ishtar/”Queen of Heaven” moon goddess.

But the article makes it perfectly clear that scripture uses the term, “Queen of Heaven,” as an extremely negative epithet for describing an abomination:

“But that the people of Judah in the days before the exile had given themselves over to the worst and vilest forms of heathen worship and incurred the grievous displeasure of Yahweh is made clear by the denunciation of the worship of the queen of heaven by Jeremiah.”

Catholicism has ‘christianized’ this “Queen of Heaven” (who is still very much alive in today’s Wiccan goddess-worship). The “christianizing” has produced a crypto-divine Mary who has participated substantively in Christ’s finished work on Calvary and, in response to the countless prayers offered up to her, now performs a Christ-like intercession from Heaven.

The conflating of Mary’s role as a blessed human mother with Jesus’ role as the divine Son of God has produced a blasphemous Christ-displacing mixture which sustains, at a far more insidious level, the loathsome spirit behind pagan moon- worship. This is graphically confirmed by the incredible iconic depth of marian devotion with its worship-charged liturgies and accompanying apparitions. The cultus hyperduliae reserved for Mary at the shallow end of the Catholic worship pool commingles effortlessly with the cultus latriae reserved for Jesus Christ at the deep end.

Not so. (WHY do I think this guy needs to take a remedial reading course??? LOL)

The point I raised was that Gibson’ “flesh of [my] flesh…” line was nothing more than an affirmation of the ancient doctrine of the Incarnation. I raised that point in response to your objection that the line was part of Gibson’s “Marian fantasy,” thereby implying that the statement was false, which in turn necessarily amounts to a rejection of the Incarnation.

I observed that Gibson had introduced into his movie a Marian fantasy consisting of a non-Gospel incident, and I affirmed the doctrine of the incarnation by resting upon the authority of God’s Word. Your abuse of “implying” and “amounts to” is irremediable.

Since I haven’t read Ligouri’s book and therefore have no definitive opinion on it, rather than us trying to re-invent the wheel here, I’ll direct you to a rather thorough exchange on the subject between Catholic writer Dave Armstrong and a Protestant interloculator who raised the same objections you did:

The reading, both of de Liguori’s goddess book and Armstrong’s “thorough exchange,” will always return you, not to God’s Word, but to the papal mouth:

“A disciple and friend of St. Bernard, Arnold of Chartres, shed light particularly on Mary’s offering in the sacrifice of Calvary. He distinguished in the Cross ‘two altars: one in Mary’s heart, the other in Christ’s body. Christ sacrificed his flesh, Mary her soul’. Mary sacrificed herself spiritually in deep communion with Christ, and implored the world’s salvation: ‘What the mother asks, the Son approves and the Father grants’ “(cf. De septem verbis Domini in cruce, 3: PL 189, 1694).”—MARY WAS UNITED TO JESUS ON THE CROSS , Pope John Paul II, General Audience, 25 October 1995

God condemns John Paul II’s (and Mel Gibson’s) deception:

“Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.” (Colossians 2:8)

“Doofus syllogism”? Must be one o’ them thar fancy technical phillysoffical terms. Unlike y’all, I don’t have all that thar fancy book-larnin.’

“Syllogism,” was your own “fancy technical phillysoffical” term and it got you trapped deeper in the marian mess.

The Major premise presupposes that Jesus was a Jewish monarch reigning over a visible ethno-political realm—which He wasn’t—and even resisted (John 6:15). Jesus, nevertheless, considered Himself “King” of the Jews (Mark 15:2).

But NOT the last of the Davidic Kings??? Sorry, Harmon, but that makes zero sense, especially in light of all the Messianic OT prophesies to the contrary.

When you don’t read what was said, you get “zero sense.”

Nevertheless, God’s Word also never says or even implies that the title cannot be so applied. The fact remains that if Jesus had taken the historical-cultural throne of David in Palestine instead of the spiritual-eschatological throne of David in Heaven, His mother would’ve become His EARTHLY gebirah.

There is no “if” because the Son of David did not occupy a physical throne during His lifetime on earth, nor did He intend to. An “EARTHLY” gebirah can only morph into a heavenly gebirah in a Catholic imagination, but not in God’s Word. Your eisegesis, then, requires you to give Mary a semi-goddess status paralleling her Son’s deity, that is, to endow her with a prayer-responsive role identical with that of Him now seated at the right hand of God. That role, of course, is pure Catholic fiction capable of deceiving a mary-worshipping film-maker and his leading man.

Thus it follows that His mother would’ve become His “not-of-this-world” gebirah. After all, the pre-New Covenant earthly kingdom images the heavenly Kingdom, not the other way around.

It follows only if one is buried in the marian cult. Scripture declares Jesus “King of kings and Lord of lords,” but that doesn’t make Mary a heavenly “Queen of queens and Lady of ladies.” The heavenly kingdom image applies to the Person of the resurrected, glorified Lord Jesus alone, and not to His blessed human mother. That’s why 1 Timothy 6:13-16 describes Jesus in His exalted kingly state without reference to a ‘maternal consort,’ that is, a deific, Catholic Mary:

“I urge you in the sight of God who gives life to all things, and before Christ Jesus who witnessed the good confession before Pontius Pilate, that you keep this commandment without spot, blameless until our Lord Jesus Christ’s appearing, which He will manifest in His own time, He who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone has immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see, to whom be honor and everlasting power. Amen. “

And guess what? The entire Old Testament is packed with typological foreshadows not only of Christ but also of the entire New Covenant economy:

[snipped list]

—the Ark of the Covenant was a typological foreshadow of Mary since both carried the Word of God (not according to me, but according to every early Christian who wrote on the subject)

The list goes on and on.

You may have just discovered Old Testament typology, John, but that doesn’t mean you can recognize the Roman Church’s compulsive abuse of it. Your selection from the “on and on” list concludes with the dogma-serving presumption known as Ark-of-the-Covenant Mary.

The Ark of the Covenant was the meeting place where God Himself appeared above the Mercy Seat between the two cherubims. He was present there, in His Glory, to speak to His people and to receive the atoning blood sacrifice. There were no birthing or maternal elements in the Ark’s design, construction, and worship instructions which prefigure Mary.

The New Testament never suggests that Mary is the “New Ark of the Covenant,” but emphatically declares, rather, that Jesus, not Mary, is the full focus of the type. Jesus, not Mary, is the propitiation (Romans 3:25) or mercy seat, the covering of the Ark itself which was sprinkled with the atoning blood. With reference to the Ark’s contents, Jesus, not Mary, is the “living bread which came down from heaven (John 6:51)”; Jesus, not Mary, came “to fulfill” the law (Matthew 5:17); Jesus, not Mary, is the “High Priest , who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens (Hebrews 8:1).” Finally, there is nothing of Mary in the Book of Hebrews’ description (9:23,24) of Christ’s sacrificial fulfillment of the Old Testament figure:

“It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:”

The Old Testament Ark of the Covenant was itself holy, perfect and complete because it was dedicated to God alone. To suggest that Mary typologically fulfills the place reserved for the God of Glory on earth and for His Son in Heaven is worse than a perversion of typology. Putting the blessed, human mother of Jesus in the places where God alone dwells is blasphemy.

In fact, early Christian hermeneutics was rooted in “typological transfer” from the Old to New Covenant, so much so that one couldn’t reject the typologies of the Old without at the same time rejecting the realities they foreshadowed in the New.

Nevertheless, mariolatrous brainwash will never allow this one glorious, fact to take root in your heart—Old Testament typology points directly, exclusively, and ultimately to the Person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ alone. Here are the words of the Lord Jesus:

Luke 24:
25 Then He said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken!
26 Ought not the Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into His glory?”
27 And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.

44 Then He said to them, “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.”
45 And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures.
46 Then He said to them, “Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day,
47 and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

No Catholic Mary anywhere in this. Not implied, either.

Harmon, in ancient Christian typology a type was BY DEFINITION a foreshadow of a future reality, not a photographic image of it. [snipped] Likewise, just because “the Ark’s design, construction, and worship instructions” do not prefigure Mary it does not follow that the Ark itself does not prefigure Mary.

No need for the lesson. The notion of a “photograhic image” was never stated or implied. The Ark itself does not prefigure Mary as we watch the New Testament uncover and detail the Old Testament figure. The Epistle to the Hebrews celebrates the glory of Jesus’ finished, redemptive work by looking at Him through the Ark, its sacred contents, and its worshipful function. The following passage, therefore, makes it very plain that the Ark wasn’t intended to feed the metaphorical needs of the marian agenda:

“And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of all;

Which had the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant;

And over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercyseat; of which we cannot now speak particularly.

Now when these things were thus ordained, the priests went always into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the service of God.

But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people:

The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:

Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;

Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.” (Hebrews 9:3-12)

But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;

Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.”

As for your argument that “there were no … maternal elements in the Ark’s design,” you conveniently forget that the Ark was a container carrying the Word of God, just as Mary’s womb was a container carrying the Word of God.

But a “container” does not a mother or an Ark of the Covenant make. In light of what the New Testament has revealed about the Christ-centeredness of the Ark, the ‘container-carrier’ gambit is a dead bulb—your list of devotional exclamations from early marian ‘authorities’ notwithstanding.

The New Testament never suggests that Mary is the “New Ark of the Covenant,” but emphatically declares, rather, that Jesus, not Mary, is the full focus of the type.

The New Testament as understood in the context of the Old most certainly does make that suggestion, especially in Luke’s narrative of the Annunciation to Mary by the angel Gabriel. But the suggestion is implicit as opposed to explicit , just as the Bible’s prohibition against abortion as murder is implicit as opposed to explicit, and the New Testament doctrine of the Trinity is implicit as opposed to explicit.

Not at all. Once again, Hebrews 9:3-12 has specified Jesus explicitly, and that makes dogma food of your marian ‘implicit/explicit’ distinction.

Jesus, not Mary, is the propitiation (Romans 3:25) or mercy seat, the covering of the Ark itself which was sprinkled with the atoning blood.

Agreed. No one said otherwise. But that is hardly relevant to the fact that both the Ark and Mary contained the Word of God.

Agreed? Then don’t slink away into “contained“ mode. Jesus, not Mary, fulfills the type.

With reference to the Ark’s contents, Jesus, not Mary, is the “living bread which came down from heaven (John 6:51)”; Jesus, not Mary, came “to fulfill” the law (Matthew 5:17); Jesus, not Mary, is the “High Priest , who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens (Hebrews 8:1).” Finally, there is nothing of Mary in the Book of Hebrews’ description (9:23,24) of Christ’s sacrificial fulfillment of the Old Testament..

Agreed. No one said otherwise. But that is hardly relevant to the fact that both the Ark and Mary contained the Word of God.

Agreed? Then don’t let the marian cult to keep pulling you by your “contained” string. Receive the Word of God which looks through the Holy of Holies and the Ark of the Covenant and sees nothing save Jesus and His perfect, finished work of redemption:

“But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation. Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.”

The Old Testament Ark of the Covenant was itself holy, perfect and complete because it was dedicated to God alone. To suggest that Mary typologically fulfills the place reserved for the God of Glory on earth and for His Son in Heaven is worse than a perversion of typology.

Which means what, exactly, therefore? That Mary never carried the Incarnate Word of God? Hmmm. Sounds like we’re back to that old Gnosticism bugaboo, Harmon.:-)

That was your hand-polished bugaboo… and here it comes, once again,
juggling the claim that the Godhead includes Mary.

IMO, your problem lies chiefly in your faulty and undemonstrated presupposition that all typology in the OT must apply only to Jesus specifically. This makes no sense at all when one considers that the earthly city of Jerusalem in the OT is a type which foreshadows the New Jerusalem, and the twelves elders of the OT foreshadow the twelve Apostles. So there are indeed other types in the OT which prefigure other NT realities and persons in addition to the Lord Jesus.

And your problem is that you don’t see scripture as preeminently Christ-centered. All typology works together for one purpose, to illuminate and to proclaim the Person and the Gospel of Jesus Christ. And this makes no sense to you? That’s why you’ve misread your own examples? The New Jerusalem is a bride prepared for the Lamb (the Lord Jesus):

“And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues , and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride , the Lamb’s wife .
And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city , the holy Jerusalem ,descending out of heaven from God,”
—Rev. 21: 9,10

And the final destiny of the twelve elders and the twelve apostles is to glorify the Lamb of God:

“ Now when He had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each having a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. And they sang a new song, saying:

’You are worthy to take the scroll,
And to open its seals;
For You were slain,
And have redeemed us to God by Your blood
Out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation,
And have made us kings and priests to our God;
And we shall reign on the earth.’”
—Rev. 5:8-10

…Putting the blessed, human mother of Jesus in the places where God alone dwells is blasphemy.

“The places where God alone dwells”? You mean, like Heaven? That’s funny, my Bible says the very opposite —especially in St. John’s vision of Heaven in Revelation. What were all those angels, elders, martyrs, and Apostles doing there in a place “where God alone dwells”?

Confused, are you? By the distinction between activity in the heavenly realms and divine, sovereign activity within the Person of the Godhead? (1 Timothy 6:15,16)
It was God alone who dwelt between the cherubim over the Ark of the Covenant in the Holy of Holies on earth (Ps 99:1), and it was the Lord Jesus alone who entered once into the heavenly Holy place (Hebrews 9:11,12,23,24). Mary was not prefigured in the God of Glory who was present over the Ark, nor did Mary, in her person, accompany the Lord Jesus into the heavenly holy place with His blood offering.

Nevertheless, mariolatrous brainwash will never allow this one glorious, fact to take root in your heart —Old Testament typology points directly, exclusively, and ultimately to the Person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ alone.

“Exclusively”? Not according to the ancient Christians, who, btw, saw Mary as intimately united with her Son and as playing a crucial integral role in salvation history. So your problem isn’t with me, but with them.

Exclusively! According to God’s inerrant, Christ-centered Word which honors Mary’s blessed role as the mother of Jesus, but does NOT see her playing “a crucial, integral role in salvation history”:

“God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.” (Hebews 1:1-4)

But how does the Christ-centeredness of the Ark in any way mitigate it as a type foreshadowing the one who carried Him, as the Word of God Incarnate, in her womb?

Again, the type is centered upon the presence of God over the Mercy Seat of the Ark (the sacrifice) and its contents —the Word, the provision, the priesthood—all of which foreshadow the Lord Jesus. And, again, the purpose of the Tabernacle and the Holy of Holies was not to house the human Mary who was not prefigured in the Holy place where the atoning blood was sprinkled. The type simply doesn’t make it as a marian metaphor with Container Mary carrying Content Jesus.

So far, all your “rebuttals” amount to forms of Argument of Silence —e.g., the Bible doesn’t explicitly say so therefore it can’t be true. The last time I looked, an Arguments of Silence was an informal fallacy.

A laughable charge from someone whose marian eisegesis speaks no scripture. Try this: “If the Bible explicitly says so, it’s true,” and then find Mary in the Epistle to the Hebrews.

…the ‘container-carrier’ gambit is a dead bulb—your list of devotional exclamations from early marian ‘authorities’ notwithstanding.

“Authorities” who were far more competent at “rightly dividing the Word of Truth” than you (or I) can ever hope to be. Apparently, they didn’t consider it a “dead bulb.”

…so that allows you to ignore the Bible’s Christ-only exposition of the Ark.

Whoever said that the Godhead includes Mary??? Documentation, please.

Your typology includes Mary in the Godhead. It was God’s Holy presence between the cherubim above the Mercy Seat which signified and sanctified the Ark and its contents. When you write, “Which means what, exactly, therefore? That Mary never carried the Incarnate Word of God?” your Mary-centered, negatively-formed, question-answer asserts that Mary, by carrying the Incarnate Word, does indeed typologically occupy the place reserved for the God of Glory over the Ark.

It was God alone who dwelt between the cherubim over the Ark of the Covenant in the Holy of Holies on earth (Ps 99:1), and it was the Lord Jesus alone who entered once into the heavenly Holy place (Hebrews 9:11,12,23,24).

But notice, please, that nowhere does Scripture say that God was the Ark. However, I never said that “Mary was …prefigured in the God of Glory who was present over the Ark.” Nor did I say that “Mary, in her person, accompan[ied] the Lord Jesus into the heavenly holy place with His blood offering.”

“Nowhere does Scripture say that God was the Ark,” and nowhere does it say that Mary was the Ark, but it does say that God was present over the Ark. Mary (as you should know, by now) was never present over the Ark which prefigured the Lord Jesus. If you insist on a typological marian presence foreshadowed by the O.T. Ark, you’ll have to locate that presence when the type is fulfilled in the N.T. heavenly Holy place?

I only said that in her maternity as the Theotokos the Ark prefigured her. This is the same point Athanasius made in the quote I gave you. I suggest you take it up with him . ;-)

Athanasius can continue feeding your marian faith, but I’ll stay with the Word of God which uncovers the Ark’s meaning by pointing us to Jesus’ sacrifice, not to His term in Mary’s womb.

And your problem is that you don’t see scripture as preeminently Christ-centered.

How in the world did you draw that hasty leap-in-logic conclusion from ANYTHING I said???

From your hasty and illogical leap to defend the marian fantasies you share with Mel Gibson.

All typology works together for one purpose, to illuminate and to proclaim the Person and the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Of course. Where have I said otherwise?

Keep reading.

…The New Jerusalem is a bride prepared for the Lamb (the Lord Jesus):..

Exactly. And guess what, Harmon? The bride of the Lamb is not Jesus. So you just made my case that not all OT types image/foreshadow the Person of Jesus “exclusively” (your word, not mine), but of many New Covenant realities. Please make up your mind about what your position is vis OT typology.

No, amigo, you make up your mind. You agree that “All typology works together for one purpose, to illuminate and to proclaim the Person and the Gospel of Jesus Christ,” and then you eat your agreement, “…that not all OT types image/foreshadow the Person of Jesus “exclusively” (your word, not mine), but of many New Covenant realities.” Show us how the Bride has an exclusive purpose apart from the Person of Jesus?

IMO, the real problem here, Harmon, is that you’re so wedded to your post-Reformation anti-Marian ideology that you can’t see any Marian aspects in OT typology even when they bite you on the tuchus.

The real problem is that your sub-scriptural typology is being chewed to shreds by your marian presuppositions.

Here’s a bit of news for you: That ideology didn’t exist outside the Anabaptist and Gnostic lunatic fringe until after the magisterial Reformers —nearly all of them Marians, even Calvin— went to their Heavenly rewards. IOW, anti-Marianism is a novelty , and a novelty which places you outside the orbit of 2,000 years of Christian consensus. Both historically and biblically, it’s no more valid than the imprecations of John Nelson Darby.

Now that you’re clinging to an argumentum ad verecundiam, notice the lack of marian spin in Calvin’s commentary on Luke 11:27 (“Blessed is the womb”). ;-)

I suggest you do your homework on the subject. You can begin with the works of the early church fathers…

But you’ve done your homework, and still aren’t able to make a biblical case for a cultic, mediating Mary. Neither can Mel Gibson or his “traditional” popes:

“With equal truth may it be also affirmed that, by the will of God, Mary is the intermediary through whom is distributed unto us this immense treasure of mercies gathered by God, for mercy and truth were created by Jesus Christ. Thus as no man goes to the Father but by the Son, so no man goes to Christ but by His Mother.” (Pope Leo XIII, Octobri Mense, 4 (22 September, 1891)

“Thus is confirmed that law of merciful meditation of which We have spoken, and which St. Bernardine of Siena thus expresses: “Every grace granted to man has three degrees in order; for by God it is communicated to Christ, from Christ it passes to the Virgin, and from the Virgin it descends to us.” (Pope Leo XIII, Iucunda Semper Expectatione, 5 (8 September 1894)

Via con Dios, amigo!

“Jesus saith unto him, ‘I am the way ,the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.’ “ —John 14:6

I’m certainly no more “abrasive” or combative than John. As for “rude,” please cite specific examples. Otherwise, Lee, we’ll have to assume that you’re working for “above board” John.

Harmon

Just the shadow of a whip and the two of you are down the conspiracy track like horses on steroids. So where’s the “rude” list, Lee?

Lee,

Of course, you “gotta go” — your rude rebuke imploded. Bye.

- - - -

John,

Thank you, honorable opponent, for recognizing “feisty.”

Harmon

Lee, your imploded rebuke left patronize all over you!

Sorry, John, for the delay—

But ONCE AGAIN that was not the ONLY purpose of the Ark. The Ark also functioned as the bearer —container, carrier, “womb”— of the Written Word.

Marian Catholicism can’t survive without a multi-purpose Ark—hence the need to fabricate a marianized metaphor that morphs from “container” to “carrier” to “womb.” The Hebrew Epistle knows nothing of this twisting of typology but srtikingly shows how the Ark is dedicated to and fulfilled by Christ’s sacrifice, not Mary’s motherhood.

…The type simply doesn’t make it as a marian metaphor with Container Mary carrying Content Jesus.

But you still have not explained why it does not, much less cannot. Merely pointing to other purposes and functions of the Ark is not a counter-argument…Yet would you likewise deny that Moses, Melchizedech, and David were not types of Christ? You never answered that question the last time I posed it. So please answer it now: “Yes” or “no.”

“Merely pointing to other purposes and functions of the Ark is not a counter-argument”? Who’s pointing? Whose counter-argument? Allow this authoritative explanation from scripture to clear your head:

11 But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation. 12 Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.

23 Therefore it was necessary that the copies of the things in the heavens should be purified with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24 For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; (Hebrews 9:11,12,23,24)

That Moses, Melchizedech, and David are types of Christ does nothing to encourage the marianizing of the Ark. You wrote, “the fact that the Ark did not in every respect prefigure Mary in every respect is wholly irrelevant.“ Moses, Melchizedech, and David “did not in every respect prefigure” Christ. That doesn’t mean these
persons (like marianized Arks) can be typologically exploited to pump up Catholic dogma.

Funny how that language (specifically the word episkiazo ) mimicks the same language in the OT when God’s presence in the Shekinah cloud overshadows the Ark and the Tabernacle, and later in when He overshadows ( episkiazo again) the Mount of Transfiguration in Matt. 17: 5, Mark 9:7, and Luke 9:34.

Your proof-texting appeal to “mimicry” is a standard Catholic evasion of the passage fron the Epistle to the Hebrews revealing how the Lord Jesus fulfills the type. It displays a magnificent Christ-centeredness which cuts down your fuzzy and eisegetically marian “place and an object which God overshadowed.”

Here’s another instance of OT mimickry: [Luke 1: 43; 2 Sam. 6:9]
Coincidence? I don’t think so. I suspect that both Luke and the Holy Spirit knew very well what they were doing!

And you can be sure they weren’t laying a track of “OT mimicry” to arrive at the cult of Mary. The Holy Spirit uplifts the Person of Jesus Christ, not Mary, when proclaiming the greatness of Christ’s sacrifice as it specifically and exclusively relates to “the first covenant” and its “ordinances of divine service and the earthly sanctuary.”(Hebrews 9:1-15).

[sigh] To the black-and-white Nominalist mind which can see only in terms of “either/or” instead of “both/and,” nuance is an alien concept indeed. Please explain how the two notions necessarily contradict each other rather than complement each other. (This should be interesting.)

What’s “interesting” is a) this pretentious, diversionary bunny trail through contradiction and complementarity, and b) the way ‘gray’ marian minds have been nuanced all the way into Leo XIII’s hyper-marian fiction, ‘Thus as no man goes to the Father but by the Son, so no man goes to Christ but by His Mother.”

Show us how the Bride has an exclusive purpose apart from the Person of Jesus?

I never said it did.

O course you did, and you do, because this is precisely the pseudo-typological point you’re sweating:

“…As I said, in response to your assertion that all OT types foreshadow Christ ‘exclusively,’ the earthly Jerusalem did not prefigure Christ Himself but rather the New Covenant reality of the Heavenly Jerusalem. What part of that did you not grasp?

The only part you grasp is that the words “earthly Jerusalem“ are not the words “Christ Himself.” Your earthly Jerusalem is fufilled by “rather the New Covenant reality of the Heavenly Jerusalem” in a literary category removed from the Person of Christ. The Word of God doesn’t share your truncated view of typologocal fulfillment, nor does it leave us with a decontexted, Esparolinian New Jerusalem. The Word does sing of the city’s exclusive and ultimate destination in the Lamb (the Person of the Lord Jesus Himself):

“The twelve gates were twelve pearls: each individual gate was of one pearl. And the street of the city was pure gold, like transparent glass. But I saw no temple in it, for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple. The city had no need of the sun or of the moon to shine in it, for the glory of God illuminated it. The Lamb is its light.” —Revelation 21: 21-23

How is it an “appeal to irrelevant authority” to cite historical evidence to make an historical point? Methinks you don’t know the meaning of the alleged fallacy you name [argumentum ad verecundiam].

“Argumentum ad verecundiam, in logic, fallacious argument in which appeal is made to respect for great men to prove a point.” (The New Encyclopedia Britannica, Micropedia, Vol. 1, p.507). And you cited Calvin as a Marian spinner? :

“Then, what shall I say of the blasphemies which rung in the public hymns, and which no pious man is able to hear without the utmost horror? We all know the epithets which they applied to Mary - styling her the gate of heaven, hope, life, and salvation; and to such a degree of infatuation and madness had they proceeded, that they even gave her a right to order Christ!” —The Necessity of Reforming the Church (1543), John Calvin, 3 “Reformation Required Without Delay”

But you conveniently overlook the presence of at least one “marian spin” elsewhere in Calvin’s writings:

“Conveniently” overlooked only in the frantic reaching of your mind. Neither commentary (Luke 11:27/Matthew 1: 25) displays a Calvin who obsessively hyper-venerates Mary “to such a degree of infatuation and madness” as de Liguori, John Paul II, or “The Passion of the Christ’s” Mel Gibson.

This, is marian spin:

For with her suffering and dying Son, Mary endured suffering and almost death. She gave up her Mother’s rights over her Son to procure the salvation of mankind, and to appease the divine justice, she, as much as she could, immolated her Son, so that one can truly affirm that together with Christ she has redeemed the human race. (Benedict XV, Litterae Apostolicae, Inter Sodalicia, March 22, 1918, AAS 10, 1918, 182)

Your proof-texting appeal to “mimicry” is a standard Catholic evasion of the passage fron the Epistle to the Hebrews revealing how the Lord Jesus fulfills the type. It displays a magnificent Christ-centeredness which cuts down your fuzzy and eisegetically marian “place and an object which God overshadowed.”

Except that NONE of the passages you quoted tell us that the Ark as a type prefigured the Lord Jesus. As noted above, they say only that the OT priesthood and sacrificial system as types prefigured the Lord Jesus.

The verbiage that climaxes in the foregoing statement is shameful obfuscation—another attempt to reduce a type to a decontexted, literary category isolated from Jesus’ finished work. Hebrews 9 draws an explicit connection (an anathema to your marian mission) between the Ark and the Lord Jesus:

3 and behind the second veil, the part of the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of All, 4 which had the golden censer and the ark of the covenant overlaid on all sides with gold, in which were the golden pot that had the manna, Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tablets of the covenant; 5 and above it were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat.

11 But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation. 12 Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.

You’re all over the place in a desperate, clumsy attempt to purge this passage of its Christ-centered, redemptive significance. The Ark of the Covenant, its contents and the divine service are described as a figure, and then the meaning moves directly to “a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands.” You recoil from this Holy Spirit-inspired record of fulfillment because it interferes with your marian fantasies—the ones that speak to you from Gibson’s action-icon.

====================================

“Argumentum ad verecundiam, in logic, fallacious argument in which appeal is made to respect for great men to prove a point.” (The New Encyclopedia Britannica, Micropedia, Vol. 1, p.507)

The definition of the Argumentum ad Verecundian fallacy which you cite is both incomplete and somewhat inaccurate.

—-begin Fair Use extracts—-

——[end Fair Use extracts]——

In light of Labossiere’s definition of the Argumentum ad Verecundian fallacy above, please explain how my citation of the testimony of early church fathers on either Mary (a subject on which they were surely highly qualified!) or the post-Reformation novelty of anti-Marian ideology meets any of the criteria for that fallacy.

The “above” was one long, needless, stonewall of a lecture—but let’s apply it to the context.

“Fallacy: Appeal to Authority
Also Known as: Fallacious Appeal to Authority, Misuse of Authority, Irrelevant Authority, Questionable Authority, Inappropriate Authority, Ad Verecundiam…”

You had written: “Here’s a bit of news for you: That ideology didn’t exist outside the Anabaptist and Gnostic lunatic fringe until after the magisterial Reformers —nearly all of them Marians, even Calvin— went to their Heavenly rewards. IOW, anti-Marianism is a novelty , and a novelty which places you outside the orbit of 2,000 years of Christian consensus. Both historically and biblically, it’s no more valid than the imprecations of John Nelson Darby.”

I had replied: “Now that you’re clinging to an argumentum ad verecundiam, notice the lack of marian spin in Calvin’s commentary on Luke 11:27 (“ Blessed is the womb” ). ;-)”

You responded: “How is it an “appeal to irrelevant authority” to cite historical evidence to make an historical point? Methinks you don’t know the meaning of the alleged fallacy you name.”

Calvin was the marian authority specified in your original statement, and Calvin was the subject of my reply. Using any truly Roman Catholic standard you’d care to apply, Calvin fails miserably as a popish “Marian.” In other words, he’s an irrelevant, questionable and/or inappropriate authority.

====================================

The fact that I used quotation marks around my repetition of your phrase should have told anyone with a sense of humor and at least two brain cells working that my repetition of it intended was a tongue-in-cheek poke and therefore not to be taken literally. My point was NOT that Calvin was a Marian spinner, but rather that his nuanced analytical approach to Mary wasn’t nearly as ham-fisted and over-reactionary as yours. Calvin followed a precise and multi-dimensional course.

I performed the initial “tongue-in-cheek poke”: “…notice the lack of marian spin in Calvin’s commentary on Luke 11:27 (‘Blessed is the womb’). ;-)”

Then came your charge: “But you conveniently overlook the presence of at least one “marian spin” elsewhere in Calvin’s writings:”

I responded with a passage from The Necessity of Reforming the Church to indicate Calvin does not “obsessively hyper-venerate[s] Mary ‘to such a degree of infatuation and madness’ as de Liguori, John Paul II, or “The Passion of the Christ’s” Mel Gibson.”

If you were to give your own two brain cells a shake you’d see that your so-called “point” about Calvin’s “nuanced, analytical approach” is just arriving on the scene.

“Then, what shall I say of the blasphemies which rung in the public hymns, and which no pious man is able to hear without the utmost horror? We all know the epithets which they applied to Mary - styling her the gate of heaven, hope, life, and salvation; and to such a degree of infatuation and madness had they proceeded, that they even gave her a right to order Christ!” —The Necessity of Reforming the Church (1543), John Calvin, 3 “Reformation Required Without Delay”

So what? All this indicates is that Calvin was opposed to abuses of Marian devotion and disagreed with some —not all— Marian theolegoumena and/or doctrines…noted that she was worthy of honor; and cited her as an example for Christians to follow.

“So what?” As a Christian who held the blessed mother of his Savior worthy of honor, he was horrified by the Church’s blasphemous inflation of Mary. Earlier you attributed “a precise and multi-dimensional course” to Calvin’s “nuanced and analytical approach,” yet this is the same man who denounced the marian epithets, “gate of heaven, hope, life, and salvation,” all of which are now firmly enshrined in dogma and aglow in the Catholic cult of Mary.

As for Benedict’s point that because of her surrender to God’s will and her consequent sorrow, “with Christ she has redeemed the human race,” he was doing little more than reiterating what so many of the early church fathers had said on the subject up to 1,800 years ago. For example:

Yeah,”he was doing little more than reiterating.“ However, here’s what the Word of God teaches us about redemption stripped of Catholic Mary:

Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree’), that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. (Galatians 3: 13,14 )

In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace 8which He made to abound toward us in all wisdom and prudence, 9having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself, 10 that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both [1]which are in heaven and which are on earth—in Him. (Ephesians 1:7-10)

He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love, in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins. (Colossians 1:13,14)

Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. (Hebrews 9:12)

And if you call on the Father, who without partiality judges according to each one’s work, conduct yourselves throughout the time of your stay here in fear; knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, like silver or gold, from your aimless conduct received by tradition from your fathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot. (1 Peter 1: 17-19)

And they sang a new song, saying: “You [the Lamb] are worthy to take the scroll, And to open its seals; For You were slain, And have redeemed us to God by Your blood Out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation, (Revelation 5:9)

Benedict XV is a papal mariolator. That’s why you rest his fixation on a string of patristic sayings rather than the Word of God.

====================================

Now I gotta go and bake some cakes for my rotating, spot-lighted, 30-foot-tall solid gold Mary statue. (Did I mention the giant mirrored disco ball hanging over her head?) ;-)

But first I gotta light some incense at her feet. (Too bad I’m allergic to the stuff, but no one said being a Mary Cultist was easy!)

Why feed your marian addiction with this campy “queen of heaven” when you could order the real thing:

http://imagesofheaven.org/olbs1.jpg

http://imagesofheaven.org/oms2.jpg

http://imagesofheaven.org/olrosa12b.jpg

http://imagesofheaven.org/olmtcarmel60a.jpg

Or perhaps you’d prefer the Benedict XV “collaborator” model:

http://www.youradnd.co.uk/images/maryrcx.jpg

Hebrews 9 draws an explicit connection (an anathema to your marian mission) between the Ark and the Lord Jesus:

3 and behind the second veil, the part of the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of All, 4 which had the golden censer and the ark of the covenant overlaid on all sides with gold, in which were the golden pot that had the manna, Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tablets of the covenant; 5 and above it were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat.

But….but….but it STILL doesn’t IDENTIFY the Ark of the Covenant Type AS the Lord Jesus HIMSELF, or as anyone else for that matter…

Once again, the writer of Hebrews mentions the Ark only in v. 9:4 and only in passing. He didn’t elaborate on the Ark as a type, and wrote nothing at all about what or who that object itself as a type foreshadowed —as opposed to what its position and/or function(s) in the Tabernacle foreshadowed…

So my “marian mission” (whatever that is) has a far more ancient and orthodox pedigree than your “marian mission,” which seems to be to reduce Jesus’ mother to a bystander and/or an incubator.

On March 23 I had written: “The New Testament never suggests that Mary is the ‘New Ark of the Covenant,’ but emphatically declares, rather, that Jesus, not Mary, is the full focus of the type.“ You ignore the “focus” and your attempt to reshape the argument around the non-issue of identifying the Ark “AS” the Lord Jesus is just plain sleazy. All you’ve done is cunningly establish that the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews did not write the words, “Jesus fulfills the type of the Ark.” But the writer does (Praise be to God!) draw a direct connection between significant detail of the physical Ark and Jesus’ atoning blood sacrifice. Catholic Mary is nowhere to be found in this scripture, either explicitly or implicitly.

A Christian reading this Christ-centered passage will rejoice that the meaning confirms Jesus’ emphasis, “’These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.’ And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures (Luke 24:44,45).” To a type-fixing mariolator, on the other hand, the Spirit-inspired linkage between the Old Testament figure of the Ark and the redemptive work of the Lord Jesus is, very much, an anathema [“something which is greatly disliked or disapproved of:”— Cambridge International Dictionary of English]. Otherwise, you wouldn’t be engrossed in a frantic attempt to disassociate Him from the spiritual import of the Ark, its contents and its service which is clearly developed in Hebrews 9:1-15.

The final defence for your marian fantasies may be patristic, but the Bible is the final authority both for evaluating your defence and for exposing the mariolatry oozing from every pore of the tradition you stand upon. The Word of God does not contain your caricature of the blessed Mary, the mother of Jesus, as “a bystander and/or an incubator.” What the Gospels do tell us about her stands in stark contrast to the crypto-deific “Queen of Heaven” who rules the Roman Catholic Church:

“The foundation of all our confidence is found in the Virgin Mary. God has committed to her the treasury of all good things, in order that everyone may know that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation . For this is His will: that we obtain everything through Mary . Sweet heart of Mary, be my salvation! “—Pope Pius IX

“When the Holy Spirit finds Mary in a soul, He flies to it. He enters therein and communicates Himself to that soul in abundance.” —- St. Louis de Montfor

“We cannot enter a house without first speaking to the porter. Similarly, we cannot enter heaven without calling upon the aid of the Blessed Virgin Mary who is the Portress of Heaven.” —- St. John Vianney

“Do you wish to know the most initmate perfections of Jesus and the most hidden attractions of His Love? Then seek them in the Heart of Mary!.” —-St. Peter Julian Eymard

“In danger, anguish, or doubt, think of Mary and call upon her! Following her, you will never lose your way. Praying to her, you will never sink into despair. Contemplating her, you will never go wrong.” —-St. Bernard

“If you want to grow in perfection, you cannot advance by yourselves - you need a guide. Hence, when you go to God, go through Mary and with Mary!” —- St. Maximilian Kolbe

“Therefore, miserable will he be, says Our Queen, and miserable unto all eternity, who in this life, having it in his power to invoke me, is miserable enough not to invoke me and thus is damned.” — St. Bridget of Sweden

“The salvation of each individual is attached to the Hail Mary.” — St. John Capistrano

“Not only do they offend thee, O Lady, who outrage thee, but thou art also offended by those who neglect to ask thy favors … He who neglects the service of the Blessed Virgin will die in his sins … He who does not invoke thee, O Lady, will never get to Heaven … Not only will those from whom Mary turns her countenance, not be saved, but there will be no hope of their salvation … No one can be saved without the protection of Mary.” — St. Bonaventure

“Mary became for herself and for all men the cause and foundation of salvation.” — St. Francis de Sales

“She opens the abyss of God’s mercy to whomsoever she wills, when she wills, and as she wills, so that there is no sinner however great who is lost if Mary protects him … All men: past, present, and to come, should look upon Mary as the means and the negotiator of the salvation of all ages.” — St. Bernard

“God has entrusted the keys and treasures of Heaven to Mary.” — St. Thomas Aquinas

“No one can enter into Heaven except through Mary, as entering through a gate.” — St. Bonaventure

“Mary is called “the Gate of Heaven” because no one can enter Heaven but through her means.” — St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori

“Holy Scripture was written for Mary, about Mary, and on account of Mary.” — St. Bernard

“He who is devout to the Virgin Mother will certainly never be lost.” — Ignatius of Antioch,

=============================
You had written: “Here’s a bit of news for you: That ideology didn’t exist outside the Anabaptist and Gnostic lunatic fringe until after the magisterial Reformers —nearly all of them Marians, even Calvin— went to their Heavenly rewards. IOW, anti-Marianism is a novelty , and a novelty which places you outside the orbit of 2,000 years of Christian consensus. Both historically and biblically, it’s no more valid than the imprecations of John Nelson Darby.”

I had replied: “Now that you’re clinging to an argumentum ad verecundiam, notice the lack of marian spin in Calvin’s commentary on Luke 11:27 (“ Blessed is the womb” ). ;-)”

You responded: “How is it an “appeal to irrelevant authority” to cite historical evidence to make an historical point? Methinks you don’t know the meaning of the alleged fallacy you name.”

Calvin was the marian authority specified in your original statement,…

Don’t play dumb, Harmon. You know as well as I do that I was not citing Calvin as a “marian authority.” I was merely providing an example of what I said in the very same post before I quoted him…

Don’t play dumber than dumb, John. “Example” Calvin had to have the color of authority in your mind or you wouldn’t have named him as an “example.”

The sole purpose of quoting Calvin’s commentary supporting Mary’s perpetual virginity was to show that he was not a knee-jerk anti-Marian and therefore a Marian of sorts, albeit to a much lesser degree than the Council of Trent fathers or even Martin Luther. IOW, he was a selective Marian, but a Marian nonetheless when compared to his modern-day spiritual heirs.

Only now is this stuff about “sole purpose,” “knee-jerk antiMarian” and “lesser degrees” beginning to crawl forth; it was nowhere to be found in the “bit of news for you” paragraph. And you’re deceiving yourself if you think that a tepid “Marian of sorts” was speaking from Calvin’s The Necessity of Reforming the Church.

… and Calvin was the subject of my reply. Using any truly Roman Catholic standard you’d care to apply, Calvin fails miserably as a popish “Marian.” In other words, he’s an irrelevant, questionable and/or inappropriate authority.

But NOT when it comes to making the historical point that the Reformers —including Calvin— were not nearly as hostile to Mary as their modern-day disciples are. The quote by Calvin demonstrates that. The fact that you don’t like what the quote says is irrelevant, and it certainly doesn’t make my citation of the quote either questionable or inappropriate.

Once again, you squirm. First, you placed a marian Calvin within what you termed the “orbit of 2000 years of Christian consensus.” Despite your effort to modify that statement by installing a scale of marianity in it, you’ve failed to make a case for Calvin as a mainstream Catholic marian. The fact remains that he “denounced the marian epithets, ‘gate of heaven, hope, life, and salvation,’ all of which are now firmly enshrined in dogma and aglow in the Catholic cult of Mary.” So in light of your fat recital of Labossiere’s definition of the Argumentum ad Verecundian fallacy, and in the context of your first mention of Calvin as some kind of orbital marian, Calvin was an irrelevant, questionable and/or inappropriate authority.

==========================
So, Harmon, when are you going to be consistent and start your on-line campaign to exhort the Orthodox about “feeding” their “marian addiction” with their “campy” “queen of heaven” icons? :-)

It was a Catholic who introduced us to his “rotating, spot-lighted, 30-foot-tall solid gold Mary statue,” so my consistency is a small matter. However, there’s overwhelming evidence that Romish idols are consistently more ubiquitous, consistently more tacky and consistently more effective in embodying the blasphemous spirit that created them.

…There’s plenty of kitsch proliferating in both our camps, amigo. :-)

It’s not my camp, compadre, so you can forget about losing me in a defence of generic non-Catholic trinket shops.

Nevertheless, after doing an extensive Google search (using the keywords “Mary,” “crucifix,” “cathedral,” “Wambierzyce,” and “Poland”) I have not been able to ascertain if the photo is authentic and/or if the caption given to the photo by the Fundamentalist web site which posts it is at all accurate…

…Nevertheless, from a Polish travel web site here’s a description of a Catholic Basilica located in Wambierzyce:…

…But wait!!! Here’s a link to that very same Basilica, Harmon!!!…

http://www.mateusz.pl/goscie/wambierzyce/html_a/ebaz.htm

There are several pages of photos of the Basilica, officially named the “Archdiocesan Shrine of God’s Mother, Queen of Families.” And guess what, Harmon? Nary a “Mary crucifix” amongst them!…

You silly, frenetic Clouseau! You can be absolutely certain that when the blasphemous image was found during a surf some time ago, my own search was “extensive” and included all the Wambierzyce sites mentioned above. I had then, and continue to have now, doubts about its authenticity if only because of the horrific enormity of the abomination displayed. But, hoax or fact, there it is —exactly what it was intended to be—a graphic slap at your lame, parody of Mary-worship.

So the ‘Wambierzyce image’ offends shifty Catholic correctness? What makes you think that countless carnival-style renderings of the Lord Jesus and His wonderful mother are any less monstrous in the sight of God. The picture belongs in the same hall of blasphemy as Benedict XV’s statement in the caption beneath it:

“She suffered so much for us, almost to the point of dying with Her suffering and dying Son. Therefore we may rightfully say that she has, with Christ, redeemed the human race.”

The bottom line is that no Catholic Bishop in his right mind —not even the Looney Left feminist prelate running the Archdiocese of L.A.— would approve the display of such a statue. Methinks, my friend, that you’ve been had. :-)

The bottom line is that you’ve been had, John. I posted a grotesque JPEG. You, your Bishops and Benedict XV are dogmatically and devotionally ensnared in what the JPEG conveys.

You’re ending the exchange with a finger-pointing and a fit of self-righteous dismay ?

You spend a lot of time rolling on the floor laughing, so we know your response to Lee, who had referred to you as a member of “the marian cult,” was meant to be humorous—even as it poured scorn on the idea of mariolatry:

“ROTFL!!! Now I gotta go and bake some cakes for my rotating, spot-lighted, 30-foot-tall solid gold Mary statue. (Did I mention the giant mirrored disco ball hanging over her head?) ;-)”

I submitted a sequence of images to answer your sardonic trivializing of Mary-worship. The first four were typical, schlocky marian idols. No problem for you—except to complain that I hadn’t attacked Orthodox Church icons.

The fifth image, a photo of Mary on a crucifix, began with the comment, “Tacky as all get-out, I’ll grant you,” and then the enigmatic, “And —at least on a superficial level— blasphemous, or worse.” We’re left in the dark as to what constitutes “a superficial level of blasphemy,” or what could be “worse” than blasphemy.

I then tell you that I have doubts about the photo’s authenticity (not the accuracy of what it signifies) and you call the integrity police, launch a sanctimonious lecture, damn my conscience, and accuse me of “pulling a scam.” Your cake-baking jocularity had dropped stone cold dead.

The truly viscious “scam,” dear opponent, is projected from the first four statues of Catholic Mary whose “authenticity” you wouldn’t think to question. Their creators have never seen the historical Mary which means that those who “venerate” these idols are paying, and then praying to a false likeness of her.

The blasphemous photo of Mary on a crucifix (much like your madonna with the “giant mirrored disco ball hanging over her head”) graphically captures a vibrant dogmatic, devotional reality within Roman Catholicism.

But the big mystery behind this outburst of offended piety is what your righteous revulsion was doing when you read those Mary-worshipping citations which attribute to Catholic Mary the redemptive, mediating work that the Word of God reserves for the Lord Jesus Christ alone:

“In danger, anguish, or doubt, think of Mary and call upon her! Following her, you will never lose your way. Praying to her, you will never sink into despair. Contemplating her, you will never go wrong.” —-St. Bernard

“If you want to grow in perfection, you cannot advance by yourselves - you need a guide. Hence, when you go to God, go through Mary and with Mary!” —- St. Maximilian Kolbe

“Therefore, miserable will he be, says Our Queen, and miserable unto all eternity, who in this life, having it in his power to invoke me, is miserable enough not to invoke me and thus is damned.” — St. Bridget of Sweden

“The salvation of each individual is attached to the Hail Mary.” — St. John Capistrano

“Not only do they offend thee, O Lady, who outrage thee, but thou art also offended by those who neglect to ask thy favors … He who neglects the service of the Blessed Virgin will die in his sins … He who does not invoke thee, O Lady, will never get to Heaven … Not only will those from whom Mary turns her countenance, not be saved, but there will be no hope of their salvation … No one can be saved without the protection of Mary.” — St. Bonaventure

“Mary became for herself and for all men the cause and foundation of salvation.” — St. Francis de Sales

“She opens the abyss of God’s mercy to whomsoever she wills, when she wills, and as she wills, so that there is no sinner however great who is lost if Mary protects him … All men: past, present, and to come, should look upon Mary as the means and the negotiator of the salvation of all ages.” — St. Bernard

“God has entrusted the keys and treasures of Heaven to Mary.” — St. Thomas Aquinas

“No one can enter into Heaven except through Mary, as entering through a gate.” — St. Bonaventure

“Mary is called “the Gate of Heaven” because no one can enter Heaven but through her means.” — St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori

“Holy Scripture was written for Mary, about Mary, and on account of Mary.” — St. Bernard

“He who is devout to the Virgin Mother will certainly never be lost.” — Ignatius of Antioch.

Sorry, Harmon, but once someone I’ve entered into a dialogue with demonstrates that he or she is willing to resort anything including deception and other questionable tactics just to make debating points, that person also tells me he or she cannot be trusted.

In such instances, I’m left with no choice but to end the dialogue. I see no reason to make an exception here.

So much for your holier-than-thou intention to end the dialogue. :-D

Here you are, untrue to your word, reciting the standard pitiful excuses for converting idols into “visual aids,” working up a sweaty, turgid rationale for Catholic Mary-(or Anywoman)-on-a-crucifix, doing the ‘context trick’ to dismiss a list of your cult’s goddess devotions, and throwing up Orthodox and Catholic idol-stroking writ.

…They only pray before icons as a visual aides or reminders to help them better connect with Heaven…you would know —as the Orthodox repeatedly point out— that icons viewed “windows” to Heaven. Fundamentally, this is no different from what the Protestant Christian does when he or she has a mental picture in his or her mind of Jesus, or God the Father, or the Holy Spirit, or Heaven, or scenes from the Gospels during prayer.

… the function of the former is to represent and/or symbolize holy persons and spiritual realities —much the way family photographs do— NOT replace them. Sheesh!

Obviously, you know nothing at all about what the purposes and functions of Christian iconongraphy are or you wouldn’t make such an ignorant statement.

There’s no scriptural warrant for Mary icons and Mary statues as “visual aides“ to help them better connect with Heaven,” or for praying through representations of Mary, or for using bogus likenesses of Mary as “windows” to heaven. The distinction between praying “to” and praying “before” an idol is self-serving nonsense. Either one looks at the religious object before, during or after the prayer, or one does not. Either the object possesses, in itself, ‘connective’ powers or it does not. If looking at the object while praying empowers connectivity then one is very much praying “to” the object. If not, then the presence of that schlocky representation simply isn’t needed. ever…unless the cult considers it essential.

BTW, windows are seen through whereas icons are seen, and “mental pictures” are not plaster or gilded objects which have been decorated, crowned and set upon a pedestal for a pope to fondle. “…Religious worship is not directed to images in themselves, considered as mere things, but under their distinctive aspect as images leading us on to God incarnate…” With these words from the gospel of the Catholic Catechism in mind, let’s have a look at the reverence and affection imparted to these ornate, instrumental, but lifeless human objects.

http://www.queenofpeace.ca/PopeMMP.jpg
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/specials/9901/pope.photo.essay/10%20a.prayer.to.mary.jpg
http://www.harpazo.net/images/consecrationSM.jpg
http://cdom.org/wtc/wtc_archives/wtc101200/wtc_pages/fatima.jpg

As for your idiotic notion that Catholics and Orthodox worship Mary, I guess you got that idea from one of your fellow Know-Nothing Party members:

No, from your Popes—can you say “Totus Tuus“?:

At the start of the twenty-fifth year of my Pontificate, I entrust this Apostolic Letter to the loving hands of the Virgin Mary, prostrating myself in spirit before her image in the splendid Shrine built for her by Blessed Bartolo Longo , the apostle of the Rosary. I willingly make my own the touching words with which he concluded his well-known Supplication to the Queen of the Holy Rosary : “O Blessed Rosary of Mary, sweet chain which unites us to God, bond of love which unites us to the angels, tower of salvation against the assaults of Hell, safe port in our universal shipwreck, we will never abandon you. You will be our comfort in the hour of death: yours our final kiss as life ebbs away. And the last word from our lips will be your sweet name, O Queen of the Rosary of Pompei, O dearest Mother, O Refuge of Sinners, O Sovereign Consoler of the Afflicted. May you be everywhere blessed, today and always, on earth and in heaven”. ROSARIUM VIRGINIS MARIAE, 16 October 2002, JOHN PAUL II

“But, since Divine Providence has been pleased that we should have the Man-God through Mary, who conceived Him by the Holy Ghost and bore Him in her breast, it only remains for us to receive Christ from the hands of Mary.” AD DIEM ILLUM LAETISSIMUM, 2 February 1904, PIUS X

‘O Virgin most holy, none abounds in the knowledge of God except through thee; none, O Mother of God, attains salvation except through thee; none receives a gift from the throne of mercy except through thee.’” ADIUTRICEM (On the Rosary), 5 September, 1895, LEO XIII

“Faithful to the religious example of our fathers, let us have recourse to Mary, our holy Sovereign. Let us entreat, let us beseech, with one heart, Mary, the Mother of Jesus Christ, our Mother. ‘Show thyself to be a mother; cause our prayers to be accepted by Him Who, born for us, consented to be thy Son.‘“OCTOBRI MENSE, 22 September 1891, LEO XIII,

“And since she has been appointed by God to be the Queen of heaven and earth, and is exalted above all the choirs of angels and saints, and even stands at the right hand of her only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, she presents our petitions in a most efficacious manner. What she asks, she obtains. Her pleas can never be unheard.” INEFFABILIS DEUS, 8 December, 1854, PIUS IX

“For God has committed to Mary the treasury of all good things , in order that everyone may know that THROUGH HER are obtained every hope, every grace, and ALL SALVATION. For this is his will, that we obtain everything through Mary.” —UBI PRIMUM (On the Immaculate Conception), 2 February 1849, PIUS IX

…No problem for you —except to complain that I hadn’t attacked Orthodox Church icons.

Not complaining atall. Was merely pointing out your hypocrisy and selectiveness. But you’d have to actually possess some measure of objectivity and fair-mindedness in order to grasp that.

You’re the Roman Catholic in this exchange, defending an idolatrous Roman Catholic movie with Roman Catholic dogma, so you’ve imposed the “selectiveness” upon yourself. Challenging you, every step of your serpentine Catholic way, has nothing to do with “hypocrisy.”

= = = = = = = = = = = =
For example, unlike Harmon’s hasty conclusion that the sculpture is to be interpreted literally —i.e., superficially — as Mary being crucified instead of Christ— the statue could have any one of several possible meanings. For example:

(1) The sculpture may be…

(2) The sculpture may be…

(3) The sculture may be…

(4) The woman “on” the cross may not be…

(5) The sculpture could be…

(6) The sculpture might be…

(7) On that last note, of course, the sculpture could very well be…

The point of this exercise is that Harmon has no better idea of what the sculpture means than I do. So to take any other position than that “at least on a superficial level” the sculpture in question might be “blasphemous, or worse” would be both presumptuous and irresponsible, two concepts which IMNSHO Harmon needs to incorporate into his conscience.

“The point of this exercise” is your need to apply analytic bafflegab to the photo designated as the “Benedict XV ‘collaborator’ model.” Those seven pillars of supporting sophistry, especially the daffy, Catholic proof-texting of Galatians 2:20, are hilariously irrelevant.

Apparently, while stomping through this mush of interpretive uncertainty you missed the main point, that “[t]he blasphemous photo of Mary on a crucifix (much like your madonna with the ‘giant mirrored disco ball hanging over her head”) graphically captures a vibrant dogmatic, devotional reality within Roman Catholicism.”

But the big mystery behind this outburst of offended piety is what your righteous revulsion was doing when you read those Mary-worshipping citations which attribute to Catholic Mary the redemptive, mediating work that the Word of God reserves for the Lord Jesus Christ alone:

‘ Tis no big mystery at all. Harmon failed to include references to the original sources of his quotes. I’m not in the habit of commenting on out-of-context snippets without being able to re-read them in those sources. The reason is simple: Unless interpreted in their contexts their actual meaning cannot be determined, nor can any arguments or evidences presented by the writers in support of them be evaluated.

Of course, my bet is that just like the typical rabid anti-Christian Net-atheist who takes great joy in “proving” that the Bible “says” all kinds of nonsense that it really doesn’t, Harmon hasn’t actually read the sources. Most likely he just copied and pasted them from some Know Nothing Party web site. Thus he has no more of an inkling about their true meaning than I do.

Your presumptuous rant has landed you back in the Roman Catholic swamp. Here, fill your boots:

http://imagesofheaven.org/BVM.html
http://www.catholictradition.org/faith4.htm

I’m sure the marianized webmeisters would be happy to play your context game, and even put you in touch with the “original source” of their “nonsense.”