Marian Veneration in the NT

[Protestant101]

Martin Luther believed in the Immaculate Conception or at least had some rudimentary grasp of its theological significance.

Martin Luther:

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).

“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.)

It is a pity that most Protestants have departed from the teachings of their very own Fathers.

No; it’s not a pity at all. Rather, it shows that we are always open to new understandings of truth, as they are encountered in study of the Bible. Truth is a gradual unfolding of truth, not an instant knowledge of all points. There is nothing in the Bible to preclude this ongoing learning process, the Bible tells us clearly to “grow in grace.” The pity is that some Catholics will not change anything no matter what they are presented with.

I just spoke with an ex-Catholic who became an Adventist, and this was one of the many points they brought up.

 

[Protestant101]

Protestant your Seventh Day Adventist. Why would anyone listen to how you slant what the Catholic Church teaches?
By the way, I grew up not far from Batle Creek Michigan. Do you know why I mention this?

Oh; I have a few ideas why you mention this; however, I will not presume to read minds so I will let you tell me. Hopefully you will atleast tell me something I have not heard before.

The purpose of this forum is to compare and contrast what each other believes. That’s why some people will listen.

 

[surgei]

No; it’s not a pity at all. Rather, it shows that we are always open to new understandings of truth, as they are encountered in study of the Bible. Truth is a gradual unfolding of truth, not an instant knowledge of all points. There is nothing in the Bible to preclude this ongoing learning process, the Bible tells us clearly to “grow in grace.” The pity is that some Catholics will not change anything no matter what they are presented with.

I just spoke with an ex-Catholic who became an Adventist, and this was one of the many points they brought up.

Of all the “Churches” to go to Adventist. Oh yes the whole theology of Adventist is based on hatred for the Catholic faith. It gets its converts by scare tactics. It was founded some eighteen hundred years after Christ.
Funny, the revelation of Jesus Christ as Son of God was really quick in comparison to the Adventist denial of the Immaculate Life of Mary. Seems truth is quick. Only herecy takes time to be properly revealed.

 

[foundthelight]

Did you notice that all the Biblical quotes of the previous posts just quote primarily from the speech of Elizabeth to Mary or Gabriel’s salutation to Mary.

Here is Gabriel’s salutation, notice VERY carefully the wording:

Luk 1:28 And having come in, the angel said to her, “Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women!”
Luk 1:29 But when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and considered what manner of greeting this was.
Luk 1:30 Then the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God.
Luk 1:31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name JESUS.
Luk 1:32 He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David.
Luk 1:33 And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end.”

Notice Gabriel said she was blessed AMONG women, not ABOVE other women. Mary was no more than the earthly vessel God chose.

Elizabeth’s greeting to Mary:

Luk 1:42 Then she spoke out with a loud voice and said, "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!
Luk 1:43 But why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

Once again, AMONG women, not GREATER than other women.

Everywhere else in the NT you see Jesus even downplaying his relationship to her referring to her as “woman” rather than “mother.” Even from the cross he called her “woman” when he directed her to John’s care.

Let us look at the following verse from your quote.

Luk 1:28 And having come in, the angel said to her, “Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women!”

Something is missing from this quote. The correct translation of the Greek word that you are translating as “highly favored one”

**kecharitomene

**This word is correct translated as meaning that the one addressed is filled totally and absolutely with grace. Yes, such a one is highly favored. But the word means ever so much more. The translation has been watered down by those who want to deny Mary’s role.

So, here’s what some modern, English-speaking scholars tell us “Kecharitomene” denotes, based purely on the definition of the word and its grammatical usage:
" ‘Highly favoured’ (kecharitomene). Perfect passive participle of * charitoo* and means endowed with grace (charis), enriched with grace as in Ephesians. 1:6, . . . The Vulgate * gratiae plena* [full of grace] "is right, if it means ‘full of grace which thou hast received’; wrong, if it means ‘full of grace which thou hast to bestow’ "(A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, p. 14)
“It is permissible, on Greek grammatical and linguistic grounds, to paraphrase kecharitomene as completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace.” (Blass and DeBrunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament).
However, Luke 1:28 uses a special conjugated form of “charitoo.” It uses “kecharitomene,” while Ephesians 1:6 uses “echaritosen,” which is a different form of the verb “charitoo.” * Echaritosen* means “he graced” (bestowed grace). * Echaritosen* signifies a momentary action, an action brought to pass. (Blass and DeBrunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament, p.166). Whereas, Kecharitomene, the perfect passive participle, shows a completeness with a permanent result. * Kecharitomene* denotes continuance of a completed action (H. W. Smyth, Greek Grammar [Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1968], p. 108-109, sec 1852:b; also Blass and DeBrunner, p.175).

from bringyou.to/apologetics/a116.htm

 

[surgei]

Oh; I have a few ideas why you mention this; however, I will not presume to read minds so I will let you tell me. Hopefully you will atleast tell me something I have not heard before.

The purpose of this forum is to compare and contrast what each other believes. That’s why some people will listen.

I doubt you are speaking of talking to people in this forum. But will capitulate your right to ask here.
Do you know the Revelation Promises Hope crusade?

 

[foundthelight]

No; it’s not a pity at all. Rather, it shows that we are always open to new understandings of truth, as they are encountered in study of the Bible. Truth is a gradual unfolding of truth, not an instant knowledge of all points. There is nothing in the Bible to preclude this ongoing learning process, the Bible tells us clearly to “grow in grace.” The pity is that some Catholics will not change anything no matter what they are presented with.

I just spoke with an ex-Catholic who became an Adventist, and this was one of the many points they brought up.

When I was a Protestant one of my Pastors had a position similar to yours. He called it the “greening of scripture”. He would then go on to tell us how some of what the bible said has to be interpreted in light of today’s needs.

Rank heresy.

 

[po18guy]

But it is in the Bible. Elizabeth, filled with the Holy Spirit, calls Mary the “mother of my Lord” (Luke 1:43) Maybe in your mind being recognized as the mother of God (through God’s inspiration) doesn’t make one preeminent, but it certainly does for many others.

Nita

Strange that the SDA church detests Catholicism, partly because of its veneration of Mary, who is in scripture. Yet all the while they revere Ellen Gould White as an “inspired” prophetess with writings second only to the bible. Strange.

 

[adam_in_ohio]

But this teaching if foreign to the fathers of the Church. Christ himself declared it to be untrue in a vision he granted to St Catherine of Siena. She is a Doctor of the Roman Catholic Church. Did Christ lie to her and let Mary tell the truth at lourdes? Or did the popes error in declaring her visions not in contradiction to the church? Somewhere they errored and it was a vision of demons they put their seal of aproval on. If they put their seal of aproval on one demonic vision how can they be seen to have the ability to discern truth in any other area.
I hope you understand these are just logical points here. This is not uncharity. But Charity proclaiming truth.

No offense taken.
This teaching is not foren to the fathers! St. Ephraem “Truly you, Lord and your mother are the only ones who are beautiful, completely so in every respect; for, Lord, there is no spot in you, nor any spot at all in your mother.” Nisibene Hymns 27
St. Augustine “We must except the holy Virgin Mary, concering whom I wish to rais no question when it touches the subject of sin, out of honor to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin. Well, then, if, with this exception of the Virgin, we could only assemble together all the forementioned holy men and women, and ask them whether they lived without sin while they were in this life, what can we suppose would be their answer?” On Nature and Grace ch 36:42
St Catherine of Siena is a Doctor of the Church, but not a Father of the Church.
You said “Christ himself declared it to be untrue in a vision he granted to St Catherine of Siena” Show me proofe of what her vissions were and we can go from there. I’ve never herd of her visions being what you say. (But I’ve been wrong before) All I’ve been able to find on this so far on New Advent “During the summer of 1370 she received a series of special manifestations of Divine mysteries, which culminated in a prolonged trance, a kind of mystical death, in which she had a vision of Hell, Purgatory, and Heaven, and heard a Divine command to leave her cell and enter the public life of the world.”
Adam

 

[Protestant101]

Of all the “Churches” to go to Adventist. Oh yes the whole theology of Adventist is based on hatred for the Catholic faith. It gets its converts by scare tactics. It was founded some eighteen hundred years after Christ.
Funny, the revelation of Jesus Christ as Son of God was really quick in comparison to the Adventist denial of the Immaculate Life of Mary. Seems truth is quick. Only herecy takes time to be properly revealed.

Thankyou for this volatile post. May the Lord bless you, and keep you, and make His face to shine upon you.

 

[adam_in_ohio]

Of all the “Churches” to go to Adventist. Oh yes the whole theology of Adventist is based on hatred for the Catholic faith. It gets its converts by scare tactics. It was founded some eighteen hundred years after Christ.
Funny, the revelation of Jesus Christ as Son of God was really quick in comparison to the Adventist denial of the Immaculate Life of Mary. Seems truth is quick. Only herecy takes time to be properly revealed.

I doubt you are speaking of talking to people in this forum. But will capitulate your right to ask here.
Do you know the Revelation Promises Hope crusade?

Total Lack of Charity here.:banghead:
1Pe 3:16 “but do it with gentleness and reverence, keeping your conscience clear, so that, when you are maligned, those who defame your good conduct in Christ may themselves be put to shame.”

 

[Protestant101]

Strange that the SDA church detests Catholicism, partly because of its veneration of Mary, who is in scripture. Yet all the while they revere Ellen Gould White as an “inspired” prophetess with writings second only to the bible. Strange.

Perhaps this is no different than how you revere the Pope, or Mary, or any of the Church “Fathers.”

I, as an Adventist do not “detest the Catholic Church”, or Catholics; but I do detest certain doctrines, (as I know you do) and that is as far as it goes.

I have a number of conceptual problems with the Catholic views on Mary, and that is as far as that goes. if you want to go further; you will go alone for I will stand my ground, and stay here, unless shown from the Bible otherwise.

Let us get into the topic of Mary on this thread. Other topics are for other threads.

Mat.1:16 tells us:

Mat 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Please allow me some comment/questions on this.

Mary is stated here to be the wife of Joseph. What does/did this mean to Christians?

The Catechism correctly states how that “the fullness of time” had been reached for “the fulfilment of God’s promises and preparation.” (see CCC #484).

This is a part of the reason for Mary’s betrothal and marriage to Jesus. Am I right so far?

 

[Protestant101]

Total Lack of Charity here.:banghead:
1Pe 3:16 “but do it with gentleness and reverence, keeping your conscience clear, so that, when you are maligned, those who defame your good conduct in Christ may themselves be put to shame.”

Well; I agree somewhat, but I do appreciate that the forum admins here have the same patience with all of us, regardless of our religious affiliations. They allow a measure of strong emotions to show through; I believe, that we might go back later, under the direction of the Holy Spirit, and see how we might have been a better witness.

This is one of the points re the story of Mary that really interests me is the preparation of the Holy Spirt, in Mary, before the birth of Jesus “in the fullness of time.” I have great interest in discussing this, so lets try, OK?

 

[adam_in_ohio]

Mat.1:16 tells us:

Mat 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Please allow me some comment/questions on this.

Mary is stated here to be the wife of Joseph. What does/did this mean to Christians?

The Catechism correctly states how that “the fullness of time” had been reached for “the fulfilment of God’s promises and preparation.” (see CCC #484).

This is a part of the reason for Mary’s betrothal and marriage to Jesus. Am I right so far?

Yes, so far.

 

[mercygate]

No; it’s not a pity at all. Rather, it shows that we are always open to new understandings of truth, as they are encountered in study of the Bible. Truth is a gradual unfolding of truth, not an instant knowledge of all points. There is nothing in the Bible to preclude this ongoing learning process, the Bible tells us clearly to “grow in grace.” The pity is that some Catholics will not change anything no matter what they are presented with.

I just spoke with an ex-Catholic who became an Adventist, and this was one of the many points they brought up.

Actually, what you describe as a “gradual unfolding of truth” is similar to what Catholics understand by the development of doctrine. We would not say that the truth “unfolds” so much as we would say that the more we understand, the more we understand.

That is exactly how certain Catholic teachings that are found implicitly, but not explicitly, in Scripture, – such as the Marian dogmas – come to be de fide for Catholics.

The Trinity and the hypostatic union are such developments of understanding. So is the refinement of our understanding of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

 

[surgei]

Actually, what you describe as a “gradual unfolding of truth” is similar to what Catholics understand by the development of doctrine. We would not say that the truth “unfolds” so much as we would say that the more we understand, the more we understand.

That is exactly how certain Catholic teachings that are found implicitly, but not explicitly, in Scripture, – such as the Marian dogmas – come to be de fide for Catholics.

The Trinity and the hypostatic union are such developments of understanding. So is the refinement of our understanding of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Sorry. I treated you with disrespect. If you really want to know great. I am just used to David Asscherick trying to find stuff that he can contort to his own ends. I’ve had him do it to me several times. Although he challenged “anyone” to debate what he had to say, when I stepped forward he quickly closed the meeting. Several times I have invited him to write books and other things exploring Adventism and Historical Christianity but he declined. By the way their is an Orthodox Church in or near Troy started by an Adventist missionairy to Romainia.

 

[Protestant101]

Actually, what you describe as a “gradual unfolding of truth” is similar to what Catholics understand by the development of doctrine. We would not say that the truth “unfolds” so much as we would say that the more we understand, the more we understand.

That is exactly how certain Catholic teachings that are found implicitly, but not explicitly, in Scripture, – such as the Marian dogmas – come to be de fide for Catholics.

The Trinity and the hypostatic union are such developments of understanding. So is the refinement of our understanding of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

We are in fact in agreement with “the more you understand, the more you understand.” We have just said it with different words. The truth “unfolds” to our understanding - not taken to mean that truth changes.

If something is “implicit;” are you saying that it does not have to be found in the Bible? “Implicit” means “without doubt or question;” and to me that would need some sort of “explicit” evidence.

Getting back to Mat.1:16 and my related comment from the CCC, can you explain just what is meant by “the fullness of time?” What “time” is being spoken of here? Can you supply references for your answer?

 

[mercygate]

Sorry. I treated you with disrespect. If you really want to know great. I am just used to David Asscherick trying to find stuff that he can contort to his own ends. I’ve had him do it to me several times. Although he challenged “anyone” to debate what he had to say, when I stepped forward he quickly closed the meeting. Several times I have invited him to write books and other things exploring Adventism and Historical Christianity but he declined. By the way their is an Orthodox Church in or near Troy started by an Adventist missionairy to Romainia.

I have no idea who or what you are talking about. I thought I had read this whole thread. I must have missed something.

I do not debate, in the sense of sparring, and I try not to snipe, although occasionally a particularly offensive interlocutor will “subdue my patience” to quote Henry Fielding.

 

[mercygate]

We are in fact in agreement with “the more you understand, the more you understand.” We have just said it with different words. The truth “unfolds” to our understanding - not taken to mean that truth changes.

If something is “implicit;” are you saying that it does not have to be found in the Bible? “Implicit” means “without doubt or question;” and to me that would need some sort of “explicit” evidence.

Take the Trinity. We tend to take it as a given today but Scripture alone does not demonstrate explicitly that the Holy Spirit is a divine Person, co-equal with the Father and the Son. That had to be extracted from the text.

Getting back to Mat.1:16 and my related comment from the CCC, can you explain just what is meant by “the fullness of time?” What “time” is being spoken of here? Can you supply references for your answer?

“Fullness of time?” as in Ephesians? It means ‘when God and the world were ripe for redemption.’ I must have missed what you said about mt. 1:16 because it doesn’t say anything about the fulness of time. Sorry: I get up at 4:30 a.m., and it is now very late; the little pea brain is dysfunctional at the moment. Night now.

 

[po18guy]

Perhaps this is no different than how you revere the Pope, or Mary, or any of the Church “Fathers.”

First, thank the Lord for those fathers, or else we would have no bible! The Pope is elected with the help of the Holy Spirt. Mary was conceived of from all eternity to bear God’s only begotten Son. Many of the fathers were martyred for the faith, rather than to deny Christ. As far as I know, none claimed to be prophets, since revelation was closed with the death of Saint John.

I, as an Adventist do not “detest the Catholic Church”, or Catholics; but I do detest certain doctrines, (as I know you do) and that is as far as it goes.

Notice I specifically used the term catholicism, rather than Catholics, or the church itself. If you have no contempt for the Catholic church, you have escaped much of the fairly obvious anti-Catholicism in E.G. White’s writings. Practically speaking, she was almost the Adventist version of our Pope, or is this going too far? Their roles seem very similar.

I have a number of conceptual problems with the Catholic views on Mary, and that is as far as that goes.

So did many, many other Catholics and I, as well. However, the Holy Spirit tends to go to work on relieving those doubts, and He has. I didn’t accept Catholic doctrine “en bloc”. Much of it was slowly revealed.

if you want to go further; you will go alone for I will stand my ground, and stay here, unless shown from the Bible otherwise.

The largest revelation that you will ever have is when the Lord reveals to your heart that scripture, as blessed, inerrant and essential as it is, amounts to the Cliff Notes of Christ. There is so much more to Him. He cannot be confined to the pages of a book, no matter how sacred that book.

Let us get into the topic of Mary on this thread. Other topics are for other threads.

Right you are.

Mat.1:16 tells us: Mat 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. Please allow me some comment/questions on this.
Mary is stated here to be the wife of Joseph. What does/did this mean to Christians?

It means that God envisioned the prototype of the nuclear family. But, the revelations to Joseph clearly showed him that he was no ordinary husband. He had a higher calling. Joseph fulfilled his role and passed from the scene, his work being done. Joseph says exactly nothing in scripture. Not one word.

The Catechism correctly states how that “the fullness of time” had been reached for “the fulfilment of God’s promises and preparation.” (see CCC #484).

This is great! You actually have a catechism. Yes, it’s exactly right, I believe.

This is a part of the reason for Mary’s betrothal and marriage to (JOSEPH-you’re not perfect after all! Welcome!). Am I right so far?

Yes. however…

Christ’s peace, brother.

 

[benedictgal]

What have we “excised?” You cliche’ denouncement of Protestants lacks facts, but relies upon personal interpretation. Your Biblical explanations here are simple “eisegesis” as opposed to “exegesis.” I see this time and time again with Catholics AND Protestants. It would be nice to see a more balanced position on what all Scripture says to us about Mary being “blessed,” because this in no way refers to any preminence on the blessed person’s part.

Evidently, you have excised many things. including seven books that were held canonical for several centuries.

As I said before, if your purpose is to discover the fullness of Truth, then, by all means, you are welcome. However, if you wish to merely denigrate and insult Catholic belief for the sake of doing so, then, you need to be prepared for the Church’s defense.

You only have one pillar to stand on, your own interpretation of Scripture. The Church reads Scripture in light of Sacred Tradition. Protestants do not have one unifying interpretation of the Bible; whereas Catholics do. This is based on the authority Jesus conferred on St. Peter in Matthew’s Gospel, and reaffirmed towards the end of John’s Gospel.

Your point regarding Noah does not necessarily contribute to your argument. He was never addressed as “full of grace”. In fact, the only one who was ever addressed as “full of grace” is Mary because, God, in his infinite wisdom, applied the merits of His Son’s sacrifice to His Mother, thus, already preparing for Himself a most worthy tabernacle, a pure vessel. Elizabeth, in her greeting (which was predicted in the Song of Songs), reaffirms Mary as blessed among women and as the Mother of the Lord.

This is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church states about Mary:

1. What the Catholic faith believes about Mary is based on what it believes about Christ, and what it teaches about Mary illumines, in turn, its faith in Christ.
2. “God sent forth his Son”, but, to prepare a body for Him, he wanted the free cooperation of a creature. For this, from all eternity, God chose for the mother of His Son, a daughter of Israel, a young Jewish woman of Nazareth in Galilee, “a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary.”

The Father of mercies willed that the Incarnation should be preceded by assent on the part of the predestined mother, so that just as a woman had a share in the coming death, so also should a woman contribute to the coming of life.

1. Throughout the Old Covenant the mission of many holy women prepared for that of Mary. At the very beginning was Eve; dispite her disobedience, she receives the promise of a posterity that will be victorious over the evil one, as well as the promise that she will be the mother of all the living. By virture of this promise, Sarah conceives a son in spite of her old age. Against all human expectation God chooses those who are considered powerless and weak to show forth his faithfulness to his promises: Hannah, the mother of Samuel; Deborah; Ruth; Judith and Esther; and many other women. Mary "stands out among the poor and humble of the Lord, who confidently hope for and receive salvation from him. After a long period of waiting the times are fulfilled in her, the exalted Daughter of Sion, and the new plan of salvation is established.

I realize that this is a long quote, but, this defines what Elizabeth meant by Mary being “blessed among women.” There are more references that I will submit in a later post, as I don’t want to violate the rules regarding long quotes.