Distorted misconception about Mary being elevated to the level of divinity.

[RobHom]

The kind of behavior you exude is the stuff going into the wheaties my friend. When the answer is obvious, why continue to needlessly mold it about like play dough?

My, my…you spew vitriolic nonsense…and then you deign it proper for you to sit in “judgement” of me? Nice try at taking to the high ground…but you are still hanging around on the low road.

I asked you a simple question…you tried to turn it to your advantage…bad move sport.

 

[RobHom]

Ah, fair enough. But, let’s start with the Marian doctrines. I said that they didn’t come from Scripture. Can you show me where they do? Fr. Mitch Pacwa of the Society of Jesus doesn’t think they do but you seem to so lets hear it.

I never said anything of the kind. Now you are attempting to be “disingenuous” and put words into my mouth that I did not speak or type. ** Perhaps… you’d like to prove your “assertion”?**

 

[SIA]

My, my…you spew vitriolic nonsense…and then you deign it proper for you to sit in “judgement” of me? Nice try at taking to the high ground…but you are still hanging around on the low road.

I asked you a simple question…you tried to turn it to your advantage…bad move sport.

I’m not looking to turn this into debate class, are you?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Just as a quick note:

Can you please show me, in Scripture, where Scripture claims to be self-interpreting, that Christ established Scripture as the pillar and foundation of truth and nothing else, where He gave (in Scripture) the table of contents, where Scripture says that all that Christ did and said is recorded in Scripture, and that if something is ‘not’ found (preferably in ‘contemporary English’) to be stated as “Christ hath Saith X” in Scripture it is therefore not true?

Further, can you please explain to me how something can be put forth as literal truth in Scripture (John 6) --set out in **exactly, precisely the way in which it is ‘demanded’ that the Marian doctrines be presented to show their ‘truth’–**but that this literal and 2000 year practice is interpreted by the vast majority of nonCatholic/nonOrthodox to be ‘figurative only?’

I cannot understand why it is only the "Catholic teachings’ which are to be held to a particular (and nonScriptural) standard, as Scripture does not say that only what is in Scripture is true. . .but that Protestant teachings are exempted from that standard and indeed, that the total denial of the literal Scriptural truth is touted as being the ‘real truth’ --1600 years or so after Christianity had spent that said period of time teaching it as literal truth.

 

[SIA]

I did answer the question… You missed the answer. SO I’ll give you the “vernacular” answer.

**Many “protestants” ** deny who Mary is. They actually believe she is just a simple female jewess nobody hanging around town up to no good that God knocked up just to prove He could. Sounds nasty…and I agree. But I have stood face to face with “so-called xtians” who believe that ****. And that’s all it is. And these so-called “xtians” are rather “anti-Catholic”, thus it seems more than easy to fathom the origin of their vitriolic “views”.

Beyond that… “Protestants” CANNOT fabricate anything about Mary being Christ’s earthly mother…its all quite well spelled out in the Bible. I used the Douay-Rheims as my source. Its really quite reliable and true to the original texts.

SIA… I am a Roman Catholic…so you KNOW what I believe. Asking foolish questions will avail you nothing.

Oh my gosh, this is a radical perception of ALL Protestants and that alone speaks volumes to your knowledge in this issue. I don’t believe that I have ever heard a more distorted and ugly spew than that. It’s simply not true either.

 

[SIA]

Just as a quick note:

Can you please show me, in Scripture, where Scripture claims to be self-interpreting, that Christ established Scripture as the pillar and foundation of truth and nothing else, where He gave (in Scripture) the table of contents, where Scripture says that all that Christ did and said is recorded in Scripture, and that if something is ‘not’ found (preferably in ‘contemporary English’) to be stated as “Christ hath Saith X” in Scripture it is therefore not true?

Further, can you please explain to me how something can be put forth as literal truth in Scripture (John 6) --set out in **exactly, precisely the way in which it is ‘demanded’ that the Marian doctrines be presented to show their ‘truth’–**but that this literal and 2000 year practice is interpreted by the vast majority of nonCatholic/nonOrthodox to be ‘figurative only?’

I cannot understand why it is only the "Catholic teachings’ which are to be held to a particular (and nonScriptural) standard, as Scripture does not say that only what is in Scripture is true. . .but that Protestant teachings are exempted from that standard and indeed, that the total denial of the literal Scriptural truth is touted as being the ‘real truth’ --1600 years or so after Christianity had spent that said period of time teaching it as literal truth.

The classic “gang up on the Protestant” is underway now I see.

 

[RobHom]

I’m not looking to turn this into debate class, are you?

It would seem that is precisely what you have been trying to do.

 

[SIA]

It would seem that is precisely what you have been trying to do.

I asked a question and all I got what a vile uncharitable off the cliff response that meant nothing to anyone. Answer the question if you will. Where are those marian doctrines in Scripture. Not a question to answer a question, just an answer please.

 

[RobHom]

Oh my gosh, this is a radical perception of ALL Protestants and that alone speaks volumes to your knowledge in this issue. I don’t believe that I have ever heard a more distorted and ugly spew than that. It’s simply not true either.

No sir, in this once again you err, and again you are trying to rephrase my statement to some twisted meaning that fits your twisted agenda.

I did not say “ALL PROTESTANTS”, YOU did. My, my…how disingenuous of you.

My knowledge on this issue goes far deeper than you probably would ever want to know. I have encountered quite a few “whackos” in my life…and I have heard that distorted and ugly spew many times. That you have not heard it is your good fortune. Apparently you have led a rather protected and provincial lifestyle.

Perhaps you should spend some time researching the issue, and then you may get to know precisely what the views of “Many Protestants” are…as opposed to those which you have preconceived.

 

[RobHom]

The classic “gang up on the Protestant” is underway now I see.

If you can’t stand the heat, don’t start a fire…

 

[RobHom]

I asked a question and all I got what a vile uncharitable off the cliff response that meant nothing to anyone. Answer the question if you will. Where are those marian doctrines in Scripture. Not a question to answer a question, just an answer please.

My, my…still attempting to climb the cliff to attain the high ground. Its a little too late to do that. But what the hey, you’re entitled to your opinion… Just like I am entitled to my opinion that you are pathetically and repetitively redundant

No, I’ll not answer the question, because I want you do “disprove” everything…with “proofs”. You deny everything, so support your assertions and allegations with proofs.

(I’m just playing the game by your rules now… )

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I’ll repeat this as an answer to your question, “Where are the doctrines found in Scripture?”

Can you please show me, in Scripture, where Scripture claims to be self-interpreting, that Christ established Scripture as the pillar and foundation of truth and nothing else, where He gave (in Scripture) the table of contents, where Scripture says that all that Christ did and said is recorded in Scripture, and that if something is ‘not’ found (preferably in ‘contemporary English’) to be stated as “Christ hath Saith X” in Scripture it is therefore not true?

Further, can you please explain to me how something can be put forth as literal truth in Scripture (John 6) --set out in **exactly, precisely the way in which it is ‘demanded’ that the Marian doctrines be presented to show their ‘truth’–**but that this literal and 2000 year practice is interpreted by the vast majority of nonCatholic/nonOrthodox to be ‘figurative only?’

I cannot understand why it is only the "Catholic teachings’ which are to be held to a particular (and nonScriptural) standard, as Scripture does not say that only what is in Scripture is true. . .but that Protestant teachings are exempted from that standard and indeed, that the total denial of the literal Scriptural truth is touted as being the ‘real truth’ --1600 years or so after Christianity had spent that said period of time teaching it as literal truth.

IOW: And this is not ‘ganging up’ my friend:

You are starting from an incorrect premise that any doctrine regarding Mary must be explicitly stated in Scripture. I am asking you–nay, I am demanding of you–to show me where this premise of yours is **itself **to be found in Scripture.

 

[RobHom]

I find it most interesting when a “modern” self-avowed “Protestant” climbs up on a soap-box and begins railing against knowledge that came from his forebearers, specifically the founders of the Reformation… to wit:

From here: davidmacd.com/catholic/martin_luther_on_mary.htm

**Martin Luther, Founder of the Reform, Speaks on Mary

In his sermon of August 15, 1522, the last time Martin Luther preached on the Feast of the Assumption, he stated:

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).

Luther gives the Blessed Virgin the exalted position of “Spiritual Mother” for Christians:

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).

Martin Luther had the belief of Mary’s Immaculate Conception, Luther’s words follow:

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).

Martin Luther on Mary’s Perpetual Virginity

Here are some of the founders of refom commenting on Mary:

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) }
“. . . 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.)

Commentaries on Luther

". . . in the resolutions of the 95 theses Luther rejects every blasphemy against the Virgin, and thinks that one should ask for pardon for any evil said or thought against her." (Ref: Wm. J. Cole, "Was Luther a Devotee of Mary?" in Marian Studies 1970, p. 116:)

**

Also, at that site you can read what Wesley, Bullinger, and Zwingli had to say on the subject.

Seems to me that some “modern Protestants” have arrogantly and pridefully placed themselves above others far more learned and deign it proper that they be the “judges”… My, my, my…

 

[JonNC]

**Martin Luther, Founder of the Reform, Speaks on Mary

In his sermon of August 15, 1522, the last time Martin Luther preached on the Feast of the Assumption, he stated:

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).

Luther gives the Blessed Virgin the exalted position of “Spiritual Mother” for Christians:

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).

Martin Luther had the belief of Mary’s Immaculate Conception, Luther’s words follow:

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).

Martin Luther on Mary’s Perpetual Virginity

Here are some of the founders of refom commenting on Mary:

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) }
“. . . 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.)

Commentaries on Luther

". . . in the resolutions of the 95 theses Luther rejects every blasphemy against the Virgin, and thinks that one should ask for pardon for any evil said or thought against her." (Ref: Wm. J. Cole, "Was Luther a Devotee of Mary?" in Marian Studies 1970, p. 116:)

Seems to me that some “modern Protestants” have arrogantly and pridefully placed themselves above others far more learned and deign it proper that they be the “judges”… **

Thanks, Rob, for posting these - again (as it is not the first time it has been posted by Catholics and noncatholics alike). I share Luther’s views on Mariology. I also share his view that a Christian’s conscience should not be bound either way on this - my only disagreement with Rome, along with intercession. What we believe about the BVM should not be an article of faith, and further should not be grounds for condemnations between those who do and those who don’t.

Jon

 

[reteeks21]

Some non-Catholic Christian here mentioned something about Mary being sinless as being elevated to the level of divinity. Such claim by a Non-Catholic Christian seems rather stupid in my opinion.

I think this individual either one, refuses to believe that God is capable of created a creature without sin rather than understand it.

I do not really care if this individual or any Non-Catholic denies this certain truth. They are not Catholic and thus should not concern themselves.

I can tell you this much such distortion is basically done out of ignorance. Any Catholic who has taken RCIA or any classes about the Catholic does not believe that Mary’s sinlessness equals divinity.

I have one advice for you Non-Catholic Christians about Mary’s sinlessness. If you find this doctrine difficult to understand just let it go. For crying out loud, you are not even Catholic.

It would be better to ask God himself when you die to see if what we believe is truth. Rather than make stupid assumptions.

I know we all have our disagreements, but it just seems sad to me when we end up fighting over who Mary was, how important was she, was she sinless etc. You can’t dog the woman if for no other reason than the fact that she gave birth to CHRIST! She’s the bomb, so there.

To me, we spend so much time on stuff that has no affect on eternity that it is borderline sad. If we don’t agree, fine. But it isn’t a reason for Christians to turn on one another. It’s not like we are talking heaven and hell here. It’s Mary. Jesus told His followers that she’s your mom now, she gave birth to the savior.

And Manny, many prot’s will say things about catholics that are not true, and thus they shouldn’t say them, but the same can be said of many catholics. Just a little perspective. No harm intended.

 

[Lisa44]

It is only those who are so immature, and who cannot think for themselves who cry out…

You expect God to spell everything out for you don’t you?

Mary is the Mother of God. What more do you need to know???

Lord, why are people so obtuse?

 

[SIA]

Thanks, Rob, for posting these - again (as it is not the first time it has been posted by Catholics and noncatholics alike). I share Luther’s views on Mariology. I also share his view that a Christian’s conscience should not be bound either way on this - my only disagreement with Rome, along with intercession. What we believe about the BVM should not be an article of faith, and further should not be grounds for condemnations between those who do and those who don’t.

Jon

Very well said.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I think Catholics will not let go of the belief, because (A) they hold it to be true and (B) it would be the same for us to stop believing that Jesus Ascended into Heaven. Or more accurately (C) for us to stop believing all the miracles that have occurred since the founding of the Church. They are historical truths and they strengthen our faith.

Is believing in these Marian doctrines required for Salvation? Of course not! But they add to the fullness of faith!

For Catholics, it is as fatal to deny the “Marian dogmas” as any of those about the Life of Christ.​

Whether God thinks denying the Assumption is important enough to “unChurch” a Catholic, is a different matter. Somehow, I doubt it - Jesus was not the “churchy”, “orthodox”, type; He thought right behaviour was much more important than what beliefs people had - He praised an “unclean” Gentile idolater for having greater faith than anyone in Israel. If the CC had been then what it is now, it would probably have excommunicated Him, & said “sorry” later.

Since we hold it to be fact, we want it to remain so. We could not leave it behind because the early Christians witnessed it and have passed the belief on until today.

Though, despite this, we can still accept each other as family! I already do! Though I even accept non-believers as my family of God’s people created in His Image! So maybe I think a bit different than some. I do not know.

 

[mrs_abbott]

I find it most interesting when a “modern” self-avowed “Protestant” climbs up on a soap-box and begins railing against knowledge that came from his forebearers, specifically the founders of the Reformation… to wit:

From here: davidmacd.com/catholic/martin_luther_on_mary.htm

**Martin Luther, Founder of the Reform, Speaks on Mary

Seems to me that some “modern Protestants” have arrogantly and pridefully placed themselves above others far more learned and deign it proper that they be the “judges”… My, my, my…**

Do you have any more information related to this topic, other than that website?

 

[mrs_abbott]

I asked a question and all I got what a vile uncharitable off the cliff response that meant nothing to anyone. Answer the question if you will. Where are those marian doctrines in Scripture. Not a question to answer a question, just an answer please.

They are not explicitly mentioned but are drawn from the significance that scripture puts on Mary.