Mariology debunked by Scripture?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Franz
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The first thing you can do is stop taking information from a site that is patently, and apparently proudly, anti-Catholic. That is the same as asking Michael Moore about why America is so great, you aren’t going to get an truthful answer, only an honest, albeit skewed opinion. Try these links for better information about the Mother of God, which is not only Scriptural, but is the position that has been held by Christians since the time of the Apostles.

newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm
catholic.com/library/Mary_Mother_of_God.asp
 
The site seems to be a “Jack of all trades but master of none” if you know what I mean. They have information on so many strange cults and have a lot of “End Times” prophecy stuff. This kind of information is generally loosely assembled by people with no background in early Christian theology (even though some history is cited there, albeit out of context)

To refute this, I would point the person here:

EWTN: Mary

There is a lot of good doctrine presented in a rational, non-sensationalist manner.

Best Wishes,
Cherub
 
Are you a Catholic? If so, why do you even bother? If you have come into the Light what have you to do with that darkness which can be endless. You have the Truth which is to be receved by faith. Remember who your teachers are.
 
It is an interesting argument–far and away the most solid argument against the “Theotokos” title that I’ve seen. However, I think it breaks down in a fairly obvious way–they use Matt. 22:42-46 to argue for “Christotokos” instead of “Theotokos,” but in fact Jesus is arguing against calling “Christ” (i.e., the Messiah) the “son of David.” He doesn’t address the human/divine distinction at all. If you took the passage literally and applied it to Mariology, it would mean that we couldn’t speak of Mary being the mother of Christ. But that is not what they are trying to argue at all–it proves way too much. Certainly it’s a plausible argument to say that what Jesus is getting at here is the human/divine distinction, but they have no conclusive evidence. It is far more probable, it seems to me, that Jesus is trying to get his hearers to consider the possibility that the Messiah is more than just a mere human being, descended from David. Jesus clearly doesn’t repudiate the title “Son of David” elsewhere in the NT. But he is more than the Son of David. Similarly, he is more than the Son of Mary. This, I think, is a far less contrived interpretation than the one they propose, which introduces the question of the two natures of Christ without any direct warrant from the text itself.

In Christ,

Edwin

P.S. Just a reminder, since I’ve taken upon myself to crusade against all mistaken generalizations about Protestantism (!). The authors of this website are going against standard, mainstream traditional Protestant doctrine in denying the title “Theotokos.”
 
This is just a regurgitation of the 5th century heresy known as Nestorianism.
 
40.png
Franz:
somebody please help me with this information I was given. I don’t really understand. They are using scripture however the site is very anticatholic so I’m skeptical.

contenderministries.org/Catholicism/marymother.php
Click to expand...
One of the biggest errors in this article, besides the implicit acceptance of the Nestorian heresy, is the argument that since Mary wasn’t the “supplier” of Jesus’ soul, she wasn’t the Mother of God. However, no mother is a supplier of anyone’s soul, because our souls are directly created by God! Thus, since the “supplier” of all souls is God, then that argument is moot. As for all the prooftexting, I offer a single scriptual text to refute them all:
Luke 1:41-43:
And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
Click to expand...
Peace be with you,

The Augustinian
 
And another thing: no-one can “refute” Mariology. Mariology is the study of, and also a set of beliefs concerning the importance of the Blessed Virgin, and is thus neutral to religious belief: you can have a Catholic, an Orthodox, a Protestant, even a Muslim, Pagan and Athiest/Agnostic Mariology!

As Catholics, our Mariology is the most accurate, since it is in line with Tradition and the Church, and moreover, it is accurate because it is centered on Jesus Christ!
 
Here’s their conclusion:
Conclusion: Jesus Christ the man is the son of Mary. The Second Person of the Trinity is her God, not her son, for He did not originate in her womb.

This is quite similar to Nestorionism. Hmm… the devil who spreads this error doen’t seem to keep mum about this long condemned error of Nestorius, a catholic bishop who was excommunicated by the Catholic Church. It’s very worthwhile reading the Council of Ephesus regarding this matter, see: ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/EPHESUS.HTM

Pio
 
The Augustinian:
And another thing: no-one can “refute” Mariology. Mariology is the study of, and also a set of beliefs concerning the importance of the Blessed Virgin, and is thus neutral to religious belief: you can have a Catholic, an Orthodox, a Protestant, even a Muslim, Pagan and Athiest/Agnostic Mariology!

As Catholics, our Mariology is the most accurate, since it is in line with Tradition and the Church, and moreover, it is accurate because it is centered on Jesus Christ!
Click to expand...
I think the person who started this thread probably meant mariolatry, the mistaken notion than Catholics worship Mary with the same divine reverence due only to God. Heck, even Catholics refute mariolotry.
 
40.png
Apologia100:
I think the person who started this thread probably meant mariolatry, the mistaken notion than Catholics worship Mary with the same divine reverence due only to God. Heck, even Catholics refute mariolotry.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but many anti-Catholics ignorantly confute the two, such as this site:

apologeticsindex.org/m23.html

There are many, many, many errors concerning the Catholic Church in general, and this is one of them.

In Christ,

The Augustinian
 
Agreed, as I agree with your conclusion about the debunking of a study. You cannot debunk a study of something, only the conclusions based upon that study. For example, you cannot debunk biology, only the theory of evolution, which is a conclusion based on the study of biology. So, therefore, mariolotry is an assumed conclusion of mariology. Since the Catholic Church does not teach the worship of Mary, and indeed condemns the divine reverence to anything but God, one merely needs to look to the catechism to understand that any refutation of the Catholic position of mariolotry is a strawman used to incite anti-Catholicism. The same can be appied to theology, or the “study of God”. However, one can disprove certain conclusions based on the study of God, which the Church does on a regular bases (sic Nestorianism, Pelagianism, Arianism, Monophystism, Gnosticism, Protestantism, “you-name-itism”…)
 
The reason the term “Theotokos” (God-bearer) is important is that it maintains the correct idea of who JESUS is–that He is true God as well as true Man. It is only because Jesus is God that we call Mary Mother of God.
Conclusion: Jesus Christ the man is the son of Mary. The Second Person of the Trinity is her God, not her son, for He did not originate in her womb.
Click to expand...
It’s true that the Second Person of the Trinity is Mary’s God as well as ours; He is her savior and ours. But Jesus Christ is one Person, not two. And that Person is the Second Person of the Trinity, who chose her to be His mother.

Human natures don’t have mothers, persons do. As pointed out previously, my mother did not create my soul. Do I therefore say, “Well, she is not really my mother, but only the mother of my body.”?

Why do people have such a problem with the Second Person of the Trinity voluntarily taking on a human nature and *choosing to have a human mother * in order to do so? Motherhood doesn’t in this case imply priority in time or in eternity, nor does it imply that she somehow generated the 2nd Person of the Trinity.

JimG
 
They’re not debunking it with Scripture, they’re (TRYING TO) debunking with their interpretation of scripture which they think is the exact same thing as Scripture.

Unless they’re claiming to be infallible in their interpretations of scripture…they have nothing to stand on.
 
JimG,

I support your explanation which is purely Catholic doctrine. Somehow, their view of Scripture can also be refuted by Scripture. For there is only one truth and never can be many truths. It’s only that their interpretation is erroneous, and merits rectification.

In Luke chapter 1, it tells us the account when Mary visited Elizabeth, her cousin.

"When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the infant leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth, filled with the holy Spirit, cried out in a loud voice and said, “Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb. And how does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?”

It’s very clear that Mary was the mother of the Lord and she was filled with the holy Spirit when she uttered those words. In short, it was the holy Spirit confirming that she is the mother of the Lord.

Pio
 
Hi Franz, I am a protestant, but not an anti-catholic and frankly, I do not see how the site you posted refutes the fact that Mary was the mother of Jesus. In fact, I find it interresting that the author of that site must do things like,
“While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The son of MARY. He saith unto them, How then doth MARY call him Lord, saying, My soul doth magnify the Lord, And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. (Luke 1:46, 47) If MARY then call him Lord, how is he her son? And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.”
Click to expand...
replacing “david” with “mary”, and ignoring the context of the text.
**
Basically, the site you listed confuses the meaning of Mother of God with “originator of God”. No catholic that I know claims that Mary was the creator, originator of God.
**

Take the time from your own sources of theology to define, Mother of God.
Mary’s Divine motherhood
Click to expand...
Mary’s Divine motherhood is based on the teaching of the Gospels, on the writings of the Fathers, and on the express definition of the Church. St. Matthew (1:25) testifies that Mary “brought forth her first-born son” and that He was called Jesus. According to St. John (1:15) Jesus is the Word made flesh, the Word Who assumed human nature in the womb of Mary. As Mary was truly the mother of Jesus, and as Jesus was truly God from the first moment of His conception, Mary is truly the mother of God. Even the earliest Fathers did not hesitate to draw this conclusion as may be seen in the writings of St. Ignatius [72], St. Irenaeus [73], and Tertullian [74]. The contention of Nestorius denying to Mary the title “Mother of God” [75] was followed by the teaching of the Council of Ephesus proclaiming Mary to be Theotokos in the true sense of the word. [76]
Click to expand...
newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top