Does anyone else have a problem with "Maryology"?

[Good_Fella]

To view a chronological table of Marian events in the history of the Church see this link:
http.//campus.udayton.edu/mary/resources/Timetable.htm

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Le_Cracquere]

And they will remain questionable as long as you dismiss the Church’s authority to teach us on these matters.

This quote was posted about a month ago, and the intent seems to have been dismissive. However, I think the poster was wiser than he knew he was being. Absent a Catholic outlook about the Church’s continued teaching authority and the reliability of the Church Fathers, there isn’t compelling justification for Marian doctrines–this “queen mother” business and other such typological excursions might strengthen the assurance of someone who already shares the Catholic view of Mary, but it’s not remotely strong enough to convince someone who doesn’t. The evidence is sometimes suggestive, but not inherently persuasive. I’ve looked at the issue from enough angles to conclude that the logic of “Maryology” stands or falls on whether the Catholic Church is the sort of institution qualified to speak authoritatively on Marian issues.

 

[Good_Fella]

This quote was posted about a month ago, and the intent seems to have been dismissive. However, I think the poster was wiser than he knew he was being. Absent a Catholic outlook about the Church’s continued teaching authority and the reliability of the Church Fathers, there isn’t compelling justification for Marian doctrines–this “queen mother” business and other such typological excursions might strengthen the assurance of someone who already shares the Catholic view of Mary, but it’s not remotely strong enough to convince someone who doesn’t. The evidence is sometimes suggestive, but not inherently persuasive. I’ve looked at the issue from enough angles to conclude that the logic of “Maryology” stands or falls on whether the Catholic Church is the sort of institution qualified to speak authoritatively on Marian issues.

Jews and pagans have “looked at the issue from enough angles to conclude that the logic of (Christology) stands or falls on whether the Catholic Church is the sort of institution qualified to speak authoritatively on (Christological) issues.”

“Now I know, brothers, that you acted out of ignorance, just as your leaders did; but God has just brought to fulfillment what he had announced beforehand through the mouth of all the prophets, that his Messiah would suffer.” (Acts 3:17-18)

Christian prophetic insight into the Old Testament saw the crucifixion and death of Jesus as the main import of Messianic prophecy. The Jews themselves did not anticipate a suffering Messiah; they understood the Servant Song in Isaiah 52,13-53,12 to signify their own suffering as a people. The Jews still object to our interpretation of the Old Testament scriptures concerning the Messiah. The evidence the Church has provided has not been “inherently persuasive”. And I doubt the Jews will now accept that the Catholic Church is “qualified to teach authoritatively” on the subject of the Messiah. The Jews feel that there is “no compelling justification” for our Christological doctrines. This Lamb of God business and “other such typological excursions might strengthen the assurance of someone who already shares the Catholic view of (Jesus).” This is Sacred Tradition! “But it’s not remotely strong enough to convince someone who doesn’t.”

Observe this passage from Jeremiah 31:10-14

Hear the word of the Lord, O nations,
proclaim it on distant coasts, and say:
He who scattered Israel, now gathers them together,
he guards them as a shepherd his flock.
The Lord shall ransom Jacob,
he shall redeem him from the hand of his conqueror…
I will turn their mourning into joy…
I will lavish choice portions upon the priests,
and my people shall be filled with my blessings,
says the Lord.

Try convincing the Jews that the Catholic Church has correctly interpreted this passage as foretelling Jesus was to die…to gather God’s scattered children into one fold. (Jn11,51,52).

Again, if we consider a Psalm of David:

‘I saw the Lord ever before me,
with him at my right hand I shall not be disturbed.
Therefore my heart has been glad
and my tongue has exalted;
my flesh too will dwell in hope,
because you will not abandon my soul to the netherworld,
nor will you suffer your holy one to see corruption.
You have made known to me the paths of life;
you will fill me with joy in your presence.’ (Acts 2:25-28)

And Genesis 22:9-10: When they came to the place of which God had told him, Abraham built an altar there and arranged the wood on it. Next he tied up his son Isaac (Jesus), and put him on top of the wood (the Cross) on the altar. Then he reached out and took the knife to slaughter his son.

These “typological excursions” dealing with the sacrificial death and resurrection of Jesus and its Messianic import “might strengthen the assurance of someone who already shares” the Church’s beliefs. But these scriptural allusions are not “inherently persuasive” enough to persuade the Jews to abandon their traditional beliefs and Judaic faith. :dts:

“The Bible does not tell us so,” exclaims the obdurate Jew. If it isn’t the Bible that does the telling at all, then who does it? Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium of the Catholic Church! Sacred Scripture is infallible insofar Sacred Tradition is infallible. Sacred Tradition infallibly tells us what the Bible infallibly means to say. If the Catholic Church is right about Jesus, then she must be right about Mary when interpreting the scriptures.

“If I do not find it in the ancient Scriptures (OT), I will not believe the Gospel; on my saying to them, ‘It is written,’ they answered me, ‘That remains to be proved.’ But to me Jesus Christ is in the place of all that is ancient; His cross, and death, and resurrection, and the faith which is by Him are undefiled monuments of antiquity.”
Ignatius of Antioch, ‘Epistle to the Philadelphians 8,2’ (A.D.110)

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Le_Cracquere]

Jews and pagans have “looked at the issue from enough angles to conclude that the logic of (Christology) stands or falls on whether the Catholic Church is the sort of institution qualified to speak authoritatively on (Christological) issues.”

[snip snip snip]

“If I do not find it in the ancient Scriptures (OT), I will not believe the Gospel; on my saying to them, ‘It is written,’ they answered me, ‘That remains to be proved.’ But to me Jesus Christ is in the place of all that is ancient; His cross, and death, and resurrection, and the faith which is by Him are undefiled monuments of antiquity.”
Ignatius of Antioch, ‘Epistle to the Philadelphians 8,2’ (A.D.110)

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

Cute! I’ll assume you’re not accusing me of crypto-Judaism, so I’ll take it that you consider Protestant reservations about Mary to be much the same animal as Jewish reservations about Christ. This, though, presumes that the textual and historical evidence for Christ’s divinity and the Marian doctrines are equally abundant and prima facie compelling–which many a Catholic wouldn’t go so far as to say, no matter how devoted he was to the Virgin. It also implies that the truth of Marian doctrines is an issue not a whit less consequential than Jesus’ identity as Saviour–and I’m sure you can see why that might give Protestants a bad impression of Catholic priorities.

But to return to the main point, the Gospels and Epistles are unambiguous about the nature of Jesus in a way that they aren’t about the nature of Mary, and apologists through the centuries have had more powerful tools to justify the Incarnation than typology and the like. It’s simply the case that a Marian apologist will exhaust his resources more quickly than will a Christological apologist, so Churchly authority must kick in sooner. Ergo, one’s opinions about the Church’s authority are going to matter more in the former case than the latter.

 

[Good_Fella]

Cute! I’ll assume you’re not accusing me of crypto-Judaism, so I’ll take it that you consider Protestant reservations about Mary to be much the same animal as Jewish reservations about Christ…Ergo, one’s opinions about the Church’s authority are going to matter more in the former case than the latter.

The Protestant double-standard presumes “that the textual and historical evidence” for the Church’s Marian doctrines isn’t “abundant and prima facie compelling” enough. Protestants reject the Church’s Marian doctrines by charging that the Catholic Church has taken the Scriptures entirely out of context by devising Old Testament typology. Most Protestants erroneously believe that typlology stops with Jesus and the Church. They contend there are no types of Mary in the form of characters or things to be found in the Old Testament. Their misconceptions are the result of fearing that by drawing parallels between Mary and Old Testament prefigurations, we equate the mother with the Son. I have the impression you share this fear. Paul, for instance, refers to Jesus as the new Adam; Irenaeus is the earliest Church Father to actually call Mary the new Eve, a generation after Justin Martyr drew a parallel between our ancestral biological mother and our spiritual Mother. Protestants are comfortable with Paul’s association, but cannot reconcile themselves with that of Irenaeus. But there is no parallel being drawn between Mary and Jesus; it is being drawn between Mary and Eve. Hence, I fail to understand this Protestant fear of paying attention to the salvific import of Mary’s role in God’s plan of salvation. Meanwhile, this understanding of Mary’s significant role in our redemption is not “a whit less consequential” of that of the role Jesus took in God’s salvific plan, for without Mary’s cooperation to conceive and bear the Messiah, we would not have been ultimately saved by the redemptive merits of his death on the cross. The Word had to become flesh! Of course, one reason why Protestants reject the Church’s Marian doctrines is because they embrace the unscriptural principle of ‘sola Christu’. They forget that Christ chose to become incarnate by being born of a woman, born under the law, like us in all things but sin ( Cf Gal 4:4; Heb 4:15). He freely chose this path as willed by his heavenly Father. God would not save us any other way. Man chose to fall from His grace, so Man had to chose whether he wanted to be redeemed and restored to God’s friendship. The new Eve, from whom the new Adam would be inversely fashioned, had to be diametrically opposed to the old if there was to be any hope at all for our salvation. Mary’s humble ‘fiat’ mattered. In all instances of Marian typology, the mother is either together with her Son or connected to him in the capacity of the new Eve. She is never presented in isolation presupposing she is equal to or even superior to her divine Son. All that she is has been granted through the wisdom of the Father. All that she does in the economy of our salvation is in Christ and under Christ. She is with her Son in a subordinate capacity. Mary is only human, and God still could have redeemed us another way if he had willed otherwise.

In any event, the Gospels and Epistles are ambiguous enough about the nature of Jesus and the Trinity. We understand what the Scriptures “mean” to tell us about Christ and the Godhead through the infallible teachings of the Church as contained in Tradition. Give a copy of the Bible to an individual who is unaware of the Church’s teachings and see if he could arrive at a fundamental Christian understanding of the texts by himself. The apostles and New Testament authors relied on the Old Testament as they put all the pieces together in their texts. And even what they wrote wouldn’t be defined by the Church for centuries. Scripture would not be compiled and become canon until the late fourth century. The Church had no written Gospels in use for an entire century while the Epistles were being written. Sacred Tradition and the apostolic teaching authority of the Church has had the final say on the matter be it concerning Jesus or Mary. We all have much more to lose by rejecting the Church’s teachings concerning Christ. For he is the Son of God and our Saviour. But it is not a question of whether Protestants must first accept the validity of Apostolic Succession before they assent to the Church’s Marian doctrines. Protestants must first see for themselves the truths these teachings contain. That will come about only after they have rejected the false doctrines of ‘sola scriptura’, ‘sola fide’, ‘sola gratia’, and ‘sola Christu’. The Catholic view of Mary conflicts with these unscriptural and false concepts.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Le_Cracquere]

…[Protestant] misconceptions are the result of fearing that by drawing parallels between Mary and Old Testament prefigurations, we equate the mother with the Son. I have the impression you share this fear. Paul, for instance, refers to Jesus as the new Adam; Irenaeus is the earliest Church Father to actually call Mary the new Eve, a generation after Justin Martyr drew a parallel between our ancestral biological mother and our spiritual Mother. Protestants are comfortable with Paul’s association, but cannot reconcile themselves with that of Irenaeus. But there is no parallel being drawn between Mary and Jesus; it is being drawn between Mary and Eve. Hence, I fail to understand this Protestant fear of paying attention to the salvific import of Mary’s role in God’s plan of salvation. Meanwhile, this understanding of Mary’s significant role in our redemption is not “a whit less consequential” of that of the role Jesus took in God’s salvific plan, for without Mary’s cooperation to conceive and bear the Messiah, we would not have been ultimately saved by the redemptive merits of his death on the cross. The Word had to become flesh! Of course, one reason why Protestants reject the Church’s Marian doctrines is because they embrace the unscriptural principle of ‘sola Christu’. They forget that Christ chose to become incarnate by being born of a woman, born under the law, like us in all things but sin ( Cf Gal 4:4; Heb 4:15). He freely chose this path as willed by his heavenly Father. God would not save us any other way. Man chose to fall from His grace, so Man had to chose whether he wanted to be redeemed and restored to God’s friendship. The new Eve, from whom the new Adam would be inversely fashioned, had to be diametrically opposed to the old if there was to be any hope at all for our salvation. Mary’s humble ‘fiat’ mattered. In all instances of Marian typology, the mother is either together with her Son or connected to him in the capacity of the new Eve. She is never presented in isolation presupposing she is equal to or even superior to her divine Son. All that she is has been granted through the wisdom of the Father. All that she does in the economy of our salvation is in Christ and under Christ. She is with her Son in a subordinate capacity. Mary is only human, and God still could have redeemed us another way if he had willed otherwise.

I’m having trouble keeping track of this. Near the beginning of this paragraph, Protestant worries are “misconceptions.” Later in the paragraph, you inveigh against solo Christo and reject the notion that the nature of Christ is any more imprtant than the nature of Mary. The paragraph closes with a swerve back toward her “subordinate capacity.” I hate to pick this to bits, but it illustrates in miniscule the reasons that Protestants get confused. No sooner does one hear w/r/t Marian doctrine, “it’s not what you fear,” and you’re investingating RCIA, than one hears “it’s exactly what you fear, and the worse for you if you’ve got any objections, or even think that assent and obedience could be an acceptable substitute for intellectually buying in.”

But it is not a question of whether Protestants must first accept the validity of Apostolic Succession before they assent to the Church’s Marian doctrines. Protestants must first see for themselves the truths these teachings contain. That will come about only after they have rejected the false doctrines of ‘sola scriptura’, ‘sola fide’, ‘sola gratia’, and ‘sola Christu’.

To reject those doctrines entirely is to stop being Protestant, so your argument looks pretty much to me like what I said in my original post on this topic (minus the assumptions about the two sides’ falsity and truth).

 

[MariaG]

But to return to the main point, the Gospels and Epistles are unambiguous about the nature of Jesus in a way that they aren’t about the nature of Mary, and apologists through the centuries have had more powerful tools to justify the Incarnation than typology and the like. It’s simply the case that a Marian apologist will exhaust his resources more quickly than will a Christological apologist, so Churchly authority must kick in sooner. Ergo, one’s opinions about the Church’s authority are going to matter more in the former case than the latter.

Unambiguous? Then why do we have people who read scripture and start the Mormon Church? Jehovah Witness? Oneness Pentecostals?

The difference here is how much authority one is willing to reject. Is one going to accept the Tradition about the Trinity or reject it? The difference is to the EXTENT that the authority of the Catholic Church has been rejected.

But I do agree that there is much more scripture on Christ than Mary, and so the issue of the authority of the Church does kick in sooner, but ultimately, the authority of the Catholic Church is the main issue on all divisions of Christianity, and those who can no longer be considered Christian because of the rejection of what christians consider to be a basic, the Trinity. And the Trinity is from Tradition, knowledge given to us by the Holy Spirit, passed down by the Church, and not scripture alone

In any event, the Gospels and Epistles are ambiguous enough about the nature of Jesus and the Trinity. We understand what the Scriptures “mean” to tell us about Christ and the Godhead through the infallible teachings of the Church as contained in Tradition. Give a copy of the Bible to an individual who is unaware of the Church’s teachings and see if he could arrive at a fundamental Christian understanding of the texts by himself. The apostles and New Testament authors relied on the Old Testament as they put all the pieces together in their texts. And even what they wrote wouldn’t be defined by the Church for centuries. Scripture would not be compiled and become canon until the late fourth century. The Church had no written Gospels in use for an entire century while the Epistles were being written. Sacred Tradition and the apostolic teaching authority of the Church has had the final say on the matter be it concerning Jesus or Mary. We all have much more to lose by rejecting the Church’s teachings concerning Christ. For he is the Son of God and our Saviour. But it is not a question of whether Protestants must first accept the validity of Apostolic Succession before they assent to the Church’s Marian doctrines. Protestants must first see for themselves the truths these teachings contain. That will come about only after they have rejected the false doctrines of ‘sola scriptura’, ‘sola fide’, ‘sola gratia’, and ‘sola Christu’. The Catholic view of Mary conflicts with these unscriptural and false concepts.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Le_Cracquere]

Unambiguous? Then why do we have people who read scripture and start the Mormon Church? Jehovah Witness? Oneness Pentecostals?

The difference here is how much authority one is willing to reject. Is one going to accept the Tradition about the Trinity or reject it? The difference is to the EXTENT that the authority of the Catholic Church has been rejected.

But I do agree that there is much more scripture on Christ than Mary, and so the issue of the authority of the Church does kick in sooner, but ultimately, the authority of the Catholic Church is the main issue on all divisions of Christianity, and those who can no longer be considered Christian because of the rejection of what christians consider to be a basic, the Trinity. And the Trinity is from Tradition, knowledge given to us by the Holy Spirit, passed down by the Church, and not scripture alone

All that’s fair enough. However, let’s go this far: the average Bible-only Protestant seems able to elucidate and justify, from the resources he has permitted himself, a Christology that comports with the Nicene Creed and Catholic teaching alike. It appears much more difficult to do this where Marian doctrines are concerned. I’m not concerned with defending sola scriptura here; I’m saying that someone who hews to it can readily (if not inevitably) reproduce a Catholic understanding of Christ, but probably not of Mary. There are guiding assumptions and epistemological frameworks that do make Marian teachings comprehensible and likely, but if you have those, you’ve probably already swum the Tiber.

 

[Good_Fella]

All that’s fair enough. However, let’s go this far: the average Bible-only Protestant seems able to elucidate and justify, from the resources he has permitted himself, a Christology that comports with the Nicene Creed and Catholic teaching alike. It appears much more difficult to do this where Marian doctrines are concerned. I’m not concerned with defending sola scriptura here; I’m saying that someone who hews to it can readily (if not inevitably) reproduce a Catholic understanding of Christ, but probably not of Mary. There are guiding assumptions and epistemological frameworks that do make Marian teachings comprehensible and likely, but if you have those, you’ve probably already swum the Tiber.

Someone who “hews” to sola scriptura can “readily (if not inevitably) reproduce” a non-Catholic understanding of Christ (and of Mary). Arianism, Monophysitism, and Nestrorianism are classic examples of such non-Catholic Christological reproductions. There are “guiding assumptions and epistemological frameworks” that do make Christological teachings “comprehensible and likely”, but if you have those, you’ve probably already “swum in the Tiber”.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[MariaG]

All that’s fair enough. However, let’s go this far: the average Bible-only Protestant seems able to elucidate and justify, from the resources he has permitted himself, a Christology that comports with the Nicene Creed and Catholic teaching alike. It appears much more difficult to do this where Marian doctrines are concerned. I’m not concerned with defending sola scriptura here; I’m saying that someone who hews to it can readily (if not inevitably) reproduce a Catholic understanding of Christ, but probably not of Mary. There are guiding assumptions and epistemological frameworks that do make Marian teachings comprehensible and likely, but if you have those, you’ve probably already swum the Tiber.

Someone who “hews” to sola scriptura can “readily (if not inevitably) reproduce” a non-Catholic understanding of Christ (and of Mary). Arianism, Monophysitism, and Nestrorianism are classic examples of such non-Catholic Christological reproductions. There are “guiding assumptions and epistemological frameworks” that do make Christological teachings “comprehensible and likely”, but if you have those, you’ve probably already “swum in the Tiber”.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

Yeah, what Goof Fella said

The point is that even though Protestants CAN and mostly do come up with the correct belief of the Trinity, this belief is truly based on Tradition because throughout the history of Christianity, there have been those who have taught falsely on this subject, when they divorce themselves from Tradition and authority of the Church.

Read some of the “isms” on the false teachings of Christ. The Church had to fight hard to firmly establish the Trinity doctrine.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[Good_Fella]

Yeah, what Goof Fella said

The point is that even though Protestants CAN and mostly do come up with the correct belief of the Trinity, this belief is truly based on Tradition because throughout the history of Christianity, there have been those who have taught falsely on this subject, when they divorce themselves from Tradition and authority of the Church.

Read some of the “isms” on the false teachings of Christ. The Church had to fight hard to firmly establish the Trinity doctrine.

God Bless,
Maria

Yes, it all boils down to whether Protestants are willing to take a dip in the Tiber. :bounce:

To most Protestants, the main stumbling block in Marian doctrine is the notion of Mary’s mediation and intercession. It seems to them that Catholics (and Orthodox) somehow impugn the sovereignty of God or the all-sufficiency of Christ by introducing the idea of a Marian role in the plan of salvation. But Lutheran theologian Charles Dickson, in his recent book ‘A Protestant Pastor Looks at Mary’, notes that Protestants have traditionally tended to separate the divine and the human natures of Christ so radically that the work of salvation is attributed to His divine nature alone. Once it is fully realized that the Word became flesh, that God was actually incarnate, then the importance of Mary’s role becomes obvious. “In 451 the Council of Chalcedon dealt with the subject of the dual natures by affirming the inseparability of the two natures,” writes Dickson. “If this Chalcedonian formulation is given serious attention in Protestant thought, some feel the human nature of Christ will not continue to suffer the devaluation of the past nor will therefore its precursor in the Incarnation - the Virgin Mary” (p.12).

Most of the Protestant misconceptions about Marian mediation arise from a ‘misinterpretation’ of 1Timothy 2:5, “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; who gave himself a ransom for all.” There are three things we must note about this passage. First, as Manuel Miguens has shown, this passage should be translated to read “There is one and the same God [for all], there is also one and the same mediator [for all]” - the idea is not to prove that there is numerically one God or numerically one mediator, but that the loving and saving care of God is not just for a few (e.g., Jews or Christians) but for all and the redeeming mediation of Christ is “for all.” Second, The Greek word for “one” used here is ‘heis’ and not ‘monos’. ‘Monos’ signifies “only” in the sense of exclusive uniqueness, while ‘heis’ is “one” in the sense of sameness of function. It is clear that the writer of this epistle is aware of this distinction because he uses ‘monos’ in every other instance of “one” in the epistle in order to signify uniqueness, but uses ‘heis’ only in this passage. Third, in his epistles, far from declaring Jesus is the “only” mediator, Paul in fact teaches that there are three kinds of mediators: priestly mediators (Christ, Aaron), covenantal mediators (Moses, Jesus), and factual (as opposed to juridical) mediators (Abraham, Paul). A factual mediator is one through whom, by divine decree, the grace of God is channeled to a community. The Gospels show that Mary is a factual mediator (“They have no wine.”). Christ is the one mediator in the sense of being the primary mediator and all other mediators (Abraham, Moses, Aaron, Paul, and Mary) participate in his mediation.

From Genesis to Revelation, from Bethlehem to Cana to Calvary, we have a powerful procession of images in Scripture in the vision of the Woman and her Seed, the Virgin and her Son, the Queen Mother and the King, the Daughter of Zion and the messianic Son of Man: the New Adam and the New Eve. The union of Mother and Son in the son’s mission of salvation and in the war against the Serpent (Dragon) is a persistent theme of Scripture mirrored in Christian doctrine and devotion through the centuries. To see the Son without the Virgin Mother, the Seed without the Woman, the King without the Queen Mother, the New Adam without the New Eve is to do violence to both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. For the Christian who enters the mind of the New Testament Church, the idea of “Jesus alone” (sola Christu) without Mary is as unthinkable as the idea of the New Testament alone without the Old or the divinity of Jesus without humanity. :yup:

They were overjoyed at seeing the star, and on entering the house they saw the child with Mary his mother. {Matthew 2:10-11}

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Le_Cracquere]

Yeah, what Goof Fella said

The point is that even though Protestants CAN and mostly do come up with the correct belief of the Trinity, this belief is truly based on Tradition because throughout the history of Christianity, there have been those who have taught falsely on this subject, when they divorce themselves from Tradition and authority of the Church.

Read some of the “isms” on the false teachings of Christ. The Church had to fight hard to firmly establish the Trinity doctrine.

God Bless,
Maria

Sure. None of that explains, though, what Protestants tend to have in common. If Christological and Marian arguments were equally compelling, or equally weak, to someone who–rightly or wrongly–relied on Protestant apologetic tools, then why isn’t “oneness” Pentecostalism, neo-Nestorianism, or some other anti-Trinitarian beliefs fully as common–or even a hundredth as common–as disagreement with Catholic stances on Mary? That seems a little odd.

 

[Le_Cracquere]

… Lutheran theologian Charles Dickson, in his recent book ‘A Protestant Pastor Looks at Mary’, notes that Protestants have traditionally tended to separate the divine and the human natures of Christ so radically that the work of salvation is attributed to His divine nature alone. Once it is fully realized that the Word became flesh, that God was actually incarnate, then the importance of Mary’s role becomes obvious.

Pace Mr. Dickson, it’s possible to believe wholeheartedly in Christ’s incarnation, that the Word became flesh in a genuinely radical sense, and still not find Catholic teaching on Mary remotely plausible, much less obvious. Grant that, and Dickson’s argument crumbles like a sub-plot from Lost season 3.

To most Protestants, the main stumbling block in Marian doctrine is the notion of Mary’s mediation and intercession. It seems to them that Catholics (and Orthodox) somehow impugn the sovereignty of God or the all-sufficiency of Christ by introducing the idea of a Marian role in the plan of salvation.

I can’t imagine where they’d get such impressions.

To see the Son without the Virgin Mother, the Seed without the Woman, the King without the Queen Mother, the New Adam without the New Eve is to do violence to both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. For the Christian who enters the mind of the New Testament Church, the idea of “Jesus alone” (sola Christu) without Mary is as unthinkable as the idea of the New Testament alone without the Old or the divinity of Jesus without humanity.

Ah–that’s where.

 

[MariaG]

Sure. None of that explains, though, what Protestants tend to have in common. If Christological and Marian arguments were equally compelling, or equally weak, to someone who–rightly or wrongly–relied on Protestant apologetic tools, then why isn’t “oneness” Pentecostalism, neo-Nestorianism, or some other anti-Trinitarian beliefs fully as common–or even a hundredth as common–as disagreement with Catholic stances on Mary? That seems a little odd.

Actually, Protestants used to be in agreement about at least one Marian Doctrine (that I know). Protestants today have strayed from their founders beliefs.

Luther, and I believe Calvin both thought Mary was ever Virgin.

And neither does it explain the very large differences. Infant baptism or not. Regenerative baptism or not. Once saved always saved or not. These are a couple of huge differences just off the top of my head.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[JoeyWarren]

Actually, Protestants used to be in agreement about at least one Marian Doctrine (that I know). Protestants today have strayed from their founders beliefs.

Luther, and I believe Calvin both thought Mary was ever Virgin.

After each generation, Satan subtlely removes the long held beliefs within the protestant ranks further dividing the flock. At some point the separated sheep of the flock will be transformed into goats.

 

[Le_Cracquere]

After each generation, Satan subtlely removes the long held beliefs within the protestant ranks further dividing the flock. At some point the separated sheep of the flock will be transformed into goats.

You make Protestantism sound like Jeff Goldblum in The Fly:

[knock, knock]
PROTESTANT: Come in–quickly!
CATHOLIC BUDDY: I brought you a sandw–BY THE INCORRUPTIBLE BUNION OF SAINT GERVASE OF CLEVELAND!
PROTESTANT: Don’t look at me, Francis–I’m hideous!
CATHOLIC BUDDY: Your goatee’s grown back. And those horns have gotta be three inches long now.
PROTESTANT: And I’ve grown another cloven hoof!
CATHOLIC BUDDY: And it’s not even on your foot…

Happy Hallowe’en to all!

 

[MariaG]

You make Protestantism sound like Jeff Goldblum in The Fly:

[knock, knock]
PROTESTANT: Come in–quickly!
CATHOLIC BUDDY: I brought you a sandw–BY THE INCORRUPTIBLE BUNION OF SAINT GERVASE OF CLEVELAND!
PROTESTANT: Don’t look at me, Francis–I’m hideous!
CATHOLIC BUDDY: Your goatee’s grown back. And those horns have gotta be three inches long now.
PROTESTANT: And I’ve grown another cloven hoof!
CATHOLIC BUDDY: And it’s not even on your foot…

Happy Hallowe’en to all!

Happy Hallowe’en to you too! And don’t forget to make you Halloween celebration Christian. Head over to a Catholic Church on Nov. 1 for All Saints Day:thumbsup:

 

[Athanasiy]

My husband and I are considering converting to Catholicism, but he is having a hard time with “Maryology”. He tells me that he wants to worship Jesus and not go to a “middleman”… Any suggestions???

It was a question for me as well.

And eventually …

You can see the threads :

• May any expert in Mariology , help me in my doubts please ?

And also

-‘’Conversion story. Abolision of Sola Scriptura in my experience.’’

 

[williamric]

My husband and I are considering converting to Catholicism, but he is having a hard time with “Maryology”. **He tells me that he wants to worship Jesus **

Great, no objections here…

and not go to a “middleman”… Any suggestions???

How about you go ask him to pray for you (about whatever)… If he says okay, then you say, “How come you happy to be a middleman”…

He will then say, “No thats different”

You say, “But why, Revelations tell us that the prayers of the saints are offered to G-d; And the Bible also tells us 1, that there is no death for tthose in Chris Jesus and 2. That the prayers of a righteous man availeth much”

He then will say, “I’m not convinced”

You say, “Lets pray about it”

Pray and let the HS do the rest… Its all you really can do. In my experience you can’t convince people of stuff like praying through Mary… They just have to see it for themselves. So plant the seeds, give him as much material as possible… and most importantly pray

 

[guanophore]

My husband and I are considering converting to Catholicism, but he is having a hard time with “Maryology”. He tells me that he wants to worship Jesus and not go to a “middleman”… Any suggestions???

Since “Maryology” is not part of Catholicism, this should not be a problem. Literally this word means “the study of Mary”. Catholicism is about following Jesus Christ. As we follow Him, we encounter others that have also done so, including HIs mother, Mary. But she is not the focus of the “study”. As scripture states “fix your eyes upon Jesus”.

I think that word was cooked up by people that don’t understand Catholicism, a lot like the word “Papist”.