I'm hung up on Mary.

[johnnyjones]

I just cannot bring myself to believe that Mary, right now, has some special mediatorial hand in the conversion of sinners, and that apart from her there is no salvation.

Otherwise, we are going to soon have to add her in such creeds such as:

Saved by the grace of God through our Lord Jesus Christ and His blessed Mother for the remission of sin and the gift of the Holy Spirit.

As if salvation is a divine miracle in the Church wrought in our hearts through the Father, Mother, and Son…this is just going way too far.

The church NEVER says Mary is our savior as you imply. That is a Protestant talking point.

 

[johnnyjones]

I have tried and tried on this one, but I simply cannot get past what Mary utters completely on her own:

My soul magnifies the Lord,
And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior.
For He has regarded the lowly state of His maidservant;
For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed.

A sinless woman needs a savior for…what???

You can read endless articles, books, and blogs on this topic, but all they are
are arguments on why you should accept this doctrine.
But I have to go with what she said.

As a former Fundamentalist, let me help you with this . The "savior’ part of the magnificot is often quoted by Protestants to say Mary was a sinner. Savior means she was saved like you and I but one can be saved in different ways. If you were walking and fell into a wide pit and hit the bottom, you could still be saved by someone pulling you out. That is one way to be saved.

You could also be walking and just before you fall into the wide pit your grabbed by someone who prevents you from falling all the way in. In this case you are saved as well. In both instances you are saved, and in both instances you needed a savior, however, the level of saving is different.

 

[johnnyjones]

I don’t believe in Once saved always saved…

I have resolved to stick with the extra-biblical literature of the first 4 centuries of the Church. It is even within this circle that we find very little concerning Mary. If modern day Catholics, with their devotion to Mary, were writing in those times, it would be showing up like a taxi in New york City.

And how is it a straw man? Are you admitting that Mary participates in the salvation of sinners today? That when the 3000 jews were saved on Pentacost, Mary had some contribution? Or that all throughout history, she saves human beings?

If yes, you are saying that Mary is Savior with Jesus Christ. Not in the functional sense of being the 2nd Eve, but in the present-active powerful sense…the divine miracle of converting human beings…my goodness I cannot imagine the apostles teaching this.

How to you reconcile Luther and other early Protestant leaders holding to the perpetual virginity of Mary? Do you disregard it?

 

[Miriam1947]

I have no animosityvtowards her. Only she did not save me, she loved God and bore the christ child. I would die before someone forced me to call her my savior and redeemer

Who is trying to force you to call Mary your savior and redeemer?

I love Mary and Jesus is my savior and redeemer.

 

[johnnyjones]

Who is trying to force you to call Mary your savior and redeemer?

I love Mary but, Jesus is my savior, Jesus redeems me.

I said this a while back as well and your right . With all the conversation that has taken place on this thread it’s amazing that at this late date some are still holding to “savior’ and 'redeemer” in relation to Mary. It’s almost a refusal to see the facts.

 

[Micah11]

And you know what she said is true because it is in Scripture, and you got Scripture from where ? Oh yeah, the Catholic Church.

Sorry, no. I got it from the gospel of Luke. I love how the catholic church acts as if they can take credit for what it written.

So the Church obviously doesn’t see any contradiction to what Mary says and what the Church teaches. Why do you, NOW? ?

Because centuries after the fact, the church decided it was necessary for Mary to be sinless and worked out doctrines to make it so. It is the catholic church that deems it necessary to keep Mary pure and “ever virgin”, otherwise unworthy to be the servant G-d entrusted to carry this child. Why?

Why would a common, but virtuous Jewish girl be unworthy to carry the Lord Jesus Christ if she were a sinner? It’s similar to the “fasting before communion” nonsense- in order to make on worthy to receive despite the fact that Jesus and the early church made the element part of a meal that they all shared- no fasting.

Forever there is the tone of virginal/celibate necessity for believers within the catholic church, as if that somehow makes people more righteous and holy, so much so that to this day I can still have conversations with young catholic marrieds who will tell me sex (even between husband and wife) is a “sinful” act, despite the fact that G-d Almighty placed Adam and Eve naked in the garden, told them to be fruitful and multiply and deemed it all VERY good. Not just “good” but VERY good.

It is ridiculous to assume that as a husband and wife, sexual relations were taboo between Joseph and Mary in a culture where children were a blessing and women who were barren fervently prayed to become pregnant.

It is ridiculous to have to make up stories to explain AWAY Matthew 12:46-47, 13:55; Mark 3: 32; Luke 8: 19-20 and particularly John 2: 11-13 which specifically makes the distinction:

This beginning of signs Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, and manifested His glory; and His disciples believed in Him.
After this He went down to Capernaum, He, His mother, His brothers, and His disciples; and they did not stay there many days.

, in order to keep the “ever virgin” myth alive. We get feeble stories about how it was **really **referring to disciples, no… step siblings… no, cousins…
all for the sake of molding Mary into some puritanical paragon of virtue (as if celibacy could actually do that) because some pope(s) somewhere couldn’t handle the thought of a normal healthy sex life simply because he/they were denied one themselves.

And let’s not even get into the comparison between Mary and Diana of Ephesus.

 

[johnnyjones]

An important historical document which supports the teaching of Mary’s perpetual virginity is the Protoevangelium of James, which was written probably less than sixty years after the conclusion of Mary’s earthly life (around A.D. 120), when memories of her life were still vivid in the minds of many.

According to the world-renowned patristics scholar, Johannes Quasten: “The principal aim of the whole writing [Protoevangelium of James] is to prove the perpetual and inviolate virginity of Mary before, in, and after the birth of Christ” (Patrology, 1:120–1).

To begin with, the Protoevangelium records that when Mary’s birth was prophesied, her mother, St. Anne, vowed that she would devote the child to the service of the Lord, as Samuel had been by his mother (1 Sam. 1:11). Mary would thus serve the Lord at the Temple, as women had for centuries (1 Sam. 2:22), and as Anna the prophetess did at the time of Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:36–37). A life of continual, devoted service to the Lord at the Temple meant that Mary would not be able to live the ordinary life of a child-rearing mother. Rather, she was vowed to a life of perpetual virginity.

However, due to considerations of ceremonial cleanliness, it was eventually necessary for Mary, a consecrated “virgin of the Lord,” to have a guardian or protector who would respect her vow of virginity. Thus, according to the Protoevangelium, Joseph, an elderly widower who already had children, was chosen to be her spouse. (This would also explain why Joseph was apparently dead by the time of Jesus’ adult ministry, since he does not appear during it in the gospels, and since Mary is entrusted to John, rather than to her husband Joseph, at the crucifixion).

According to the Protoevangelium, Joseph was required to regard Mary’s vow of virginity with the utmost respect. The gravity of his responsibility as the guardian of a virgin was indicated by the fact that, when she was discovered to be with child, he had to answer to the Temple authorities, who thought him guilty of defiling a virgin of the Lord. Mary was also accused of having forsaken the Lord by breaking her vow. Keeping this in mind, it is an incredible insult to the Blessed Virgin to say that she broke her vow by bearing children other than her Lord and God, who was conceived through the power of the Holy Spirit.

The perpetual virginity of Mary has always been reconciled with the biblical references to Christ’s brethren through a proper understanding of the meaning of the term “brethren.” The understanding that the brethren of the Lord were Jesus’ stepbrothers (children of Joseph) rather than half-brothers (children of Mary) was the most common one until the time of Jerome (fourth century). It was Jerome who introduced the possibility that Christ’s brethren were actually his cousins, since in Jewish idiom cousins were also referred to as “brethren.” The Catholic Church allows the faithful to hold either view, since both are compatible with the reality of Mary’s perpetual virginity.

Today most Protestants are unaware of these early beliefs regarding Mary’s virginity and the proper interpretation of “the brethren of the Lord.” And yet, the Protestant Reformers themselves—Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Ulrich Zwingli—honored the perpetual virginity of Mary and recognized it as the teaching of the Bible, as have other, more modern Protestants.

 

[Ion]

The Catholic Church deserve the credit because in the catholic church the writing was valued and preserved. In those days there were guys like you and others who imagined they could say/write on the subject whatever travells their mind…The Holy Church filtered them out. The Orthodox Church, which was in great opposition with the Catholic Church maintains the same tradition.

You and others do not love Jesus Christ at the level from where total dedication follows.
You guys consider yourselves already saved, and in this condition you judge the Holy Family like yours, you “playing” Mary; then you think what would you do and how etc. and of course how “you play it” is totally different. In your mind, everything should be ok because you are already saved and holy… The Orthodox says about you guys that you are in the deepest sin of pride. The way you see The Holy Family clearly indicates that you are in a non holy condition…

 

[Micah11]

An important historical document which supports the teaching of Mary’s perpetual virginity is the Protoevangelium of James, which was written probably less than sixty years after the conclusion of Mary’s earthly life (around A.D. 120), when memories of her life were still vivid in the minds of many.

And if this is such a dependable source, why was it not canonized?

The consensus is that it was actually composed some time in the 2nd century AD.[145AD] The first mention of it is by Origen of Alexandria in the early 3rd century, who says the text, like that of a “Gospel of Peter”, was of dubious, recent appearance and shared with that book the claim that the ‘brethren of the Lord’ were sons of Joseph by a former wife.[5]

Ref:
^ a b Origen of Alexandria. “The Brethren of Jesus”. Origen’s Commentary on Matthew in Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume IX. Retrieved 2008-09-18.
“But some say, basing it on a tradition in the Gospel according to Peter, as it is entitled, or “The Book of James,” that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honour of Mary in virginity to the end, so that that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word which said, “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee,” might not know intercourse with a man after that the Holy Ghost came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the first-fruit among men of the purity which consists in chastity and Mary among women; for it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the first-fruit of virginity.”

Which totally aligns with scripture which states:

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit.- Matt 1

 

[zenith15]

They were breaking a whole load of rules and that was the final straw. Check a little more than halfway down this page: christianthinktank.com/gutripper.html

That was EXTREMELY helpful–thank you so much!!!

 

[Micah11]

You and others do not love Jesus Christ at the level from where total dedication follows.

How completely arrogant of you. Reason # 945 why I left the RCC.

 

[Farsight001]

How completely arrogant of you. Reason # 945 why I left the RCC.

We get told the same thing every single day by someone from every denomination under the sun.

 

[johnnyjones]

And if this is such a dependable source, why was it not canonized?

Ref:
^ a b Origen of Alexandria. “The Brethren of Jesus”. Origen’s Commentary on Matthew in Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume IX. Retrieved 2008-09-18.
“But some say, basing it on a tradition in the Gospel according to Peter, as it is entitled, or “The Book of James,” that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honour of Mary in virginity to the end, so that that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word which said, “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee,” might not know intercourse with a man after that the Holy Ghost came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the first-fruit among men of the purity which consists in chastity and Mary among women; for it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the first-fruit of virginity.”

Which totally aligns with scripture which states:

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit.- Matt 1

I was a 15 year Fundamentalist, I’m not just accepting anything. You must remember that tradition plays a role in christianity. We don’t just have a book (the bible) we have the lives of the saints and all things that were heard (even scripture supports the hearing). Not all tradition is canonized. You saying scripture only which I understand, but scripture points out there are things outside the bible.

More importantly, lets focus on what you believe. As a Protestant do you disregard the perpetual virginity held by Luther , Calvin and others? Luther was there at the reformation, was he wrong in his reforming?

 

[Richca]

Originally Posted by Erick_Ybarra

And I want to say Yes amen amen to all this. But to exalt Mary to the level of being a special means of obtaining salvation is to take the original apostolic message to a place that it never had in the beginning.

We don’t exalt Mary as a special means of obtaining salvation. She was saved the same way we were: through Jesus’ Sacrifice on the Cross. Now, since all times are one to God, He preserved her from sin in the first place as a holy vessel to carry the Word of God, Jesus; but that doesn’t mean that we can obtain salvation through her. We can’t. She’s just a saint who did what God asked of her. If we want salvation, we have to seek it from Jesus.

And, yes, He did realize that His mission was more important than physical family. That’s why Joseph and Mary searched for Him for three days before finding Him in the temple, teaching.

Mary certainly is a special means of obtaining salvation otherwise we would have to disbelieve the lives and writings of many saints and holy men and woman, popes, as well as the teaching of the church itself. I do not consider myself wiser. I will quote just a few.

St. Louis Marie de Montfort:
Mary received from God a unique dominion over souls enabling her to nourish them and make them more and more godlike. St Augustine went so far as to say that even in this world all the elect are enclosed in the womb of Mary, and that their real birthday is when this good mother brings them forth to eternal life. Consequently, just as an infant draws all its nourishment from its mother, who gives according to its needs, so the elect draw their spiritual nourishment and all their strength from Mary (The Secret of Mary).

Pope Pius XI in the Encyclical “Ingravescentibus malis” (1937) quotes with approval the words of St Bernard: Thus it is God’s will that we should have everything through Mary". Similarly Pope Pius XII in the Encyclical “Mediator Dei” (1947).

St Maximilian Kolbe:
The Holy Spirit does not confer any grace, the Father does not give any supernatural life to any soul by the Son and the Holy Spirit, unless these gifts are bestowed by the Mediatrix of all grace, the Immaculata, who cooperates in the giving, and distributes them as she wills. She obtains from God all the treasures of grace, as belonging to her, and she distributes them to whomever she wills, as she wills. (from the Immaculate Conception and the Holy Spirit book).

That Mary is the Mediatrix of all graces is the common teaching of the catholic church. Indeed, St Maximilian Kolbe life’s work is based on the doctrine that Mary is the Mediatrix of all graces. He founded the Knights of the Immaculata and Marytown all with the approbation of the church.

 

[Godfollower]

Originally Posted by Erick_Ybarra

And I want to say Yes amen amen to all this. But to exalt Mary to the level of being a special means of obtaining salvation is to take the original apostolic message to a place that it never had in the beginning.

Mary certainly is a special means of obtaining salvation otherwise we would have to disbelieve the lives and writings of many saints and holy men and woman, popes, as well as the teaching of the church itself. I do not consider myself wiser. I will quote just a few.

St. Louis Marie de Montfort:
Mary received from God a unique dominion over souls enabling her to nourish them and make them more and more godlike. St Augustine went so far as to say that even in this world all the elect are enclosed in the womb of Mary, and that their real birthday is when this good mother brings them forth to eternal life. Consequently, just as an infant draws all its nourishment from its mother, who gives according to its needs, so the elect draw their spiritual nourishment and all their strength from Mary (The Secret of Mary).

Pope Pius XI in the Encyclical “Ingravescentibus malis” (1937) quotes with approval the words of St Bernard: Thus it is God’s will that we should have everything through Mary". Similarly Pope Pius XII in the Encyclical “Mediator Dei” (1947).

St Maximilian Kolbe:
The Holy Spirit does not confer any grace, the Father does not give any supernatural life to any soul by the Son and the Holy Spirit, unless these gifts are bestowed by the Mediatrix of all grace, the Immaculata, who cooperates in the giving, and distributes them as she wills. She obtains from God all the treasures of grace, as belonging to her, and she distributes them to whomever she wills, as she wills. (from the Immaculate Conception and the Holy Spirit book).

That Mary is the Mediatrix of all graces is the common teaching of the catholic church. Indeed, St Maximilian Kolbe life’s work is based on the doctrine that Mary is the Mediatrix of all graces. He founded the Knights of the Immaculata and Marytown all with the approbation of the church.

No, that’s incorrect. All salvation comes from Jesus. We are enormously grateful to Mary for bearing Him, and we recognize that she bore God’s Word for the entire human race; but she has no power to save us, other than by the example she set (she obeyed God’s word, even though it would mean being pregnant outside of her betrothal; think what that would mean to a young girl in first-century Israel). Like any other saint, she can pray to God on our behalf, and we believe that she does. In fact, we often refer to the fact that she intercedes for us to Jesus. But that intercession is merely a request to God – a prayer. Like any other saint (and any other human, for that matter), Mary has the ability to ask God for help.

But Mary cannot save us. That is heresy, plain and simple. Yes, she had a unique role in the Church. Yes, one can safely say that Mary points the way to Jesus. Yes, one can call her Mother of God and bestow upon her all sorts of human honors.

But Jesus saves. Not Mary.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I just cannot bring myself to believe that Mary, right now, has some special mediatorial hand in the conversion of sinners, and that apart from her there is no salvation.

Otherwise, we are going to soon have to add her in such creeds such as:

Saved by the grace of God through our Lord Jesus Christ and His blessed Mother for the remission of sin and the gift of the Holy Spirit.

As if salvation is a divine miracle in the Church wrought in our hearts through the Father, Mother, and Son…this is just going way too far.

NOBODY in the Catholic Church is saying that ‘apart from Mary there is no salvation’. And NOBODY is adding her in creeds.

What you have done is erected a ‘strawman’.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I have no animosityvtowards her. Only she did not save me, she loved God and bore the christ child. I would die before someone forced me to call her my savior and redeemer

But the Catholic Church DOES NOT CALL HER OUR SAVIOR AND REDEEMER.

“Straw man”.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

And if this is such a dependable source, why was it not canonized?

Ref:
^ a b Origen of Alexandria. “The Brethren of Jesus”. Origen’s Commentary on Matthew in Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume IX. Retrieved 2008-09-18.
“But some say, basing it on a tradition in the Gospel according to Peter, as it is entitled, or “The Book of James,” that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honour of Mary in virginity to the end, so that that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word which said, “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee,” might not know intercourse with a man after that the Holy Ghost came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the first-fruit among men of the purity which consists in chastity and Mary among women; for it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the first-fruit of virginity.”

Which totally aligns with scripture which states:

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit.- Matt 1

Unfortunately you are taking as modern 21st century ENGLISH interpretation of the words above.

"Coming together’ DOES NOT MEAN that they engaged in marital relations.

And NO CHRISTIAN believed that Mary and Joseph were ‘engaged in marital relations’ prior to about 300 years ago when it became a teaching of SOME MEN. IOW, ‘a different gospel’.

And it isn’t JUST THE CATHOLIC CHURCH which believes in Mary’s perpetual virginity. The Orthodox (who have been around JUST AS LONG AS THE CATHOLIC) do so. MARTIN LUTHER did so.

What makes you know more than they --who were guided by the Holy Spirit?

 

[Erich]

As was pointed out in post #70 on this thread, there isn’t a single named brother of Jesus in all of Scripture who is also a son of Mary and Joseph. That includes the “brothers” named in Matthew 13:55 (which you referenced above).

I suspect you are not willing to admit that Scripture is incorrect in referring to James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude as brothers of Jesus… so clearly there must be some other explanation.

No, what’s ridiculous are the feeble explanations about how Mary and Joseph had to have had a healthy sex life, all for the sake of molding Mary into someone “just like the rest of us.” How many other people do you know who can truthfully claim to be a child of God the Father, the spouse of God the Holy Spirit, and the mother of God the Son?

 

[sambos671]

So I’m reading through the CCC as a born and raised Protestant who is certain God is leading to the Catholic Church, much to my fighting and refusing (due to family security–I’m a Youth Pastor and full of fear about making the transition, see the Vocations forum for that).

I’m loving the CCC and have not yet disagreed, but I’m having a hard time with Mary. I’m now a believer in the perpetual virginity of Mary after research and reading (prior to I was not), but I’m having a hard time with the idea that Mary remained sinless in life and the bodily taking up to heaven at the end of her life (assumption).

Can anyone point me to a good resource that will spell this out in a convincingly Biblical and/or reasonable manner? Or, if you are able to articulate the position for a Protestant here, that would be greatly appreciated!

I had this hang up for a long while as well. What helped me grasp it are two things. 1) The Ark of the Covenant prefigures Mary and God did not permit anyone to touch it lest they immediately die. 2) while reading St. Therese’s “Story of a Soul” I began to see that God does create an enviroment and natural disposition when bringing a person into the world that affords them a special disposition to naturally have that desire for God stronger than maybe someone else.