Hey Dave, thanks for commenting on my questions. They have been very helpful in furthering my understanding. As a fair warning when I want to understand something I can be quite determined. I am known at times to question something to death until I get a full grasp of what I am dealing with. Ask any poor unsuspecting person I work with. lol To date this is the only issue I can think of that I have any trouble at all with and you are likely to get the brunt of my determination. lol You did, however, make several issues much more clear to me so it shouldn't be too bad. 
Annnnnd I have a new question or two that are primarily for dialogue.
1) There is solid reasoning here. I knew the Hail Mary was lifted from Scripture and was OK with that portion. I guess to me when I hear the prayer it sounds like: "Mary, Mary, Mary, Mary, Mary, Jesus went to the temple, Mary, Mary, Mary, Mary, Mary...Not saying that the name is mentioned that much but more the content: Hail Mary, Mother of God, Full of Grace, The Lord is with me, Blessed art though among women; a small bit about Jesus; and then back to the Hail Mary portion. So it, to the Protestant ears, sounds a bit as I described it. So it's like I almost miss the Christ portion of it and pause for a second and ask, "Hey could you rewind that?" I theorize that this also is likely common when other Protestants approach the prayer. It is interesting at the end of your response to this question you compared it to that of a chorus. I had actually begun thinking that from the first paragraph.
2) This is one of those dialogue questions I mentioned. Reading your answer I recall a conversation with a Catholic buddy of mine in regards to the choice Mary made. Also the quotes from your paper "Reflections on the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary" a number of the quotes at the bottom described people who were "designed for a specific reason" (the first quote by James Cardinal Gibbons says this directly). In our (between my friend David and me) dialogue I questioned really what choice Mary had in the matter and this reasoning was behind my logic. Christ was known to God even before man's creation. I am sure God had foreknowledge of the precise time, place, etc. when His Son would be needed. And to fulfill this I theorize He would need to "design" a woman to fulfill this role. We are called to follow Mary's example to choose God, but if she was designed for her very purpose as Mother of God then did she really have a choice? Could she have really said no? I know she was physically/mentally capable as a human being to make such a choice but by design would that even have been possible? To quote the movie "Braveheart" (forgive me) "God makes men what they are..." Kind of lends in a way some small (absolutley not much mind you) credit to the Calvinist notion of predestination... This issue could actually get rather large tangently so I will leave it to Mary's case only.
3) Not much issue with this question. The artist analogy is ideal when it comes to veneration of her to the ends of Gods glory being recognized and given.
It may be the "Jesus Freak" in me (which I don't necesarily see as bad in any way) but I do tend to dichotomize between Mary and Christ. Mary, while made perfect, can not compare to Christ (God). I know that's not what you are saying here but it does stand as to why I place such a monumental gap between the two. That being said, how could John Paul have actually known his recovery was actually a direct result of Mary's intercession? Did she appear in a vision to tell him so? How about the intercession of other saints living and in Heaven? What if it was actually the result of Peter's, and not Mary's, intercession on his behalf? How could any of us really know and would it be dangerous to lend credence to the wrong person? I think this is why I find it odd that after the attempted assassination JP dedicated his life to Mary. If my mother prayed for me and a miracle occured I would certainly thank her for her prayers but would I dedicate my life to her or would it be more prudent to dedicate my life more fully to following Christ? OK, maybe there was more to this issue than I mentioned at the beginning. lol
4) Makes absolute sense. Sorry this is one issue I am determined on understanding. Not necessarily to the nth degree but well enough to incorporate it into my devotional practices. However it does present a moral dilemma. Would it be more sinful to practice at risk of excess or to not practice from fear of excess and desire of proper application?
5) The bible indicates there were others who stood "blameless before God" (e.g. Job) and others still who were assumed into Heaven (e.g. Moses). Does being blameless and being assumed into Heaven indicate perfection? If such is the case then why not also bring these others into a higher focus?
6) I haven't completed read all of these papers so I can not reasonably touch this one now. Surely as our dialogue progresses there is a chance that they will be touched on later.
Some other questions:
A) I don't think it is dogma but I have heard some proclaim that Mary is the dispensation of all graces. I think I even read it in one of your papers...actually I think it is the one on excesses (the very one I first posed my questions to you originally that prompted this new thread). I know that God could very well do this because, well God can choose whatever method he wishes. However, I do not understand how one could come to view this as absolute as some seem to apparently think. It kind of reminds me of the thought processes concerning materialistic evolution in that theory is being touted as truth. It could be true but it could also be false. If it is false then something is potentially gravely overlooked. What say you?
Well, I can't rmember my other question...That's ok as there is already plenty here and I should prol
prolly get back to work. I did come up with a great analogy in regards to conversion I would like to share.
Having come to understand the truth and fiding Christ's true church I find myself a little frustrated. It is like having been lied to your whole life. Not necessailry for dark, sinister purposes other than Satans success in causing derision in the church through the Reformation and denominationalism. It's like one has been "orphaned" as an infant in a war and adopted into a new family. You have no knowledge of your previous family and so feel that the family you are with is your true family. Later you find out that you were adopted and there is a certain frustration associated with the "lies" in your upbringing. You were after all treated like a member of the family. Most have even been treated well by their adopted family. Still there is having to deal with that frustration that some would even retreat into denial...some inescapably. The true bliss is found in returning home. You are nervous, and you do still love and respect the ones who raised you, but you are glad to be home and embraced by those who missed you. Kinda makes the Protestant/Catholic divide as well as some of the Anti-Catholicism make a bit more sense.
I am also a recent convert to Catholicism and I like almost everyone else have huge issues with Mariology that I dont think will ever go away (except maybe by divine intervention). I understand all the arguments about Mary very well. I understood all the arguments about sola scriptura as a protestant. But they are simply unconvincing.
I accept Mariology solely on the strength of the Church's other apologetics.
Mariology is an extremely difficult hurdle to get over and one that keeps many from coming to the Church. It was this issue alone that kept me from even considering the Church for so long.
I also feel theres a lack of honesty in dialogue on the subject by Catholic apologists.
For me the difficulty of the hurdle made me think there was a spiritual stronghold around her. Why were my fears and the fears of othe protestants so stong? Why, on the other hand, were the dogmas about Mary so absolute? There was no heresy the church had to fight. Why did they force everyone to believe the imaculate conception and the assumption? Then I looked at the saints. So many of them had such a devotion. Even amoung Catholics I knew the ones with a strong marian devotion tended to be more orthodox and generally very beautiful christians even if they often had no ability to explain their faith.
I just decided to force myself to start saying the rosary because it was historical christianity I was after and this was part of it. What I noticed is much more success in fighting temptation. The area of impure thoughts had been a long struggle for me. I had a huge breakthrough in that area right after I started the rosary. It just seemed like such a selfless prayer. Not praising God with flowery words. Not asking for things. Not even thinking of my life at all. Just meditating on the mysteries of God. That is the ultimate praise.
Yes, I do think of Mary a lot. She is a bit like the church. She is important because Jesus is important. If I lift her up I just lift Jesus up even higher. It's saying Jesus is so great even his mother is someone whose statue I will spend time on my knees in front of.
The Blessed Virgin has never been an obstacle for me to leave the Protestant camp to join the Catholic Church.
I prayed to her before I knew the Lord. And as I prayed to her, it was so natural for me to re-direct my prayers to Jesus -- given the statues before me -- that I used to tell people that Mary re-directed my prayers to her Son.
But there is a bit of getting use to the "Marian culture" in the Church. A church I visited in Beijing has a large picture of Mary at the center of the altar. And Jesus does appear small.
Today (31 Jan), someone distributed a commercial during the RCIA class. The ads feature 9 CDs, and 6 have to do with Mary, one "Mother of Jesus", one "Prodigal Son", and one "Parable of the Sower". So, 6 out of 9 are Mary. Looking at the pictures on the CDs, two are pictures of Mary, three are pictures of Mary carrying baby Jesus. The rest have pictures of other objects.
One Catholic sister has confessed in a Catholic forum that she prayed more to Mary than Jesus, and wondering if there was something wrong in this. And no one ventured an answer.
Indeed, the "Marian culture" is strong, and this could be comfortable for Protestants and ex-Protestants.
In light of all these, it is worth recalling the following passage from The Second Vatican Council (Lumen Gentium 67), with its exhortation not to lead "separated brethen" into error about (Marian) doctrines:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/
hi...gentium_en.html
67. This most Holy Synod ...admonishes all the sons of the Church that the cult, especially the liturgical cult, of the Blessed Virgin, be generously fostered, and the practices and exercises of piety, recommended by the magisterium of the Church toward her in the course of centuries be made of great moment, and those decrees, which have been given in the early days regarding the cult of images of Christ, the Blessed Virgin and the saints, be religiously observed.(22*) But it exhorts theologians and preachers of the divine word to abstain zealously both from all gross exaggerations as well as from petty narrow-mindedness in considering the singular dignity of the Mother of God.(23*) ...let them rightly illustrate the duties and privileges of the Blessed Virgin which always look to Christ, the source of all truth, sanctity and piety. Let them assiduously keep away from whatever, either by word or deed, could lead separated brethren or any other into error regarding the true doctrine of the Church. Let the faithful remember moreover that true devotion consists neither in sterile or transitory affection, nor in a certain vain credulity, but proceeds from true faith, by which we are led to know the excellence of the Mother of God, and we are moved to a filial love toward our mother and to the imitation of her virtues.
Correction: Indeed, the "Marian culture" is strong, and this could be UNCOMFORTABLE for Protestants and ex-Protestants.
So protestants are unconfortable. The question then becomes, should we downplay Mary to make them more comfortable? I havn't seen it. The 19th and 20th centuries have seen only 2 excathedra statements and both have been on Mary. John Paul II did not hide his marian devotion one bit. I just don't see any sign the Holy Spirit is leading the church to focus on other things. Sure "gross exaggerations as well as from petty narrow-mindedness " is going to be condemned but the way the church defines these things is very different from the way protestants would define them.
The other thing to consider is the Marian apparitions. Some of these have very good evidence behind them. If Mary is really appearing then maybe devotion to Mary is more important that we know. We should not strip down our thinking on Mary to the bare minimum the church forces us to believe. We need to trust the church not only in it's doctrine but also in it's practice.
"3) When Pope John Paul II was shot in Turkey he cried out repetitively "Mary my mother..." but not once to my recollection did he call out to Christ."
I have nothing to add to what Dave wrote other then to note that the assassination attempt took place on May 13 1981 which was the anniversary of the first apparition at Fatima. Pope John Paul knew this and this was probably another reason why he asked for her to pray for him. He believed he survived because of Mary's intercession. This is also why he made a pilgrimage to Fatima, Portugal (not Guadalupe) and left one of the bullets from the assassination attempt in the crown of the statue of the Madonna at the Fatima shrine.
Some interesting quotes from Calvin and Luther on Mary.
First Luther, commenting on Matthew and Luke:
"On coming to the house, they (the Magi), saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him." (Matthew 2:11)
[This] adoration, too, was not the same as the worship of God. In my opinion they did not yet recognize him as God, but they acted in keeping with the custom mentioned in Scripture, according to which Kings and important people were worshiped; this did not mean more than falling down before them at their feet and honoring them. - Martin Luther - Sermon on The Gospel for the Festival of the Epiphany, 1522.
"For He that is mighty hath done great things for me, and Holy is His Name" (Luke 1:49). Luther comments:
The "great things" are nothing less than that she became the Mother of God, in which work so many and such great good things are bestowed upon her as pass man's understanding. For on this there follows all honor, all blessedness, and her unique place in the whole of mankind, among whom she has no equal, namely, that she had a child by the Father in Heaven, and such a child. She herself is unable to find a name for this work, it is too exceedingly great; all she can do is break out in the fervent cry: "They are great things," impossible to describe or define. Hence men have crowded all her glory into a single word, calling her the Mother of God. No one can say anything greater of her or to her, though he had as many tongues as there are leaves on the trees, or grass in the fields, or stars in the sky, or sand by the sea. It needs to be pondered in the heart, what it means to be the Mother of God. - Commentary on the Magnificat (Das Magnificat), A.D. 1521
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mar...i/
Martin_Luther
And now Calvin:
I do not doubt that there has been some ignorance in their having reproved this mode of speech, -- that the Virgin Mary is the Mother of God … I cannot dissemble that it is found to be a bad practice ordinarily to adopt this title in speaking of this Virgin: and, for my part, I cannot consider such language as good , proper, or suitable…for to say, the Mother of God for the Virgin Mary, can only serve to harden the ignorant in their superstitions. - Calvin to the Foreigners’ Church in London, Oct. 27, 1552
Elisabeth, again, while she praises her, is so far from hiding the Divine glory, that she ascribes everything to God. And yet, though she acknowledges the superiority of Mary to herself and to others, she does not envy her the higher distinction, but modestly declares that she had obtained more than she deserved. -- John Calvin, Commentary on Luke 1:43
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Calvin
Hi Jonathan,
Thanks for your comments. I don't have unlimited time for answering dozens of questions; just to make that clear. Hopefully others here can join in. It's good to have an inquiring mind, but I have to balance all the different stuff I need to do to get various projects of mine done, and to "bring home the bacon."
That being the case, I cannot answer most involved inquiries I get by mail, and sometimes none at all. I choose some, such as yours, that I find particularly worthwhile, but even then, I can't do it exhaustively. I'll provide some answers below, as best I can, with the time I have. You can always consult my many papers on Mariology, where I cover all the major bases of the huge topic.
>Hey Dave, thanks for commenting on my questions. They have been very helpful in furthering my understanding.
Glad to hear it. Praise God!
>As a fair warning when I want to understand something I can be quite determined. I am known at times to question something to death until I get a full grasp of what I am dealing with.
I can see that! LOL You remind me of myself in my latter Protestant days. I put my Catholic friends through the mill. 
>To date this is the only issue I can think of that I have any trouble at all with and you are likely to get the brunt of my determination. lol
You'll come up with very little that I haven't heard before; this being the controversial issue that it is.
>You did, however, make several issues much more clear to me so it shouldn't be too bad.
Cool
>Annnnnd I have a new question or two that are primarily for dialogue.
Okay.
>This is one of those dialogue questions I mentioned. . . . In our (between my friend David and me) dialogue I questioned really what choice Mary had in the matter and this reasoning was behind my logic.
She could have said no to God, just as Eve did. She had free will like anyone else.
>Christ was known to God even before man's creation. I am sure God had foreknowledge of the precise time, place, etc. when His Son would be needed. And to fulfill this I theorize He would need to "design" a woman to fulfill this role.
Foreknowledge is not the same as predestination. God knew that Mary would say yes to the Incarnation, but that doesn't mean that He caused that to happen, as if she had no free will. True, He removed her original sin, but that didn't stop Eve from rebelling before she had original sin.
God knew, of course, that Mary would cooperate in her free will.
>We are called to follow Mary's example to choose God, but if she was designed for her very purpose as Mother of God then did she really have a choice?
Of course. She wasn't a programmed robot.
>Could she have really said no?
Yes; just like Eve did.
>I know she was physically/mentally capable as a human being to make such a choice but by design would that even have been possible?
Yes. Of course, the reason we know about her now and venerate
(cont.)
. . . her is precisely because she said yes to God.
>To quote the movie "Braveheart" (forgive me) "God makes men what they are..." Kind of lends in a way some small (absolutley not much mind you) credit to the Calvinist notion of predestination...
Catholics believe in predestination, but hold it in paradoxical relationship with human free will. We don't believe that God predestines anyone to hell.
>This issue could actually get rather large tangently so I will leave it to Mary's case only.
Indeed. I have a lot of material on it.
>It may be the "Jesus Freak" in me (which I don't necessarily see as bad in any way) but I do tend to dichotomize between Mary and Christ. Mary, while made perfect, can not compare to Christ (God). I know that's not what you are saying here but it does stand as to why I place such a monumental gap between the two.
The creature-Creator distinction is always infinitely large.
>That being said, how could John Paul have actually known his recovery was actually a direct result of Mary's intercession?
Because Mary intercedes for everyone.
>Did she appear in a vision to tell him so?
Like someone else mentioned, he probably connected it with the date.
>How about the intercession of other saints living and in Heaven?
I'm sure many would have been praying for a dying pope.
>What if it was actually the result of Peter's, and not Mary's, intercession on his behalf? How could any of us really know and would it be dangerous to lend credence to the wrong person?
We don't know all things, but we know as a general truth that dead saints care about us and pray for us.
>I think this is why I find it odd that after the attempted assassination JP dedicated his life to Mary. If my mother prayed for me and a miracle occured I would certainly thank her for her prayers but would I dedicate my life to her or would it be more prudent to dedicate my life more fully to following Christ?
It's a false dichotomy. To follow Mary is to follow Christ because that is what her life was entirely about.
>Would it be more sinful to practice at risk of excess or to not practice from fear of excess and desire of proper application?
Nothing is sin if it isn't forbidden and is done with the right attitude in one's heart. As long as Mary is venerated with a proper understanding, it can never be excessive, because it is all ultimately "Christ-directed". How can anyone have too much devotion to Jesus?
>The bible indicates there were others who stood "blameless before God" (e.g. Job) and others still who were assumed into Heaven (e.g. Moses).
This doesn't imply sinlessness, necessarily.
>Does being blameless and being assumed into Heaven indicate perfection?
No. Elijah wasn't perfect, and he went up top heaven in a chariot of fire.
>If such is the case then why not also bring these others into a higher focus?
I have cited others as parallels (Elijah, Eno
(cont.)
. . . Enoch, Paul being taken up to the "third heaven") of something like an assumption. But not everything fits as a perfect analogy. I use the others to show that the very notion of "assumption" is not biblically unthinkable.
>I don't think it is dogma but I have heard some proclaim that Mary is the dispensation of all graces.
It is strongly indicated in Sacred Tradition, but not a dogma at the highest levels.
I think I even read it in one of your papers...actually I think it is the one on excesses (the very one I first posed my questions to you originally that prompted this new thread).
I have written that, yes.
>I know that God could very well do this because, well God can choose whatever method he wishes.
Exactly! Nothing precludes this possibility. No one can tie the hands of God.
>However, I do not understand how one could come to view this as absolute as some seem to apparently think. It kind of reminds me of the thought processes concerning materialistic evolution in that theory is being touted as truth. It could be true but it could also be false. If it is false then something is potentially gravely overlooked. What say you?
I think there is such a thing as the Mind of the Church, which develops through the centuries. If this has come to be believed by great saints and doctors of the Church, then there is something to it, because God is at work in His people, giving them further insight into spiritual truth as the years go by.
Therefore, if many great teachers in the Church teach this, I accept it on their authority, since there is no antecedent reason to reject it out of hand. There is nothing "unbiblical" about it, and many biblical indications of something akin to this notion.
And what better person than the Mother of God to be such a vessel?
>Having come to understand the truth and finding Christ's true church I find myself a little frustrated. It is like having been lied to your whole life. Not necessarily for dark, sinister purposes other than Satans success in causing derision in the church through the Reformation and denominationalism. It's like one has been "orphaned" as an infant in a war and adopted into a new family. You have no knowledge of your previous family and so feel that the family you are with is your true family. Later you find out that you were adopted and there is a certain frustration associated with the "lies" in your upbringing.
I know exactly how you feel. But we must all give people a pass for ignorance; there is so much of that around, and passed down from generation to generation.
>You were after all treated like a member of the family. Most have even been treated well by their adopted family. Still there is having to deal with that frustration that some would even retreat into denial...some inescapably. The true bliss is found in returning home. You are nervous, and you do still love and respect the ones who raised you, but you are glad t
(cont.)
. . . to be home and embraced by those who missed you. Kinda makes the Protestant/Catholic divide as well as some of the Anti-Catholicism make a bit more sense.
I think that is an excellent way of looking at it. I try to build bridges and be ecumenical as well as doing apologetics. One can believe certain truths, which require disagreeing with contrary views, while rejoicing in the common ground all Christians share.
I love my Protestant brothers and sisters very much, and appreciate the many good things they bring to the Christian life and the Church. I disagree with them on some things too. I don't see that the latter has to contradict the former. I never have understood that.
Don't be too hard on them! You once believed many of the same things they do now: falsehoods about the Catholic Church). So did I. I think our own experiences of foibles and folly can help us be more understanding of those who persist in such things.
Oh...yes...my apologies...got a little carried away didn't I? lol Thank you though for making some time to answer as best as you could.
I'm sorry I missed the beginning of all this conversation during the last few days and promise to read all the comments. I very much understand the dilemma because it was something I struggled in prayer with during the few year or so after returning to God and the Catholic Church.
For background, in brief, for five years I attended JW's meetings twice a week; this left residue in terms of not only Mary but any form of idolatry.
How God primarily dealt with me over this question of her was answered by means of a question.
Did I (God) give her glory?
Everything within me had no choice, since I knew the scriptures well, to answer yes. I could see the honor and yes, the glory, given unto the smallest of nations, Israel. Given to individuals within her, and outside of her (Melchizedek, Cyrus). I had to see the trust she was entrusted with for all our benefit.
Thanks for your comment, Theresa. Great-looking website you have. Keep up the good work!
Worth mentioning that the present Holy Father said that he used to be uncomfortable with a strong emphasis on Mary...didn't see the point in it.
But now late in life he has come to see the great wisdom in that old Catholic saying: de Maria numquam satis; Never enough about Mary...
Commenting by HaloScan
