Mary, the interfering mother? (4)

Continuing my response to Monica’s comments concerning Mary, today I would like to continue providing a Catholic response to her objections, which today will chiefly focus around the subject of mediation.

Mary-at-Foot-of-Cross

There’s only one Mediator

Monica objected to the notion of Mary being any kind of “mediator”:

Why do we need Mary as mediator when Jesus Christ already paid the price for our sins so that we could approach God directly? Saying that we need Mary as mediator is like saying that what Christ did in the cross is worthless or meaningless

This objection is one about which I’ve written before. Here Monica is alluding to 1 Timothy 2:5 where Paul speaks of the unique mediation of Jesus Christ. However, when I wrote about this passage before, I pointed out that Christ’s mediation does not exclude all other kinds of mediation and mediators, as the passage’s surrounding context demonstrates.

Ironically, despite her objections to mediation, I would hazard a guess that Monica has had many mediators in her life. Perhaps she had parents who raised her in the Faith? Or maybe she was converted through the preaching of an evangelist? I’m certain she has friends who pray for her. All these things are simply different forms of mediation. They have been different avenues through which God has communicated His grace to her. We are all part of one Body, after all (Colossians 1:17-18). Doesn’t it make sense that the Head would use the different members to communicate divine life to other parts of the Body?

She says that having Mary as a mediator makeswhat Christ did in the cross…worthless or meaningless”This statement is asserted, but unfortunately not substantiated.  As I pointed out above, Monica has certainly had many mediators in her life, yet those who supported her and prayed for her have in no way rendered the cross void. In fact, those mediators could only intercede for her and communicate grace to her by virtue of Christ and through the power of His cross! What right do I have to petition the Father, if not by the blood of Christ?

Tearing the curtain

When speaking about mediation, Monica invited me to read Luke’s account of the Passion:

Read Luke 23:45 which says that the curtain in the temple was broken apart in two, this symbolizing that the use of mediators (like in the old testament where only the priests could enter the most holy of the holy places and approach God to intercede for people) was terminated.

The problem here is that what Monica presents is her personal interpretation of this event in Scripture. I would suggest that there are several other possible interpretations and implications for this event. Here are a few I can think of:

1. Foreshadowing
It could be a foreshadowing of the destruction of the Temple in AD 70 which was foretold by Christ (Matthew 24).

2. Reflection
It could be seen as a cosmic sign of mourning, much in the same way a Jew would rip his clothes upon encountering some kind of sacrilege (Matthew 26:65). The Jerusalem Temple is reflecting the assault upon the true temple, Christ’s body on the cross.

3. Revelation
The veils could be torn so that the Temple could be shown to be spiritually bankrupt. The ripping of the veils would have revealed the Holy of Holies. This would have exposed the Temple as being devoid of the Ark and, as a consequence, without the presence and glory of the God.

4. Association
The event in the Temple could be a sign pointing to Jesus’ high priestly act which began in the Upper Room and is now completed on the cross. The tearing of the veil points us to the new avenue to Heaven. This path is not opened by animal sacrifice, but by the life-giving sacrifice of the Son. In the Temple, the veils separated sinners from the presence of God, but now by faith that path is opened wide through Christ’s atoning blood of the New Covenant (Hebrews 10:19-22).

These different interpretations are not mutually exclusive, but personally I would give priority to the final explanation. Either way though, I’ve already demonstrated that there are different kinds of mediation and Mary’s mediation is different from that of her Son, by virtue of who He is and His role in salvation. Therefore the ripping of the veil isn’t especially relevant to this discussion.

Use of language

During her comments, Monica explained that she stumbles over the language Catholics sometimes use:

People call her our hope, our salvation, etc. Acts 4:12 says that salvation is found in Christ alone.

Hopefully a clarification is all that’s needed here. This is simply a consequence of the limitation of language. When we refer to Mary as “our hope” etc, we do not mean that she is our hope to the exclusion of Christ. We ask her to save, but it is only and ever always will be through Jesus.

We use this kind of language with each other all the time. At work I would tell someone on my team “I’m really relying on you to finish that piece of code”. I have yet to have one of my developers come to me and say “You should trust in God alone”  🙂

God’s attributes?

A little later, Monica made what seemed to me to be a rather odd statement:

Yes people are taking focus away from Christ by giving her attributes that only belong to Christ, such as being sinless, holy, mediator, being taken to heaven alive, doing miracles… etc.

I’m not quite sure why she thinks these attributes can only belong to Christ, since Scripture is replete with examples of humans having these attributes:

1. “…sinless…”
Adam and Eve were both created sinless, yet that didn’t require them to be divine.

2. “…holy…”
Many, many people in the Bible are referred to as “holy”. In fact, that word is used to describe all the followers of Jesus (Colossians 1:2).

3. “…mediator…”
As well as the covenant mediators of the Old Testament (Abraham, Moses etc), Christians are constantly exhorted in the New Testament to pray for others and thereby mediate God’s grace (1 Timothy 2:1).

4. “…being taken into heaven alive…”
There are at least two bodily assumptions in the Old Testament: Enoch (Genesis 5:24) and Elisha (2 Kings 2:11-12).

5. “…miracles…”
And as for doing miracles, well, that’s hardly uncommon for those special friends whom God chooses… (Acts 4:29-302 Maccabees 15:12-16)

This ends my reply on Monica’s commentary concerning Mary. In my next post on Tuesday I’ll look at what she had to say about the origin of the Catholic Church.

Introduction | Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6

2 comments

  • From an earlier comment by Monica on another post:

    > The RCC still uses many OT practices such as priests as mediators, incense, the altar etc. All these things were voided when Jesus died in the cross for us. Romans 10:4 says that Christ is the end of the Law. Paul told in Galatians 1:6 that people engaging in OT practices were following a false gospel.

    The Galatians thought that, by getting circumcised and keeping kosher (keeping the Mosiac Law) they’d be saved. You’re misapplying this to Catholic liturgy. Consider the following prophecy of Malachi concerning the New Covenant:

    For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is great among the nations, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering; for my name is great among the nations, says the Lord of hosts – Malachi 1:11

    How is this fulfilled in your church?

    > There is no room for mis-interpreting Luke 23:45. If you know the OT you should know that the curtain separated the most holy of the holy places (where God lived) from the rest of the temple. This curtain basically separated God from humans (and only mediators like the priests could enter the most holy of the holy places once a year to splash the blood of the sacrificed lamb once a year). However when Jesus died, the curtain was broken apart in two because Jesus who was the lamb of God had already paid the price for our sins and all the OT practices such as the use of priests interceding for us was voided.

    You’re just repeating yourself here. Did you read my response? I’d appreciate it if you interacted with my arguments.

  • More comments from Monica…

    > In revelations 4:8, that was not a prayer or a conversation the angels were having with God but it was only an exclamation of the angels about God, he is Holy Holy Holy

    What the angels are doing fits perfectly within the definition of “prayer” which you pulled from Wikipedia. Are you saying that you’re not praying to God when you exclaim “I love you Lord!”?

    > In Matthew 26:39-42, Jesus was being interrupted by his disciples who were falling asleep instead of praying… Sorry friend but I think you are twisting scripture

    Where in the text does it say He was interrupted?!

    > And besides that, when Jesus taught us to pray the “our father in heaven” he taught us to pray to who?

    To the Father. A Muslim would conclude therefore that we shouldn’t pray to Jesus. You can’t simply take a single passage of Scripture and say that it is the only and final word on a subject.

    > The bible says Jesus is our mediator. Yes we can ask someone to pray for us but it does not mean that person will be our mediator before God

    Please define mediation, because it sounds like mediation to me.

    > Luke 15:10 states that the angels know when a sinner repents but the angels are not people. Angels do have powers, example satan, satan was the most powerful angelic being, Ephesians 2:2 states that Satan’s kingdom is in the air, he is everywhere. Satan has the power to be in many places at the same time. Angels that serve God also have powers but they also have limitations, if you read the book of Daniel, one of God’s angels was having a difficult battle against Satan who was stopping him from delivering God’s message to Daniel.

    It sounds like you’re attributing omnipotence and omnipresence to angelic beings. Is that correct?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

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