Are we all the "offspring" of Mary? How do Protestants interpret this verse?

[Roy5]

PROTESTANTS, CATHOLICS AND MARY

 Protestants have enormous respect for Mary - of course! The difference is that they don't venerate her, pray to her, consider her life sinless, teach that she had an immaculate birth, or that she was assumed miraculously into heaven.

 The scriptures do say that "blessed art thou among women" which is obvious from the fact that she gave birth to Jesus. That was special beyond words.

 But the issue is: is she the Queen of Heaven and Our Lady of this and that and this and that? Was she born miraculously - immaculate conception? And received into heaven miraculously? There is no evidence in scripture of all this. Even the name of her mother, St. Anne. Where does that name come from? Certainly not scripture.

 What has happened - I suggest, gingerly - is that early Christianity was competing with religions that had powerful goddesses like Isis and Ishtar and Artemis, and many early Christians began to attribute to Mary many of the characteristic of such goddesses. It was an invasion of paganism. I know that Catholics will find this offensive - and I apologize up front if this is so - but in my mind this clearly happens.

  The argument that is most decisive for me is the fact that St. Paul, in all of his letters advising early Christians, never once mentions the name Mary. It seems clear that the veneration of Mary had not begun when he wrote his epistles, the earliest books of the New Testament. There are other arguments, too, but that has been the decisive one to me.

   Even so, with John Wesley I say 'think and let think'. We need to tolerate different beliefs. 9/11 demonstrated what religious bigotry can lead to, as it did in Europe during those horrendous years of religious wars. Christians should respect the differences among them, and respect those who have thought long and hard and have various interpretations of scripture. I love the idea of thinking freely, without the constraints of a church or some creed. God gave us brains to use, with care of course, and I try to use mine intelligently and with respect for the opinions and beliefs of others, whatever their faith community. Many on these posts accept the decisions of the church, and that's okay with me. But for many of us we can't be genuinely honest and do that.

   "Hail Mary, full of grace!" Fine. But so much has been added to that simple salutation over the years that must be categorized as myth rather than reality.

   God bless the whole world - no exceptions!

 

[Jimmy_B]

PROTESTANTS, CATHOLICS AND MARY

Protestants have enormous respect for Mary - of course! The difference is that …

The scriptures do say that “blessed art thou among women” which is obvious from the fact that she gave birth to Jesus. That was special beyond words.

But the issue is: is she the Queen of Heaven and Our Lady of this and that and this and that? Was she born miraculously - immaculate conception? And received into heaven miraculously? There is no evidence in scripture of all this…

What has happened - I suggest, gingerly - is that early Christianity was competing with religions that had powerful goddesses like Isis and Ishtar and Artemis, and many early Christians began to attribute to Mary many of the characteristic of such goddesses. It was an invasion of paganism. I know that Catholics will find this offensive - and I apologize up front if this is so - but in my mind this clearly happens.

The argument that is most decisive for me is the fact that St. Paul, in all of his letters advising early Christians, never once mentions the name Mary. It seems clear that the veneration of Mary had not begun when he wrote his epistles, the earliest books of the New Testament. There are other arguments, too, but that has been the decisive one to me.

Even so, with John Wesley I say ‘think and let think’…

Christians should respect the differences among them, and respect those who have thought long and hard and have various interpretations of scripture. I love the idea of thinking freely, without the constraints of a church or some creed. God gave us brains to use, with care of course, and I try to use mine intelligently and with respect for the opinions and beliefs of others, whatever their faith community. Many on these posts accept the decisions of the church, and that’s okay with me. But for many of us we can’t be genuinely honest and do that.

“Hail Mary, full of grace!” Fine. But so much has been added to that simple salutation over the years that must be categorized as myth rather than reality.

God bless the whole world - no exceptions!

Hello Roy5,

Thank you for your post. Way too much here, to respond to without getting too far off topic but I will address some of your remarks.

“Hail Mary, full of grace!” Fine. But so much has been added to that simple salutation over the years that must be categorized as myth rather than reality.

Roy, I assume that you are familiar with the Bible and Christian history, or you wouldn’t post with such confidence, so I am puzzled by this remark. You don’t honestly believe that the Catholic Church’s doctrine and the Church’s beliefs regarding the Blessed Virgin Mary are based solely on one Bible verse, do you?

First came Jesus (New Testament era) then came the Church, then…three to five hundred years later came the Bible…then another thousand years later, came Protestantism.

I suggest that the stumbling block over Mary and other Catholic beliefs by Protestants are caused by, among other things, their (Protestant) rejection of early Christian traditions, beliefs and history, by the fact that Protestants and Protestant denominations are in a constant state of protesting the Catholic Church, and their constant competing with one another, whether they know it or not…whether they want to admit it or not.

I also believe that this rejection of early Christian traditions, beliefs and history, was deliberately built into Protestantism and was intentionally designed by the early Protestants to confuse Christians about their faith and to pull people way from the Catholic Church and/or undermine the Catholic Church.

If the Protestant, John Wesley, said ‘think and let think’, then why are Protestants not encouraged to “think” about early Christian history and early Christian traditions? In fact, the opposite is true; Protestants are encouraged to reject Christian traditions and history, especially when those traditions and that history support’s Catholicism.

…and respect those who have thought long and hard and have various interpretations of scripture.

I agree, and there have been some notable Protestant scholars who have, because of this, converted to Catholicism.

Finally, Christianity wasn’t intended to be a religion of one, or a religion of our own intellect and that’s the major flaw with the false Protestant belief in, “personal interpretation of the Bible”, everybody comes to a different conclusion and the next thing you know there are 36,000 plus non-Catholic, Protestant Christian denominations (and subdivisions)… all having different and apposing ideas of what it is to be Christian.

I submit that there are as many, if not more opposing opinions among Protestants themselves, then there are with Protestant and Catholics… Am I wrong? Why so many different Protestant beliefs?

You’ve packed a lot (Protestant talking points) into your post and I will try to address more of what you wrote here when I have more time. However, I have seen these Protestant objections before and I can tell you that there does exist Biblical, logical and historical responses to every one of you remarks. Then again, if you have research this subject, much at all, you already know this.

Until next time…

 

[Jimmy_B]

PROTESTANTS, CATHOLICS AND MARY

Protestants have enormous respect for Mary - of course! The difference is that they don’t venerate her, pray to her, consider her life sinless, teach that she had an immaculate birth, or that she was assumed miraculously into heaven.

The scriptures do say that “blessed art thou among women” which is obvious from the fact that she gave birth to Jesus. That was special beyond words.

But the issue is: is she the Queen of Heaven and Our Lady of this and that and this and that? Was she born miraculously - immaculate conception? And received into heaven miraculously? There is no evidence in scripture of all this. Even the name of her mother, St. Anne. Where does that name come from? Certainly not scripture.

What has happened - I suggest, gingerly - is that early Christianity was competing with religions that had powerful goddesses like Isis and Ishtar and Artemis, and many early Christians began to attribute to Mary many of the characteristic of such goddesses. It was an invasion of paganism. I know that Catholics will find this offensive - and I apologize up front if this is so - but in my mind this clearly happens.

The argument that is most decisive for me is the fact that St. Paul, in all of his letters advising early Christians, never once mentions the name Mary. It seems clear that the veneration of Mary had not begun when he wrote his epistles, the earliest books of the New Testament. There are other arguments, too, but that has been the decisive one to me.

Even so, with John Wesley I say ‘think and let think’. We need to tolerate different beliefs. 9/11 demonstrated what religious bigotry can lead to, as it did in Europe during those horrendous years of religious wars. Christians should respect the differences among them, and respect those who have thought long and hard and have various interpretations of scripture. I love the idea of thinking freely, without the constraints of a church or some creed. God gave us brains to use, with care of course, and I try to use mine intelligently and with respect for the opinions and beliefs of others, whatever their faith community. Many on these posts accept the decisions of the church, and that’s okay with me. But for many of us we can’t be genuinely honest and do that.

“Hail Mary, full of grace!” Fine. But so much has been added to that simple salutation over the years that must be categorized as myth rather than reality.

God bless the whole world - no exceptions!

Roy5,

…the fact that St. Paul, in all of his letters advising early Christians, never once mentions the name Mary.

I have read posts here at CAF over the years, where Protestants have tried to discredit Saint Paul, when a Catholic cites verses from his letters to supprort a Catholic belief.

Are you somehow implying that the Pauline Letters are more important than the Gospels? Please explain this one.

*Even so, with John Wesley I say ‘think and let think’. *

“Hail Mary, full of grace!” Fine. But so much has been added to that simple salutation over the years that must be categorized as myth rather than reality.

Where in the Bible are Protestants - John Wesley, John Calvin or Martin Luther metioned? Protestantism isn’t in the Bible either.

Does this mean that Protestantism is a “myth”?

 

[ckempston]

Paul’s epistles are occasional pastoral letters addressed to particular communities concerned with specific primary issues of faith. Not everything he preached orally was put down in writing. Paul doesn’t mention the virgin birth in any of his letters. But I’m sure he believed in this miraculous event and preached it universally.

Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.
2 Thessalonians 2, 15

I find it interesting that according to Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, 2nd Century, what the Apostles preached publicly (orally) was later confirmed in writing (Against Heresies):

We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before **they possessed “perfect knowledge,” **as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles.

Ouch! Yikes!

Irenaeus also taught that if it wasn’t in the scriptures, we are not required to believe it. Double ouch!

If, therefore, according to the rule which I have stated, we leave some questions in the hands of God, we shall both preserve our faith uninjured, and shall continue without danger; and all Scripture, which has been given to us by God, shall be found by us perfectly consistent; and the parables shall harmonize with those passages which are perfectly plain; and those statements the meaning of which is clear, shall serve to explain the parables; and through the many diversified utterances [of Scripture] there shall be one harmonious melody in us, praising in hymns that God who created all things. If, for instance, any one asks, “What was God doing before He made the world?” we reply that the answer to such a question lies with God Himself. For that this world was formed perfect by God, receiving a beginning in time, the Scriptures teach us; but no Scripture reveals to us what God was employed about before this event. The answer therefore to that question remains with God, and **it is not proper for us to aim at bringing forward foolish, rash, and blasphemous suppositions **[in reply to it]; so, as by one’s imagining that he has discovered the origin of matter, he should in reality set aside God Himself who made all things.

Wow. Improper to bring forward rash and blasphemous explanations that are not revealed in the scriptures. Sounds strangely similar to prima scriptura for a Catholic Bishop of the 2nd century.

 

[Roy5]

JIMMY B AND OTHER FRIENDS

 It's not my intention to enter into religious conflict. My main point is that Christians should respect the various opinions among us - agree to disagree. It is certainly okay to argue our case, but it should be done in a spirit of Christian love. Some posters do that. Others seem to suggest that if we don't embrace Catholicism altogether we are rebels, egotists, stupid, or whatever. Nonsense.

  Catholics often forget that a key objective of the Reformation was to cast off what the Reformers believed were add-ons to the original teachings of Jesus. Much of Mariology, for example, is seen as a development well after the resurrection of Christ. To Protestants generally, Mary is to be honored, but not venerated. It's as simple as that. When many Protestants see various programs on EWTN that focus on Mary (and I watch EWTN quite regularly) they are inclined to ask: where is that in the Bible? Take the apparitions at Lourdes and Fatima, for example. Or some of the stories (myths?) connected with various saints. No offense, but they seem to defy human reason. Padre Pio - levitating, bilocation, etc - give me a break!

  But if people can believe such things, God bless them. Judge not....  But please don't insist that Christians like me must believe them.

  Now, as for the church Fathers, I have read most of them - often years ago when I read more systematically such material. I even read such 'heretics' as Origen and Tertullian. Was I impressed? For their era they were quite brilliant. But they had no microscope or telescope and they believed a whole lot of untruths regarding the natural world, disease, the universe and such. I don't blame them, but I don't look to them for my theology. Hans Kung is one of my heroes, and I believe he was silence by John Paul II. Do I have that right? 

   I wrote an undergraduate thesis on Thomas Aquinas years ago. Amazing man in some ways. But he believed that heretics should be delivered up to the civil authorities to be executed, the position of the Catholic Church of that time. Now, really, am I supposed to respect such a view? And what about Pius IX and his anathemas directed at democracy, separation of church and state and such ("Syllabus of Errors"). Today, fortunately, the church seems to have abandoned such narrowness, and certainly the vast majority of American Catholics believe in democracy and church-state separation.

   I must do other things. My Protestantism is based primarily on the freedom to think and believe without feeling boxed in by my church or even by any creeds. I believe that God must smile on brains that do their best to figure out this magnificent, majestic and mysterious universe. That ain't easy, and I don't claim to have done it. But I find it a challenge to let my mind explore the many theologies and theories out there. 

  May that same God of us all bless you and all the world - no exceptions.

 

[Love_is_Patient]

JIMMY B AND OTHER FRIENDS
Catholics often forget that a key objective of the Reformation was to cast off what the Reformers believed were add-ons to the original teachings of Jesus. Much of Mariology, for example, is seen as a development well after the resurrection of Christ. To Protestants generally, Mary is to be honored, but not venerated. It’s as simple as that. When many Protestants see various programs on EWTN that focus on Mary (and I watch EWTN quite regularly) they are inclined to ask: where is that in the Bible? Take the apparitions at Lourdes and Fatima, for example. Or some of the stories (myths?) connected with various saints. No offense, but they seem to defy human reason. Padre Pio - levitating, bilocation, etc - give me a break!
.

You forget, though, that the Protestant Reformers had a high opinion of the Virgin Mary–higher than that of many modern Protestants:

Martin Luther:
Martin Luther:

There can be no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in heaven. How it happened we do not know. And since the Holy Spirit has told us nothing about it, we can make of it no article of faith . . . It is enough to know that she lives in Christ.

The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart. (Sermon, September 1, 1522).

[She is the] highest woman and the noblest gem in Christianity after Christ . . . She is nobility, wisdom, and holiness personified. We can never honor her enough. Still honor and praise must be given to her in such a way as to injure neither Christ nor the Scriptures. (Sermon, Christmas, 1531).

No woman is like you. You are more than Eve or Sarah, blessed above all nobility, wisdom, and sanctity. (Sermon, Feast of the Visitation, 1537).

One should honor Mary as she herself wished and as she expressed it in the Magnificat. She praised God for his deeds. How then can we praise her? The true honor of Mary is the honor of God, the praise of God's grace . . . Mary is nothing for the sake of herself, but for the sake of Christ . . . Mary does not wish that we come to her, but through her to God. (Explanation of the Magnificat, 1521).



It is the consolation and the superabundant goodness of God, that man is able to exult in such a treasure. Mary is his true Mother .. (Sermon, Christmas, 1522)

Mary is the Mother of Jesus and the Mother of all of us even though it was Christ alone who reposed on her knees . . . If he is ours, we ought to be in his situation; there where he is, we ought also to be and all that he has ought to be ours, and his mother is also our mother. (Sermon, Christmas, 1529).

It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary's soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God's gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin" (Sermon: "On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God," 1527).

She is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin- something exceedingly great. For God's grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil. (Personal {"Little"} Prayer Book, 1522).

 Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that.

{Luther’s Works, eds. Jaroslav Pelikan (vols. 1-30) & Helmut T. Lehmann (vols. 31-55), St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House (vols. 1-30); Philadelphia: Fortress Press (vols. 31-55), 1955, v.22:23 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }

Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that 'brothers' really mean 'cousins' here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers.

{Pelikan, ibid., v.22:214-15 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }

  A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ . . .

{Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:199 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) }

  Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity . . .

  When Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her . . . This babble . . . is without justification . . . he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom.

{Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:206,212-3 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) }

Editor Jaroslav Pelikan (Lutheran) adds:

  Luther . . . does not even consider the possibility that Mary might have had other children than Jesus. This is consistent with his lifelong acceptance of the idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary.

{Pelikan, ibid.,v.22:214-5}

davidmacd.com/catholic/martin_luther_on_mary.htm

 

[Love_is_Patient]

Luther also said:

". . . she is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin. . . . God's grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil. . . . God is with her, meaning that all she did or left undone is divine and the action of God in her. Moreover, God guarded and protected her from all that might be hurtful to her."
Ref: Luther's Works, American edition, vol. 43, p. 40, ed. H. Lehmann, Fortress, 1968

". . . she is rightly called not only the mother of the man, but also the Mother of God. . . . it is certain that Mary is the Mother of the real and true God."
Ref: Sermon on John 14. 16: Luther's Works (St. Louis, ed. Jaroslav, Pelican, Concordia. vol. 24. p. 107)

"Christ our savior was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb. . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that."
(REf: On the Gospel of St. John: Luther's Works, vol. 22. p. 23, ed. Jaroslav Pelican, Concordia, 1957)

"Men have crowded all her glory into a single phrase: The Mother of God. No one can say anything greater of her, though he had as many tongues as there are leaves on the trees." (From the Commentary on the Magnificat.)

davidmacd.com/catholic/martin_luther_on_mary.htm

 

[Love_is_Patient]

Heinrich Bullinger

  Bullinger (d. 1575) . . . defends Mary's perpetual virginity . . . and inveighs against the false Christians who defraud her of her rightful praise: 'In Mary everything is extraordinary and all the more glorious as it has sprung from pure faith and burning love of God.' She is 'the most unique and the noblest member' of the Christian community . . .

  'The Virgin Mary . . . completely sanctified by the grace and blood of her only Son and abundantly endowed by the gift of the Holy Spirit and preferred to all . . . now lives happily with Christ in heaven and is called and remains ever-Virgin and Mother of God.'

{In Hilda Graef, Mary: A history of Doctrine and Devotion, combined ed. of vols. 1 & 2, London: Sheed & Ward, 1965, vol.2, pp.14-5}

from davidmacd.com/catholic/martin_luther_on_mary.htm

 

[Jimmy_B]

PROTESTANTS, CATHOLICS AND MARY

Protestants have enormous respect for Mary - of course! The difference is that they don’t venerate her, pray to her, consider her life sinless, teach that she had an immaculate birth, or that she was assumed miraculously into heaven.

The scriptures do say that “blessed art thou among women” which is obvious from the fact that she gave birth to Jesus. That was special beyond words.

But the issue is: is she the Queen of Heaven and Our Lady of this and that and this and that? Was she born miraculously - immaculate conception? And received into heaven miraculously? There is no evidence in scripture of all this. Even the name of her mother, St. Anne. Where does that name come from? Certainly not scripture.

What has happened - I suggest, gingerly - is that early Christianity was competing with religions that had powerful goddesses like Isis and Ishtar and Artemis, and many early Christians began to attribute to Mary many of the characteristic of such goddesses. It was an invasion of paganism. I know that Catholics will find this offensive - and I apologize up front if this is so - but in my mind this clearly happens.

The argument that is most decisive for me is the fact that St. Paul, in all of his letters advising early Christians, never once mentions the name Mary. It seems clear that the veneration of Mary had not begun when he wrote his epistles, the earliest books of the New Testament. There are other arguments, too, but that has been the decisive one to me.

Even so, with John Wesley I say ‘think and let think’. We need to tolerate different beliefs. 9/11 demonstrated what religious bigotry can lead to, as it did in Europe during those horrendous years of religious wars. Christians should respect the differences among them, and respect those who have thought long and hard and have various interpretations of scripture. I love the idea of thinking freely, without the constraints of a church or some creed. God gave us brains to use, with care of course, and I try to use mine intelligently and with respect for the opinions and beliefs of others, whatever their faith community. Many on these posts accept the decisions of the church, and that’s okay with me. But for many of us we can’t be genuinely honest and do that.

“Hail Mary, full of grace!” Fine. But so much has been added to that simple salutation over the years that must be categorized as myth rather than reality.

God bless the whole world - no exceptions!

Summary

I suggest, gingerly - is that early Christianity was competing with religions that had powerful goddesses like Isis and Ishtar and Artemis, and many early Christians began to attribute to Mary many of the characteristic of such goddesses. It was an invasion of paganism. I

1. Roy5 compares Catholics to Pagans and suggests that Catholics hold Pagan beliefs, or that Catholicism is a Pagan religion.

I know that Catholics will find this offensive

1. …but Roy5 says it anyways

“Hail Mary, full of grace!” Fine. But so much has been added to that simple salutation over the years that must be categorized as myth rather than reality.

1. Roy5 claims that beliefs regarding Mary, shared by over one billion Catholics worldwide is base on a myth, as if Catholicism is a “mythical religion”.

I love the idea of thinking freely, without the constraints of a church or some creed.

1. Here, Roy5 asserts that Catholics are prevented from thinking freely.

God gave us brains to use, with care of course, and I try to use mine intelligently

1. Here, Roy5 is apparently smarter than all those dumb Catholics who don’t use their brains intelligently.

Even so, with John Wesley I say ‘think and let think’. We need to tolerate different beliefs. 9/11 demonstrated what religious bigotry can lead to, as it did in Europe during those horrendous years of religious wars.

1. All this coming from a guy who is sooooo tolerant.

Roy5, are you kidding? You cannot insult Catholics on one hand and then claim the moral high ground on the other. I personally believe that your request for tolerance, when you show none towards Catholics here, is simply an attempt by you to prevent a Catholic response to your nonsense.

Could you please go back and answer some of the valid theological questions asked in this thread.

Talking about how smart you are is not a valid or credible response. Please back-up your rhetoric with reliably sourced facts.

Nice try, please try again thank you.

 

[Good_Fella]

I find it interesting that according to Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, 2nd Century, what the Apostles preached publicly (orally) was later confirmed in writing (Against Heresies):

We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures…Ouch!

Indeed, Paul had perfect knowledge of the virgin birth of Christ, but he doesn’t explicitly mention the event in any of his letters as do Matthew and Luke. Paul alludes to the virgin birth in his letter to the Galatians (4:4).

Irenaeus must have known by way of Tradition that the Apostles perceived Mary as a type of new Eve and preached this revealed truth, for he himself taught this, finding confirmation in Luke 1:38 [Against Heresies 3:22-24; 5:19:1 (c.A.D. 189)]. When the Church Father speaks of the Gospel coming down to “us” he means the hierarchy of the Catholic Church which was established on the foundation of Peter and the Apostles. As a bishop, Irenaeus validly succeeded the apostles and had the authority to preach what had been passed down through Apostolic Tradition. In his divine office, which naturally never expired with the death of the apostles (Paul ordained Timothy to succeed him in the episcopacy), Irenaeus made explicit what had been implicitly put down in writing, but orally taught explicitly by the apostles unless they did not have perfect and complete knowledge of this divine mystery. But I’m sure they did, since Luke’s Gospel is a confirmation of what the Apostles preached orally and passed on through Tradition (Lk 1:1-4). Meanwhile Irenaeus condemned those individuals who presumed to have the authority to authentically preach the Gospel in a private capacity outside the divine office in contravention of traditional orthodox belief. Ouch! uch:

"True knowledge is that which consists in the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ** according to the succession of the bishops**, by which they have handed down this Church which exists in every place, and has come even unto us,** being guarded and preserved without any forging of Scriptures**, by a very complete system of doctrine, and neither receiving addition nor suffering curtailment in the truth which she believes; and** it consists in reading the word of God without falsification, and a lawful and diligent exposition in harmony with the Scriptures**, both without danger and without blasphemy."
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4:33:8 (c.A.D. 189)

Irenaeus also taught that if it wasn’t in the scriptures, we are not required to believe it. Double ouch!

 

[Roy5]

JIMMY B AND FRIENDS

 If I were intolerant, I would not spend my time here, reading posting after posting, that exhibits hostility toward my big tent approach to religion. If we say that we think for ourselves, it's as though we are egotists who are insulting Catholicism. Think for a moment of all the postings and posters that regularly denounce Protestantism. I don't feel insulted because I know these posters - though we disagree - are fervent believers 

 I love a whole lot of Catholics. My paternal line was Catholic and an ancestral uncle was Archbishop of Quebec. I am simply being honest in expressing my views, and am happy to respect the views of others. Maybe this isn't the place to do this. Perhaps we all should think alike. I'm not sure we would find much of interest here.

  Now, let me ask you: aren't Catholics prevented from holding views that conflict in any way with the essential dogmae of the Church? That is, if a person is to remain a good Catholic could s/he deny any of such doctrines as transubstantiation, the immaculate conception, the assumption of Mary, and many more? In my tradition we hold Bible studies and everybody is invited - even encouraged - to voice what this or that verse may mean to him. I find that fascinating. No one claims to have the final truth. Honestly, that's the atmosphere I need when it comes to spiritual matters. And I believe that God honors thius approach. 

   The main difference, perhaps, is authority. Traditionalist Catholics believe that the Papacy has the final authority, that the Pope is an intermedmiary between God and His Church, that if he speaks ex cathedra, that's it. It's settled. Sorry, but I guess I've been too influenced by the excitement of individual thought to place my opinions on such matters under the control of others. You see this as stubborness, or maybe egotism. I see it as freedom, and I value it highly.

   By the way, evangelical Protestants tend to bow before the scriptures. I am not one of these, either. I am a liberal Protestant who prefers a faith that is conciliatory in attitude and believers who don't go ballistic when someone dissents.  

   I respect other views. For example, I have spent time in Korea and grew to admire the depth of Buddhism. I have spent time in India and there is much wisdom in Hinduism. I try to be a faithful follower of Christ, but he spoke of sheep not of this flock, so.... well, maybe that includes some Buddhists and Hindus and others. I want religion to serve as a bridge, a promoter of understanding and peace, and not a cause of arrogance or bitterness. I believe that a good Hindu or Buddhist may have a better chance of entering Heaven than some baptized Christian who has faithfully gone to mass and confession but hates blacks or cheats his clients or abuses his spouse. 

  'Nuff sed. Bedtime. But God bless you and the whole world. No exceptions.

 

[Good_Fella]

JIMMY B AND FRIENDS

Now, let me ask you: aren’t Catholics prevented from holding views that conflict in any way with the essential dogmae of the Church? That is, if a person is to remain a good Catholic could s/he deny any of such doctrines as transubstantiation, the immaculate conception, the assumption of Mary, and many more?** In my tradition we hold Bible studies and everybody is invited - even encouraged - to voice what this or that verse may mean to him. I find that fascinating. No one claims to have the final truth.** Honestly, that’s the atmosphere I need when it comes to spiritual matters. And I believe that God honors this approach.

Roy, I’m afraid you fail to see why Jesus promised to send the Paraclete - so that God would reveal the fullness of his truth to the Church. The reason why Protestantism will remain divided and continue to splinter in essential matters of faith and morals until Christ returns is because of the private interpretation of Scripture by individuals who have no apostolic authority to authentically preach the Gospel. There can be no unity of faith if God’s truth is uncertain and there is no central apostolic teaching authority established by Christ on the foundation of the Apostles, which is guided by the Holy Spirit.

The main difference, perhaps, is authority. Traditionalist Catholics believe that the Papacy has the final authority, that the Pope is an intermedmiary between God and His Church, that if he speaks ex cathedra, that’s it. It’s settled.** Sorry, but I guess I’ve been too influenced by the excitement of individual thought to place my opinions on such matters under the control of others.** You see this as stubborness, or maybe egotism. I see it as freedom, and I value it highly.

Our Lord never intended that his Church be built on the free spirit of individualism, nor as a democractic body in which each individual can decide for himself what constitutes a true doctrine according to his own conscience. Starting with the Twelve, Jesus himself has appointed able men to govern and teach the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. And he expects us to submit to their authority which our Lord has conferred on them in their divine office through appointment by the Holy Spirit. Divine revelation isn’t a matter of personal opinion; nor are the Scriptures a matter of private interpretation. God desires that we come to know with certainty that which he wills to reveal. If God reveals a mysterious truth of his, it’s because we ought to know it. There is no place for the spirit of skeptism in divine revelation.

Pax Christu :harp:

 

[Jimmy_B]

Roy, I’m afraid you fail to see why Jesus promised to send the Paraclete - so that God would reveal the fullness of his truth to the Church. The reason why Protestantism will remain divided and continue to splinter in essential matters of faith and morals until Christ returns is because of the private interpretation of Scripture by individuals who have no apostolic authority to authentically preach the Gospel. There can be no unity of faith if God’s truth is uncertain and there is no central apostolic teaching authority established by Christ on the foundation of the Apostles, which is guided by the Holy Spirit.

Our Lord never intended that his Church be built on the free spirit of individualism, nor as a democractic body in which each individual can decide for himself what constitutes a true doctrine according to his own conscience. Starting with the Twelve, Jesus himself has appointed able men to govern and teach the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. And he expects us to submit to their authority which our Lord has conferred on them in their divine office through appointment by the Holy Spirit. Divine revelation isn’t a matter of personal opinion; nor are the Scriptures a matter of private interpretation. God desires that we come to know with certainty that which he wills to reveal. If God reveals a mysterious truth of his, it’s because we ought to know it. There is no place for the spirit of skeptism in divine revelation.

Pax Christu :harp:

Another excellent post by Good Fella, thank you!

I was going to post something similar but probably not as well worded or as eloquent.

 

[TAB39]

---

---

Are we all the “offspring” of Mary? How do Protestants interpret this verse?

I see “the woman” many times here but never specifically Mary the Mother of God. Revelation is also based almost soley upon a dream so I’m not convinced that “the woman” is Mary. Oh, by the way, I’m Catholic too.

 

[Good_Fella]

I see “the woman” many times here but never specifically Mary the Mother of God. Revelation is also based almost soley upon a dream so I’m not convinced that “the woman” is Mary. Oh, by the way, I’m Catholic too.

“I was caught up in spirit on the Lord’s day.”
Revelation 1, 10

John never had a dream or a series of dreams. He claims to have had visions. Whether they are actual experiences or literary devices remains questionable. In certain ways, the woman serves as a symbol representing either Israel, the Church, or Mary, who is the personification of Daughter Zion. And whether Mary herself appeared to John in this vision in her symbolic role is also questionable. Until now we cannot know for sure. Nor is it important. The truth is we are her spiritual offspring, just as we are the offspring of Jacob (Israel) and the Church (the new Israel) as the true heirs of promise. It was Sarah who gave birth to her only son Isaac, who begot Jacob, and it was Mary who gave birth to her only son Jesus, who begot his Church. Meanwhile Mary is the personification of these two corporate entities. Nowhere in the Bible are Israel and the Church literally called woman, but only referred to as a female entity. Yet in the Gospel of John, who is the author of Revelation, Jesus addressed his mother by this appellation at the beginning and at the end of his ministry on earth.

*And Jesus said to her, * “Woman, how does your concern affect me? My hour has not yet come.”
John 2, 4

When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple there whom he loved, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold your son.”
John 19, 26

"For if Mary, as those declare who with sound mind extol her, had no other son but Jesus, and yet Jesus says to his mother, ‘Woman, behold thy son,’ and not, ‘Behold you have this son also,’ then He virtually said to her, ‘Lo, this is Jesus whom thou didst bear.’ Is it not the case that everyone who is perfect lives himself no longer, but Christ lives in him; and if Christ lives in him, then it is said of him to Mary, ‘Behold thy son Christ?’ "
Origen, Commentary on John, 1:6 (A.D. 232)

Pax Christu :harp:

 

[Jimmy_B]

I see “the woman” many times here but never specifically Mary the Mother of God. Revelation is also based almost soley upon a dream so I’m
not convinced that “the woman” is Mary. Oh, by the way, I’m Catholic too.

Hello TAB,

Thank you for your post.

I posted something here, a CA article, a few posts earlier that helps to explain the meaning of Revelation 12 and who the “women” is, in Revelation 12. “She” is Mary, the Church, Eve and Israel.

The authors’ of the various books of the Bible spoke and wrote using parables, typology, metaphors, allegories, analogies and so on. They wrote about dreams and prophesies. Saint Joseph was warned in a dream to flee with Jesus and Mary to Egypt, for example. The acceptance of prophetic “visions” or “dreams” is the bases for much of the Judeo-Christian belief.

The many warnings that we see, in many of the dreams described in the Bible, are often messages from an angel, like Gabriel. That is why the angel Gabriel is referred to as the “messenger angel”.

As Christians, we believe in Heaven and Hell, angels, prophesy and visions and even resurrection. Having a belief in these things is referred to as faith. Visions, prophesy and prophetic dreams, accompanied with a warning is a recurrent theme in the Bible.

Moreover, the arrival of Jesus Christ was prophesized in the Old Testament. Do you lack confidence in all those things prophesized in the Bible, or just those things that Saint John wrote about?

Finally, and this is a more general comment, because of the faith required to simply be Christian; a belief in the resurrection for instance, I don’t understand why Protestants can accept some things based on faith and then reject other Christian beliefs which happen to be “Catholic”. This doesn’t make any sense.

I hope this helps.

I’m Catholic too…

God Bless

 

[Roy5]

THE ROLE OF FAITH

 Faith obviously is at the heart of our Christian religion. But there can be limits to what our faith permits us to believe.

 For example, I have no trouble accepting the existence of God, which is based on faith, but that is a long ways from believing that Mary's apparitions appeared at Lourdes and Fatima. I feel privileged to honor Mary as the mother of Christ, but that doesn't mean that I jump from that to accepting such teachings as her sinless life, her perpetual virginity, her immaculate conception and her assumption into heaven. These all are possible, od course, but I don't feel that they are established in tradition sufficiently to be infallible doctrines. If people can accept them, fine. I think millions of us 'heretics' simply can't believe them even when we would like to. We have to be honest to God and to ourselves. My own experience with Catholics is that many feel an enormous bond with Mary without accepting such doctrines.  

 As for Revelation, forget it. That book is so filled with symbolism that there could be (and are) numerous interpretations of its text. Indeed, Protestants used to quote it to prove that the Pope is the anti-Christ, etc. "Even the devil can quote scripture."

  There is a point beyond which many of us cannot travel by faith. Joseph Smith of the Mormons taught that the moon was inhabited by people who dressed like Quakers! Was that reasonable? Muslims believe that when Muhammed was born the rocks shouted out the brief Muslim creed? Reasonable? Frankly, I don't believe the Biblical accounts that - for example - God told Joshua to murder every resident of Jericho that he ordered Saul to slay every last Amalekite. I even doubt if God created languages because of the Tower of Babel or that Joshua made the sun stand still. Our faith, in my view, doesn't require that we believe the unbelievable. That's why religion seems to silly to so many.

  You get my point, I'm sure, although I know the answer already. The Church is infallible, so just believe it! Sorry. Can't do.

  But God bless the world world - no exceptions. Catholics, Protestants, Jews, yes, even Mormons and Muslims.

 

[guanophore]

PROTESTANTS, CATHOLICS AND MARY

 Protestants have enormous respect for Mary - of course! T

Actually, Roy, many of them don’t. Some of them speak of her with an appalling lack of respect, as if Jesus passed through her like some sort of digestive process.

he difference is that they don’t venerate her, pray to her, consider her life sinless, teach that she had an immaculate birth, or that she was assumed miraculously into heaven.

 The scriptures do say that "blessed art thou among women" which is obvious from the fact that she gave birth to Jesus. That was special beyond words.

The Scriptures also say she is blessed “even more rather” because of her obedience to God. That is why she is such a good model for us.

   But the issue is: is she the Queen of Heaven and Our Lady of this and that and this and that? Was she born miraculously - immaculate conception? And received into heaven miraculously? There is no evidence in scripture of all this. Even the name of her mother, St. Anne. Where does that name come from? Certainly not scripture.

You know, Roy, for someone claiming to be Catholic, you say an incredible amount of non-catholic things like this. The Catholic faith is not derived from bits of scripture strung together to make doctrine.

   What has happened - I suggest, gingerly - is that early Christianity was competing with religions that had powerful goddesses like Isis and Ishtar and Artemis, and many early Christians began to attribute to Mary many of the characteristic of such goddesses. It was an invasion of paganism. I know that Catholics will find this offensive - and I apologize up front if this is so - but in my mind this clearly happens.

Another clear evidence that not only are you not Catholic, but you don’t know your history very well.

     The argument that is most decisive for me is the fact that St. Paul, in all of his letters advising early Christians, never once mentions the name Mary. It seems clear that the veneration of Mary had not begun when he wrote his epistles, the earliest books of the New Testament. There are other arguments, too, but that has been the decisive one to me.

I think you are right. I think Mary’s role in the Church did not become evident until after the death of the Apostles. Though I am sure they respected her as the Mother of their Lord, and catered to allher needs (especially John), I think Paul barely knew her. He did not spend much time where she was living or working for the Church. I am sure he benefitted from her prayers in his ministry, but I don’t think the letters Paul wrote to correct problems in the Church related to her at all. I don’t think he considered Mary a problem in the least. I am sure you are right, if he thought she was a problem, he would have mentioned it. He was pretty blunt that way.

     Even so, with John Wesley I say 'think and let think'. We need to tolerate different beliefs.   I love the idea of thinking freely, without the constraints of a church or some creed. God gave us brains to use, with care of course, and I try to use mine intelligently and with respect for the opinions and beliefs of others, whatever their faith community.

Perhaps you will consider changing your religious affiliation tag?

      "Hail Mary, full of grace!" Fine. But so much has been added to that simple salutation over the years that must be categorized as myth rather than reality.

   God bless the whole world - no exceptions!

I look forward to the day when she shows you the fruit of her womb.

 

[guanophore]

I find it interesting that according to Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, 2nd Century, what the Apostles preached publicly (orally) was later confirmed in writing (Against Heresies):
Wow. Improper to bring forward rash and blasphemous explanations that are not revealed in the scriptures. Sounds strangely similar to prima scriptura for a Catholic Bishop of the 2nd century.

It may seem that way, and clearly the scriptures have always been considered part of the pillar and ground of the Truth. But where else do we see that phrase used?

Irenaeus was Catholic, and he embraced the Sacred Traditions of the Apostles. He embraced some things that are not found in scripture as well. They were not “rash and blasphemous” Teachings, but don’t contradict what is in scripture either.

If you read the rest of this work, it is clear to see that he is addressing Gnostic heresies, and the elaborate inventions of the Gnostic sects trying to full in creation stores where the Bible is silent.

 

[guanophore]

JIMMY B AND OTHER FRIENDS

 It's not my intention to enter into religious conflict. My main point is that Christians should respect the various opinions among us - agree to disagree. It is certainly okay to argue our case, but it should be done in a spirit of Christian love. Some posters do that. Others seem to suggest that if we don't embrace Catholicism altogether we are rebels, egotists, stupid, or whatever. Nonsense.

I agree that we need to disagree charitably. Respecting other’s right to hold different opinions does not include the opinion. It is not possible for Catholics to “respect” heresies.

Some people do refuse to embrace the Apostolic Teachings because they are rebels, egotists, or ignorant. I agree these are not all the reasons,but they include many.

      Catholics often forget that a key objective of the Reformation was to cast off what the Reformers believed were add-ons to the original teachings of Jesus. Much of Mariology, for example, is seen as a development well after the resurrection of Christ.

No, I don’t think so. I think it had to do with authority, politics, and economics. Besides, Trinity, the hypostatic union, observance of the Sabbath on the first day of the week, and the canon of scripture were also later developments well after the resurrection, and they kept all those.

To Protestants generally, Mary is to be honored, but not venerated. It's as simple as that.

I guess I don’t see the difference.

To venerate means to give honor.

 When many Protestants see various programs on EWTN that focus on Mary (and I watch EWTN quite regularly) they are inclined to ask: where is that in the Bible? Take the apparitions at Lourdes and Fatima, for example. Or some of the stories (myths?) connected with various saints. No offense, but they seem to defy human reason. Padre Pio - levitating, bilocation, etc - give me a break!

Clearly you don’t believe that God is above the natural laws he created, or that he is unable to do miracles. How did Phillip get to Azotus, for example? Where do you want the break? What is harder to break, your head, or your heart?

      But if people can believe such things, God bless them. Judge not....  But please don't insist that Christians like me must believe them.

I am sorry, but we must insist on this. To fail to do so would be to let go of part of God’s revelation of Himself to us, and we are not allowed to do that.

 Hans Kung is one of my heroes, and I believe he was silence by John Paul II. Do I have that right?

This explains a lot.

       I wrote an undergraduate thesis on Thomas Aquinas years ago. Amazing man in some ways. But he believed that heretics should be delivered up to the civil authorities to be executed, the position of the Catholic Church of that time. Now, really, am I supposed to respect such a view?

Didn’t you just admonish all of us to respect such views that are substantially different from our own?

 And what about Pius IX and his anathemas directed at democracy, separation of church and state and such ("Syllabus of Errors"). Today, fortunately, the church seems to have abandoned such narrowness, and certainly the vast majority of American Catholics believe in democracy and church-state separation.

Too much so, clearly or the nation would not be going to hell in a handcart.

       I must do other things. My Protestantism is based primarily on the freedom to think and believe without feeling boxed in by my church or even by any creeds.

Then it is based upon a false premise. However, I think you are wrong. It think it is based upon rebellion against the authority appointed by Christ.

The Catholic Church does not teach that our thinking should be boxed in by church and creed. She teaches that our thinking should be informed and shaped by what God has revealed about himself. However it is good to see you finally being honest, and admitting that your protestantism is based on your feelings.