Refutation of DofJC post "Is Mary the Moon...?"

This is the first of what should be many refutations of the blog posts of YAQUBOS, owner of the "Disciple of Jesus Christ" (which from now on will be simply called DofJC) blog.

Now, the first thing I must mention is that, as people should know, we do not worship Mary. This is a misconception going back hundreds of years. However, YAQUBOS is not aware of this, and thus we must deal with the wording of his posts. What does the Church teach about Mary, God, and worship/veneration?

"The worship which is due to the Most Holy Trinity, to each of the Divine Persons, to our Lord Jesus Christ, even under the Sacramental Species, is cultus latriae; that which is due to the Blessed Virgin Mary is cultus hyperduliae; that which is due to others who reign with Christ in heaven is cultus duliae." (Code of Canon Law, c. 1255 paragraph 1)

"The first commandment does not forbid us to honor the saints in heaven, as long as we do not give them the honor that belongs to God alone. The veneration paid to the saints in heaven differs essentially from the adoration of God. The saints are creatures and are not to be given the supreme worship due to the Creator alone. The supreme honor given to God only is adoration in the full and strict sense of the word. The veneration given to the Blessed Mother and to the saints is an act of respect and honor of an entirely different nature." (Baltimore Catechism #3 p. 130). 

 As you can see, Church documentation clearly shows that this misconception is false, and should be discarded. Nevertheless, I now move on to the post at hand. His post will be in Red. My words will be in black.

On the above mentioned page given to us by a Roman Catholic, the author explains why he wastes his time with a Marian catechism when Christ is the center of Christian Faith; he says:

“Is the moon any less important or lovely because the sun is the center of our solar system? Just as the moon is beautiful (yes, and beneficial) by reflecting the sun’s light, so is Mary beautiful and beneficial to us by reflecting the Light and Glory of Christ.”

And by this philosophy, this heretic wants to make a solar eclipse! He wants to make an obscuration of the light of Christ by putting a moon (Mary) between us and Christ… Instead of putting the moon between us and the sun, the moon should be in the same position with us from the sun to receive the light of the sun and to reflect it on us, and not in the position of intervention between us and the sun…

My opponent is referring to this page, http://www.ancient-future.net/marynew.html. We must look at how the author of this page is using the analogy of the moon, and then look at my opponent's twisting of this analogy. The author defending Marian veneration is clearly showing that the moon is not in the way of the sun, blocking it, but is actually reflecting the light which comes from the sun. And that the moon is only beautiful because of the sun's light. This is actually Scriptural:

Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life." (John 8:12)

Who is the light of the world? Jesus. Whose light is it that his followers have, that his followers are (per Matthew 5:14)? It is Jesus' light. Not our own. We will have his light, which is the light of life, and we shall not walk in darkness. We reflect the light of Jesus in our lives. This perfectly fits in with the moon analogy and the Blessed Virgin. Now, let us address what my opponent says in response. I cannot see how the author of the Moon analogy wants to make a "solar eclipse". If we look at the analogy in question, it is clear that the SUN, not the moon, is the centre of the solar system. And it is clear that the moon, in this analogy, is reflecting the light of the sun, and not actually generating it's own light. There is no justification to say that the author is wanting to say that Mary should be more important, or "in front", of Christ. To further the analogy which my opponent is arguing against, saying that the moon should not be in a place of "intervention" between us and the sun, we know full well that the only thing which can truly be put between us and the Lord is our sins. This is most evident when we look at our planet. When it is night, it is that the earth, which is turning, is what is blocking us from recieving the light of the sun. In the same way, it is our sins which blocks the light of Christ from coming from us. If my opponent is arguing that we cannot intervene or intercede with one another, then he goes against Scripture. For example,

First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people,
for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way.
This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior,
who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 
(1 Timothy 2:1-4).

 Is St. Paul saying that we should block the light of Christ, by interceding for one another? Are we not intervening when we pray for another person? This is the intercession which my opponent is denying. This is clearly unscriptural, to say that we cannot intercede for one another, that by doing so, we are "blocking the light of Christ". Therefore, this argument against the intercession of Mary is made null, because we know that all Christians are called to these Scriptural mandates, and that the Blessed Virgin is, rather than blocking the light, is actually reflecting the light through her prayers.

Besides this, the Word of God never teaches that only Mary (or any saint alone) is the moon that reflects the light of Christ. On the contrary, Jesus clearly said to all true believers:

“Ye are the light of the world”(Matthew 5:14)

N.B.: True believers (i.e. the saints who are on earth) are the light, i.e. they reflect the light of Christ. And the part that receives this light is NOT other believers, but the world… In other terms, with his comparison of Mary with the moon, this heretic confessed that Roman Catholics are not a moon like Mary, but they are the sinful system of the world that needs the light of the moon and cannot reflect the light of Christ! Indeed, how can an unbeliever reflect the light of Christ? How can the world which is the kingdom of darkness have any light? So Roman Catholics need to worship a creature (Mary), because they don’t have the light of Christ and they can’t reflect it as true believers do…

 I don't see how the analogy which the author was using is supposed to assume that Mary is the only one who can reflect the light of Christ. It was merely a way to show that Mary (as well as all of us) can do this. I also wonder why my opponent says that all true believers are only those who are on earth. We know that, from what Scripture states, the Saints (true believers) are in Heaven as well:

When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the witness they had borne.
They cried out with a loud voice, "O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long before you will judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?" 
(Revelation 6:9-10). 

 Only those who truly believed are the ones whom would have been killed for the word of God and for the witness they had borne (which is the testimony of Jesus, as shown in Revelation 12:17.) However, I digress. My opponent's refutation of the idea that Mary reflects the light of Christ is contradictory. He states that because the world recieves the light of Christ, Mary cannot reflect the light of Christ. However, according to this same opponent of mine, it is the true believers (who are Christians, as I have clearly shown in Scripture), which reflect the light of Christ! And we know full well that Mary was a true believer, for we see her always supporting her son, being there even as he died (and being with the Apostles when the Holy Spirit descended upon them).  To say that those in Heaven are not true believers is, logically, to say that they are false believers. Which is nonsensical. Only true believers are in Heaven. Therefore, my opponent contradicts himself entirely in his first sentence of his refutation!

Again, I do not see at all how the Catholic author was saying that, through the analogy, all Christians (and the rest of the world)  cannot reflect the light of Christ. When you read the page, you do not see this in the slightest. This is simply the false assumption and warping of this Catholic author's good work. I have contacted the author of the article which my opponent has quoted, and I shall update this post when I am given a reply. 

You see how the human philosophy of this heretic turns against him…
So my question to this author would be: Why don’t you also write a catechism of us, believers, just as you do about Mary? Why don’t you also worship all the believers who are the light of the Lord in this dark world, just as you worship Mary?… Doesn’t Mary receive her light from Christ just as we do? Does she have any personal light that she has not received from Christ? If not, then what’s the difference between her and us? And why do you worship her?
And the author adds another reason for his Marian catechism: 

“the New Testament has more material on Mary than on any other woman. That tells me that Mary is an important figure and that I ought to take notice.”

In the Old Testament, there is a whole Book called with the name of a woman: Ruth! There is also another one: Esther! Does this mean that these two women were more important than all the other women of the Old Testament?? Of course not. We could just mention Sarah, and everyone would realize how inconsistent is the argument of this author… And in the New Testament, there is almost as much material about Mary the sister of Lazarus as there is about Mary the mother of our Lord, and maybe even more! And interestingly, nowhere did Jesus ever tell us to consider His mother in flesh as more important than any other saint! On the contrary, when a woman wanted to put the first seed of Roman Catholicism by suggesting a worship of Mary, Jesus discouraged her! Read with me:

“And it came to pass as he spake these things, a certain woman, lifting up her voice out of the crowd, said to him, Blessed is the womb that has borne thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked. But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they who hear the word of God and keep [it].“ (Luke 11:27-28)

No, I do not see how this "human philosophy" is turned against this man. Frankly, I cannot see how this is "human philosophy" at all! Again, twisting the Scriptures to condemn those who speak the truth. It is not right or just in any sense. What my opponent is "asking" the Catholic author, he actually could have asked (I have e-mailed the author, as I have already noted). Again, I digress. The problem is that my opponent still is confusing worship in the latria (adoration due to God alone) sense, with the dulia (honour due to the Saints) and hyperdulia (honour due to the BVM, whom is the Mother of our Lord, and is the Immaculate Conception). Thus, when my opponent asks "why do you worship Mary?", it has an inherent fallacy, a misconception which he will not reject. To his other questions, There is such a Catechism, it is known as the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which helps show us the teachings of the faith. Catechesim means "an exposition of doctrine". Marian doctrine needs teaching, because there are many (such as my opponent) who do not understand Marian doctrines and thus reject the assumptions they have about them.

To properly format his question in a way which would make sense to a Catholic, why do we not honour the Saints in the same way that we honour Mary? Because Mary is the New Ark of the Covenant. She is, as St. Ambrose writes:

"It can scarcely be doubted that the Holy Spirit too is to be adored when He that, according to the flesh, was born of the Holy Spirit is to be adored. And let no one divert this to the Virgin Mary: Mary was the temple of God, not the God of the temple. And therefore He alone is to be adored, who was working in the temple." (Ambrose, On the Holy Spirit, 3:11:79; 381 AD 

This quotation also serves as historical evidence of our understanding of latria (adoration) and dulia/hyperdulia (veneration). By stating that Mary is the temple of God, St. Ambrose is clear that Mary held the presence of the Lord within her, and is to be honoured in this way.  My opponent notes that because Esther and Ruth had more written in the New Testament, they should be considered more important than all those women of the Old Testament. I argue that neither of those women gave birth to our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ. This is one of the profound differences between the Old Testament and the New Testament. The Catholic author is simply noting that because there is much written about Mary in the New Testament, we should not just ignore her. That she is an important figure. Which is a fair assessment, we can agree that she is an important figure in the New Testament (being the Mother of God, Jesus Christ). I dispute that there is more material on Mary, the mother of Lazarus. We do not see her mentioned in the Scriptures beyond two events: The anointing of the Lord with ointment, and when Lazarus is dead. However, we see the BVM noted repeatedly, in all four Gospels and in Acts. The Nativity narrative is expounded on for the first two chapters of Luke, and we have the Wedding at Cana, as well as when Mary is with the Apostles in Acts.

This objection of Marian devotion by noting that Jesus said "blessed, rather, are those who hear the word of God and keep it", is an old one. It has been answered sufficiently by many apologists. One of the titans of apologetics, in my opinion, Dave Armstrong, notes this in his blog post Did Jesus renounce Marian veneration? (Luke 11:27-28)" (I would ask that you check out the full post, as it makes additional argumentation):

My New Bible Commentary (ed. D. Guthrie, rev. 1970, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, p. 906), a reputable Protestant source, states:

The woman's rather sentimental benediction on Jesus' mother meant, 'If only I had such a son as this.' Jesus' reply is that something else matters far more, to hear the message He proclaimed and to obey it (cf. 6:46-49).

This verse has no bearing whatever on the veneration of Mary, let alone undermining it. One must understand the Jewish "literary technique" of comparison and contrast, and it is improper to regard all instances of that in terms of an "either/or" approach, as Protestants are so often prone to do.   

 Thus, this argument is a rather ludicrous attempt at trying to make Marian Devotion unscriptural.

Does this in any way mean that Mary is not blessed?? Not at all. For Mary also is one of those who heard the Word of God and kept it. But this surely proves that Mary is not “more saint” than the other believers and that we should write catechisms about her and not about the other believers…
Besides this, have you ever read in the New Testament Jesus saying that we should tell about something the virgin Mary did as an important companion of the Gospel Message? Well, Jesus said the following about what Mary, the sister of Lazarus did:
“Truly I say to you, wherever this gospel is preached in the whole world, what this woman has done will also be spoken of in memory of her.” (Matthew 26:13)
Does this mean that we should write a catechism about Mary of Bethany now?… Roman Catholics never write a catechism about her…

We actually agree on this, that Mary was blessed because she heard the word of God and kept it. I also propose that she was also blessed for another reason, that she was the mother of God. Scripture notes this clearly:

And Mary said, "My soul magnifies the Lord,
and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
for he has looked on the humble estate of his servant. For behold, from now on all generations will call me blessed; for he who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is his name.
(Luke 1:46-48)

Do I argue that she was blessed not because she heard the word of the Lord and believed? No. This is true, for it is mentioned only a few verses before. However, what are the great things that he who is mighty has one for the Blessed Virgin? That of giving her His only Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. This is the great thing that He has done for her.  Therefore, it is safe to say that Mary is blessed because she will be the mother of our Lord and God Jesus Christ, and because she heard what the Lord had proclaimed through the lips of the Angel Gabriel, and she believed. My opponent does not understand the need for writing a Catechism about the BVM, which the reason for is what I have stated already: peope have misconceptions and do not understand the Marian doctrines, therefore we must teach them properly and not leave others to the changing winds of doctrine that are so evident in Protestantism today. With regards to the next argument of my opponent, I again make note that the Blessed Virgin Mary did not merely do what Mary, mother of Lazarus did. Mary, the Mother of Lazarus, merely put oil on our Lord's feet with her hair. Don't get me wrong, this is a very admirable thing. But my opponent is trying to compare this, to being the mother of our Lord. To have been the one to give birth to him, raise him, to be a good mother to him. To, as Simeon said, endure the "sword which will peirce your own soul also". As Martin Luther noted,

"God is born...the child who drinks his Mother's milk is eternal; he existed before the world's beginning and he created heaven and earth...these two natures are so united that there is only ONE God and Lord, that Mary suckles God with her breasts, bathes God, rocks him, and carries him."

This is what the Blessed Mother did. In this statement I have noted, we also find proof that Luther, chief of the Reformers, clearly accepted Mary as the Mother of God. I shall leave this tangent, and continue forward. 

The Spirit of God tells us in the Bible about the Grace of God revealed in the life of His saints so that we learn from their example and we walk in their way: they worshiped God alone, and not creatures. The virgin Mary worshiped God alone, and she confessed that He saved her from her sins; we should learn this and many other things from her example, as the Bible is written to teach us the truth and to encourage us to righteousness. Yes, Mary is an important figure in the Bible just as are all the saints of the Bible, and we should take notice of this; but she’s not God, so we should not worship her and we should not put her in the center of our Faith. Christ is the Lord, and not Mary.

You see how the human vain philosophies of heretics turn against them…

 We have acknowledged that we cannot and should not EVER worship a creature, for creatures are not worthy of the latria that is due to God ALONE. This is a teaching you will continually find in the Church, both in Sacred Scripture and in Sacred Tradition. We cannot worship a human being. We are called, however, to honour one another. We know that whatever we do to another one of our brothers and sisters in Christ is done against Christ himself! (Acts 9:4-5). Therefore, we do Christ honour when we honour our brothers and sisters in Christ, and we do Christ dishonour when we dishonour our brothers and sisters (Matthew 25:31-46). This final statement which I am responding to, I actually agree with. However, I cannot fathom how this connects to the Catholic faith, for we do not worship the BVM. I hope that in this blog post, I have helped explain and refute the false notions presented by my opponent, and that I have glorified Jesus the Lord in this work. I shall continue to respond to each post, as I am commanded to in 1 Peter 3:15:

"...but in your hearts, honour Christ the Lord as holy, always be prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect..."  

Dominus Vobiscum!