MARY THE MOTHER OF GOD ... WHY IS THIS TITLE AT ALL CONTROVERSIAL???

[Nanny1935]

Hello, for the first time in a long while.

Our Lady has many titles, but the one that seems the most basic to me is the topic of my linked blog post: "Mary, the Mother of God".
See blog post HERE.
If we do not acknowledge Mary to be the Mother of God we are not acknowledging her Son, Jesus Christ, as being both God and Man.
Do some non-Catholics REALLY believe that Catholics think that Mary is the mother of the Most Holy Trinity????

(As a convert, I pray that I may learn to love Our Mother just as Our Lord Jesus Christ loves her. After 28 years as a Catholic I still haven't made a great effort to love her although I do (try to) pray a daily Rosary.)

Thoughts anyone?

- Reg

+
JMJ

With respect for your strong feelings regarding the adoration of Mary, I do not see that the topic is any more controversial than the core disagreement: the interpretation of justification by faith. I share the perplexity expressed in various comments, including yours, about the logic of the Protestant argument, although I see it from a different perspective:
From what I know, the core issue is not the understanding of the Holy Trinity (most protestant denominations hold views very similar to the Catholic Church on this, and the issue of origination/bearing it seems also clear to theologians), but Protestant rejection of the Catholic doctrines of the Immaculate Conception and Assumption.
From the protestant writings (I am not an expert, so I may be missing some key document) the argument seems to flow from Justification by faith alone to denying the Catholic doctrines: the protestant see Mary as another believer awaiting the final resurrection, which would only be granted by God's grace. It is a very narrow interpretation of the protestant belief that human merit can not grant salvation (justification by faith alone).

To see this: it is possible to hold the Protestant belief of Justification by faith alone AND believe in the doctrines of Immaculate Conception and Assumption.
Here is how the argument would flow within the protestant framework: In His plan (Protestant belief of predestination), God preserved Mary from the stain of original sin from the very beginning of her existence, in anticipation of her role as the Mother of the Savior. Mary's Assumption is the logical result of this. In the protestant framework, good works are the result of the Grace of God that inspire us in our actions: 2 Cor 5:17 "So whoever is in Christ is a new creation: the old things have passed away; behold, new things have come." This would apply to Mary, except that the plan predates the physical presence on Jesus on earth. Since Protestants believe in the timeless nature of God, it is possible to state that Mary was with Jesus even before his brith. Therefore we can state that Mary was justified by faith and that she is indeed in heaven as the doctrine of the assumption teaches.
In math we call this proof by contradiction.

The reading of 2 Cor 5:17 in the protestant perspective gives an answer to the puzzle of James 2:24: "See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone." It is by God's grace that we do the works.
This is a deep, most beautiful thought, which asks to abandon all ego-centered interpretation of our righteousness. I feel that all Christian denominations can agree on this. Yet, it has been the source of fracturing. We can foster controversy and strong feelings, but we can also chose to be an instrument of peace.

 

[BartholomewB]

The reading of 2 Cor 5:17 in the protestant perspective gives an answer to the puzzle of James 2:24: "See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone." It is by God's grace that we do the works.

Another possible answer to the puzzle is this, from the New Jerome Biblical Commentary, p. 913a:

As is clear from context, this does not mean that genuine faith is insufficient for justification, but that faith unaccompanied by works is not genuine. There is thus no basic disagreement of James with Paul, for whom faith “works through love” (Gal 5:6).

https://archive.org/details/the-new-jerome-biblical-commentary/page/912/mode/2up

 

[Nanny1935]

Another possible answer to the puzzle is this, from the New Jerome Biblical Commentary, p. 913a:

As is clear from context, this does not mean that genuine faith is insufficient for justification, but that faith unaccompanied by works is not genuine. There is thus no basic disagreement of James with Paul, for whom faith “works through love” (Gal 5:6).

https://archive.org/details/the-new-jerome-biblical-commentary/page/912/mode/2up

Exactly, there is agreement on that- if your faith is genuine, you live accordingly
the second part is the complexity: but, we are human and fallible: How many times do we repent from our mistakes? How many times do we have to face our failures, be accountable and have the drive to correct them? The strength, the discernment to continue on the good path comes from God.
The humility to recognize that we are ultimately God's creatures and any good we do is from his divine presence in our hearts: "works through love"

 

[Nanny1935]

Thank you BartholomewB. Reginator: Catholic Marian Devotion is consistent with our beliefs of the communion of the saints. Mary, as mother of God, is at the center of it. We ask for the intercession of Mary and other saints. Protestants believe that such practices detract from the unique role of Christ as mediator and that prayer should be directed to God alone (as justification is by faith alone- the constant repetition, which gives a unified consistency to their theology, is a reflection their complete focus on St. Augustine of Hippo). This very narrow view, has created internal debate in reform theology (over 400 years of it, with many loose ends), today most mainstream protestant religions have abandoned the Calvinist principle of double predestination- the building block of their view of justification by faith, which opens the doors for further revisions and interfaith dialogue.
As a Catholic, I view the community of the saints as a special gift from God to assist us. Protestants have a path, I do think that God is with them, as His love will respond to all honest human pledges. We Catholics have our path, personally I think ours is richer and at times easier, as we have mediators who at moments of "special needs" may offer the view of God that we need (God is infinite, impossible for us to fully grasp). Christ is not less in Catholic religion than in the Protestant, but we humans sometimes need an extra help to understand the subtlety of God's challenges in our life. I have learnt from Protestant narrow focus too, and my life is richer for it.

 

[BartholomewB]

Do some non-Catholics REALLY believe that Catholics think that Mary is the mother of the Most Holy Trinity????

I have never seen or heard a non-Catholic make that statement, either in speech or in writing, but I think I can see where a Protestant would be coming from if he did say that.

We all, Catholics and Protestants alike, believe in a trinitarian or triune God. God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, three persons in one God. For someone who had never until this moment heard anyone say “God has a mother”, it would naturally sound as if they meant “The Triune God has a mother”, that is to say, “All three Persons have a mother.”

Of course you know and I know, and all Catholics know, that’s not what we mean when we use the term “Mother of God” or “Theotokos”, but for someone who is encountering the expression for the first time it would naturally sound as if that was what we meant.

 

[The_Reginator]

Remember that God, not their mother, is the Creator of all. Hence Mary being the Mother of God does not in any way imply that she created God.

It's no wonder that Protestants have trouble with this idea. (I am a convert myself.) So much of what Our Lord does is beyond our ability to understand. On the face of it, to say that Mary is the mother of her creator seems, well, rather odd, eh?
What I have ALWAYS gotten from this title, even as a protestant, is that by calling Mary THE MOTHER OF GOD we are declaring Jesus' divinity.

 

[Nanny1935]

It's no wonder that Protestants have trouble with this idea. (I am a convert myself.) So much of what Our Lord does is beyond our ability to understand. On the face of it, to say that Mary is the mother of her creator seems, well, rather odd, eh?
What I have ALWAYS gotten from this title, even as a protestant, is that by calling Mary THE MOTHER OF GOD we are declaring Jesus' divinity.

This article, from a protestant group, alludes to the "modern use" of Mary MOTHER of GOD as opposed to the (old) Theotokos: God-Bearer, Not God’s Origin. The temporal designation is not quite correct- there are signs of Marian Devotion as early as the 2nd Century in the Roman Catacombs.
The article states:
"Sadly, in many religious traditions today, the term “Mother of God” no longer carries its original meaning. Instead of pointing to Christ’s divinity, it is often used to promote Marian devotion, veneration, and even prayers to Mary.
This is where we see serious biblical concerns arise."

https://biblical-christianity.com/why-mary-is-not-the-mother-of-god

If you search, there should be many articles along the same vein. While Luther wrote with high esteem about Mary ( Formula of Concord and the Smalcald Articles teach the dogma of Theotokos and the perpetual virginity of Mary), he also opposed regarding Mary as a mediatrix of redemption was part of his greater and more extensive opposition to the belief that the merits of the saints could be added to those of Jesus Christ to save humanity. See for example https://academic.oup.com/edited-vol...290532956?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=false
I have direct knowledge of Lutheran teaching, as I went to a German school in which most of the students were Lutheran and we discussed the differences.
John Calvin was influenced my Luther,
In his letter of 27 September 1552 to the French Church in London, where some had denied that Mary was the mother of God, he answered: "there may have been somewhat of ignorance in their reproving the way of speaking of the Virgin Mary as the mother of God, and together with ignorance, it is possible that there may have been rashness and too much forwardness, for, as the old proverb says, The most ignorant are ever the boldest."

But in the same letter Calvin rejected the use of "mother of God" as common title which could be used to designate Mary in any sermons. He wrote: "I cannot think such language either right, or becoming, or suitable. ... To call the Virgin Mary the mother of God can only serve to confirm the ignorant in their superstitions."
Calvin maintained the venerating Mary and asking for her intercession in salvation was a superstition because only through the Son we can get to the Father.

Letters of John Calvin

This English edition of the epistolary writings of Calvin, complete in four volumes, contains six hundred sixty-eight letters, last discourses, and an appendix of eighteen additional letters. The letters here are selected from the Paris edition, which embraces the originals of all that are...

books.google.com

 

[Nanny1935]

It's no wonder that Protestants have trouble with this idea. (I am a convert myself.) So much of what Our Lord does is beyond our ability to understand. On the face of it, to say that Mary is the mother of her creator seems, well, rather odd, eh?
What I have ALWAYS gotten from this title, even as a protestant, is that by calling Mary THE MOTHER OF GOD we are declaring Jesus' divinity.

Reginator, I want to address the emotional part of your posting- what you were told as a Protestant, before you converted- left an emotional imprint. I feel conversion is not so much a change of dogma, as it is a spiritual journey, within an emotional realm, as well as affecting our emotions. Thus, the controversy! We can not address and solve a religious controversy purely on rational arguments. There is a strong emotional core in our convictions. It was present, perhaps driving your decision to change faith. It is probably similar for those who remain protestants.
The letter from Calvin, as well as the position of Luther, are interesting because they are considering dogma- they accept the concept of Mary as the mother of God (the mother of Jesus, the son of God, and Jesus, God incarnated, the Holy trinity), but they considered that it should not be taught that way to the congregations, because it could be misunderstood (an emotional consideration)
This may be an error, in several ways, but it is not the issue of the posting to discuss that.
The decision to separate the teaching from the fundamental dogma may have created confusion for their followers, including ministers of the different protestant denominations that formed over 400 years. The religious confusion is not just intellectual- as young adults we hear something that makes an impression- it has a cognitive impact as well as emotional and spiritual one.

 

[Linda Sorento]

Hello, for the first time in a long while.

Our Lady has many titles, but the one that seems the most basic to me is the topic of my linked blog post: "Mary, the Mother of God".
See blog post HERE.
If we do not acknowledge Mary to be the Mother of God we are not acknowledging her Son, Jesus Christ, as being both God and Man.
Do some non-Catholics REALLY believe that Catholics think that Mary is the mother of the Most Holy Trinity????

(As a convert, I pray that I may learn to love Our Mother just as Our Lord Jesus Christ loves her. After 28 years as a Catholic I still haven't made a great effort to love her although I do (try to) pray a daily Rosary.)

Thoughts anyone?

- Reg

+
JMJ

 

[Nanny1935]

And that "ontological inference" would be wrong. No Catholic thinks that Mary predated God or created Him.

Is Christ God? Certainly.

And is Mary His mother? Certainly.

It's no more complicated than that.

I got back to this thread bc of a recent posting.
You wrote "The words "mother of God" could be not more complicated than that-" however in Catholicism the role of Mary, as the mother of God goes beyond the "Theotokos". Educated protestants - like Martin Luther and Jean Calvin, knew that. (I explain above the differences and why they instructed ministers of their churches not to include teachings from their sermons, even if they (Luther and Calvin) did belief in.
The role of the Virgin Mary can not be separated from "mother of God". The difference between Catholics and protestants is that Catholics believe in both the immaculate conception and the assumption, while Protestants do not.
In the Catholic faith Mary is at the center of the Communion of the Saints (because she was chosen by God to be the mother of God- belief in the immaculate conception). Our veneration of Mary is driven by her graces as a unique intercessor for believers (belief on the Assumption of Mary) .
I was born Catholic to a family that venerated the Virgin Mary. It is very unsettling to read from another Catholic not recognizing her graces ("It is not more complicated than that") You are a converted protestant, so I guess it is not second nature to you, as it is to me.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

I got back to this thread bc of a recent posting.
You wrote "The words "mother of God" could be not more complicated than that-" however in Catholicism the role of Mary, as the mother of God goes beyond the "Theotokos". Educated protestants - like Martin Luther and Jean Calvin, knew that. (I explain above the differences and why they instructed ministers of their churches not to include teachings from their sermons, even if they (Luther and Calvin) did belief in.
The role of the Virgin Mary can not be separated from "mother of God". The difference between Catholics and protestants is that Catholics believe in both the immaculate conception and the assumption, while Protestants do not.
In the Catholic faith Mary is at the center of the Communion of the Saints (because she was chosen by God to be the mother of God- belief in the immaculate conception). Our veneration of Mary is driven by her graces as a unique intercessor for believers (belief on the Assumption of Mary) .
I was born Catholic to a family that venerated the Virgin Mary. It is very unsettling to read from another Catholic not recognizing her graces ("It is not more complicated than that") You are a converted protestant, so I guess it is not second nature to you, as it is to me.

Though I was never formally a Protestant (I wasn't really anything), I was raised in such an environment, fundamentalist evangelical Protestantism permeated the whole culture, and in all honesty, yes, Marian devotion is something I had to acquire and make sense of in my own mind. I am deeply devoted to Our Lady and I wear her Brown Scapular day and night. I recite prayers seeking her intercession daily.

The general Protestant "allergy" to Marian devotion stems from two closely related things:

• First, their gut reaction to imagining that anyone other than Our Lord (I include here all three persons of the Blessed Trinity) could be the object of anything even tending towards worship. Simply put, they see us honoring (not worshiping) Our Lady, and see it as a kind of idolatry, as though we make her into a kind of demigod. Calling her "Mother of God" presses every button they've got. They do not see it through the syllogism I used upthread. A Protestant, reading that syllogism, might say "yes, you're right, all of that makes sense, but... calling her 'Mother of God'... that just doesn't sound right!".
• Second, their fear of having anyone in heaven as a mediator other than Jesus. They have no compunction whatsoever of asking people in this life to pray for them, but once that person has died, they regard asking their intercession as, again, replacing the Lord Jesus as the "one mediator between God and man" ("God" here clearly being God the Father). We're not doing that, but, again, they don't see it.

Simply put, they think we make Mary into a god, and to their ears, saying "Mother of God" suggests that, in some way, she created God. If that were indeed the suggestion, they'd be right to be horrified, but that is not the suggestion that we make when we say "Mother of God".

 

[Nanny1935]

Though I was never formally a Protestant (I wasn't really anything), I was raised in such an environment, fundamentalist evangelical Protestantism permeated the whole culture, and in all honesty, yes, Marian devotion is something I had to acquire and make sense of in my own mind. I am deeply devoted to Our Lady and I wear her Brown Scapular day and night. I recite prayers seeking her intercession daily.

The general Protestant "allergy" to Marian devotion stems from two closely related things:

• First, their gut reaction to imagining that anyone other than Our Lord (I include here all three persons of the Blessed Trinity) could be the object of anything even tending towards worship. Simply put, they see us honoring (not worshiping) Our Lady, and see it as a kind of idolatry, as though we make her into a kind of demigod. Calling her "Mother of God" presses every button they've got. They do not see it through the syllogism I used upthread. A Protestant, reading that syllogism, might say "yes, you're right, all of that makes sense, but... calling her 'Mother of God'... that just doesn't sound right!".
• Second, their fear of having anyone in heaven as a mediator other than Jesus. They have no compunction whatsoever of asking people in this life to pray for them, but once that person has died, they regard asking their intercession as, again, replacing the Lord Jesus as the "one mediator between God and man" ("God" here clearly being God the Father). We're not doing that, but, again, they don't see it.

Simply put, they think we make Mary into a god, and to their ears, saying "Mother of God" suggests that, in some way, she created God. If that were indeed the suggestion, they'd be right to be horrified, but that is not the suggestion that we make when we say "Mother of God".

Thank you for your answer - it is hard to talk about protestants as a group with common unified beliefs. I used "educated" protestants, which is not really a nice term - in order to differentiate two groups. The "mainstream" protestants who have more formal training, like seminaries (RTS or Lutheran seminaries, etc.), and look for a unifying doctrine- as in the Westminster Confession: they would be closer to Luther and Calvin's writings - and both of them had big respect for Mary as the mother of God and the trinity. However, neither accepts the Immaculate conception and Assumption. Denominations in this group would be Lutherans, Presbyterians (PC(USA)), Anglicans, I am more familiar with. Note that Presbyterians PC(USA) is different than PCA.
I know very little about fundamentalist evangelical Protestants- and I will take your word describing their beliefs. I would agree that your second point overlaps with the mainstream protestants and the teaching of Luther and Calvin. I write "I would" rather than I agree, because I do not know the details and there might be differences there- but in spirit they seem to coincide.
The first one sounds like a caricature, i hope I do not offend evangelicals. My experience with mainstream protestants is that they are more serious and have more respect for Catholic beliefs (without sharing them, or even knowing enough about them) As I said, both Luther and Calvin had great respect for the Virgin Mary and their disagreement with the Catholic Church was driven by what they view as an abuse of power by the Catholic Church at the time (the matter of paid indulgences for example). Their writing came as a response to that, they emphasized the sovereignty of God (Justification by faith only) - to provide an alternative to the "need for intercession". But also, Luther and Calvin were great thinkers that composed solid treatises, which many fundamentalist evangelicals would not fully understand. Catholics have a better chance to understand them, as both thinkers had a Catholic formation. (Please, I hope I will not get a barrage of attacking comments here- it is possible to understand a writing, even understand it well, without necessarily agreeing with it. It is possible to find merit in parts of it, without necessarily agreeing with the whole of it.)

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Thank you for your answer - it is hard to talk about protestants as a group with common unified beliefs. I used "educated" protestants, which is not really a nice term - in order to differentiate two groups. The "mainstream" protestants who have more formal training, like seminaries (RTS or Lutheran seminaries, etc.), and look for a unifying doctrine- as in the Westminster Confession: they would be closer to Luther and Calvin's writings - and both of them had big respect for Mary as the mother of God and the trinity. However, neither accepts the Immaculate conception and Assumption. Denominations in this group would be Lutherans, Presbyterians (PC(USA)), Anglicans, I am more familiar with. Note that Presbyterians PC(USA) is different than PCA.
I know very little about fundamentalist evangelical Protestants- and I will take your word describing their beliefs. I would agree that your second point overlaps with the mainstream protestants and the teaching of Luther and Calvin. I write "I would" rather than I agree, because I do not know the details and there might be differences there- but in spirit they seem to coincide.
The first one sounds like a caricature, i hope I do not offend evangelicals. My experience with mainstream protestants is that they are more serious and have more respect for Catholic beliefs (without sharing them, or even knowing enough about them) As I said, both Luther and Calvin had great respect for the Virgin Mary and their disagreement with the Catholic Church was driven by what they view as an abuse of power by the Catholic Church at the time (the matter of paid indulgences for example). Their writing came as a response to that, they emphasized the sovereignty of God (Justification by faith only) - to provide an alternative to the "need for intercession". But also, Luther and Calvin were great thinkers that composed solid treatises, which many fundamentalist evangelicals would not fully understand. Catholics have a better chance to understand them, as both thinkers had a Catholic formation. (Please, I hope I will not get a barraged of attacking comments here- it is possible to understand a writing, even understand it well, without necessarily agreeing with it. It is possible to find merit in parts of it, without necessarily agreeing with the whole of it.)

Very good summary. Keep in mind that Luther and Calvin started out as Catholics, Luther a priest, Calvin a layman, and neither of them were nearly as removed from Catholicism as those in later years, and in the present day, who look to them as their spiritual forebears.

Mainstream Protestants, at least the educated ones as you note, do have a greater understanding of Catholic beliefs, and might share them to a greater or lesser extent. One other aspect of Protestants' "allergy" to Catholic Marian dogma, is that they generally maintain Mary and Joseph lived as a normal married couple, having several children after Jesus (the "brothers and sisters of Jesus" found in the Bible). Those alleged siblings could either be cousins or possibly Joseph's children from a previous marriage. It is entirely possible that a devout Anglo-Catholic could even believe privately in the Assumption and even the Immaculate Conception.

Nothing you say should be offensive to evangelicals, you are simply describing what they believe (or disbelieve as the case may be). As to garden-variety evangelical fundamentalists (I am thinking Baptists, Pentecostalists, the various "Churches of God", and so on), while their ministers might have had some exposure to the Fathers of the Church and so on, the laity, especially the less-educated ones, generally do not involve themselves with such things, and simply "read the Bible". They are radically sola scriptura. And of course each group, and even individuals within groups, have every "take" under the sun on that same Scripture. There are more shades of Protestantism than can be named, and each one of those shades is just a wee bit different from any of the other of them.

 

[Nanny1935]

Very good summary. Keep in mind that Luther and Calvin started out as Catholics, Luther a priest, Calvin a layman, and neither of them were nearly as removed from Catholicism as those in later years, and in the present day, who look to them as their spiritual forebears.

Mainstream Protestants, at least the educated ones as you note, do have a greater understanding of Catholic beliefs, and might share them to a greater or lesser extent. One other aspect of Protestants' "allergy" to Catholic Marian dogma, is that they generally maintain Mary and Joseph lived as a normal married couple, having several children after Jesus (the "brothers and sisters of Jesus" found in the Bible). Those alleged siblings could either be cousins or possibly Joseph's children from a previous marriage. It is entirely possible that a devout Anglo-Catholic could even believe privately in the Assumption and even the Immaculate Conception.

Nothing you say should be offensive to evangelicals, you are simply describing what they believe (or disbelieve as the case may be). As to garden-variety evangelical fundamentalists (I am thinking Baptists, Pentecostalists, the various "Churches of God", and so on), while their ministers might have had some exposure to the Fathers of the Church and so on, the laity, especially the less-educated ones, generally do not involve themselves with such things, and simply "read the Bible". They are radically sola scriptura. And of course each group, and even individuals within groups, have every "take" under the sun on that same Scripture. There are more shades of Protestantism than can be named, and each one of those shades is just a wee bit different from any of the other of them.

Sola scriptura is not limited to the bible. The writings of St. Augustine of Hippo are key in their interpretation of Corinthians and sola fide by Luther and Calvin. Well educated protestants will have study this as well.
It one goes to the writings of Luther and Calvin, and talks with good Protestant theologian, there is a lot of nuance and the positions are not that different from Catholicism. However:
Researching the issue I found this:
In his letter of 27 September 1552 to the French Church in London, where some had denied that Mary was the mother of God, he answered: "there may have been somewhat of ignorance in their reproving the way of speaking of the Virgin Mary as the mother of God, and together with ignorance, it is possible that there may have been rashness and too much forwardness, for, as the old proverb says, The most ignorant are ever the boldest."

But in the same letter Calvin rejected the use of "mother of God" as common title which could be used to designate Mary in any sermons. He wrote: "I cannot think such language either right, or becoming, or suitable. ... To call the Virgin Mary the mother of God can only serve to confirm the ignorant in their superstitions."

This is a double standard (coming from a fear of superstition), is saying, if you are very educated, we will bring you into this nuanced understanding. If not, we will give a simplified version, because they will not be able to understand.
When I read this, I tought that a lot of the simplistic "sola scriptura" interpretation that we see in practice- just reciting verses from the bible- may come from this double standard.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Sola scriptura is not limited to the bible. The writings of St. Augustine of Hippo are key in their interpretation of Corinthians and sola fide by Luther and Calvin. Well educated protestants will have study this as well.
It one goes to the writings of Luther and Calvin, and talks with good Protestant theologian, there is a lot of nuance and the positions are not that different from Catholicism. However:
Researching the issue I found this:
In his letter of 27 September 1552 to the French Church in London, where some had denied that Mary was the mother of God, he answered: "there may have been somewhat of ignorance in their reproving the way of speaking of the Virgin Mary as the mother of God, and together with ignorance, it is possible that there may have been rashness and too much forwardness, for, as the old proverb says, The most ignorant are ever the boldest."

But in the same letter Calvin rejected the use of "mother of God" as common title which could be used to designate Mary in any sermons. He wrote: "I cannot think such language either right, or becoming, or suitable. ... To call the Virgin Mary the mother of God can only serve to confirm the ignorant in their superstitions."

This is a double standard (coming from a fear of superstition), is saying, if you are very educated, we will bring you into this nuanced understanding. If not, we will give a simplified version, because they will not be able to understand.
When I read this, I tought that a lot of the simplistic "sola scriptura" interpretation that we see in practice- just reciting verses from the bible- may come from this double standard.

And the quote from Calvin that you cite would be the thinking of a typical Protestant of whatever stripe. If presented with the syllogism I used, they would likely say "yes, it makes sense, but 'mother of God', that just doesn't sound right, it comes across as sounding like she came before God and created him, and is in some way superior to him". An analogous case of being scandalized by linguistics, "the 'sound' of something", might be how the Greek equivalent of filioque "just doesn't come out right" in Greek, so I have heard.

But the typical evangelical in the pew, the common person you would encounter at the tens of thousands of simple, rural, "country" churches in the American heartland, would very likely not even be able to tell you who the Fathers of the Church even were. At best they might have heard their names. They cling to the Bible and only the Bible. My evangelical grandmothers, and several of my aunts, were simple, holy, Bible-believing women, but if you had asked them what they thought of Augustine of Hippo, Cyprian, Polycarp, and so on, they would have had no clue who you were talking about. For the average evangelical layperson, their consciousness of the historical Church begins and ends with their own lifetimes and possibly with the history of evangelicalism in this country. If they even knew who Luther or Calvin were, they would have said something like "they were preachers who got people back to the Bible". To them, Catholicism was some weird quasi-cult that "foreigners" brought over here with them, and isn't the Christianity of the Bible. You'd have to explain the Church Fathers to them as "preachers from way back in ancient times" (which, in a sense, they were). If you explained that the Assumption was "Mary being 'raptured' into heaven", they'd say "that's not anywhere in the Bible".

 

[Nanny1935]

And the quote from Calvin that you cite would be the thinking of a typical Protestant of whatever stripe. If presented with the syllogism I used, they would likely say "yes, it makes sense, but 'mother of God', that just doesn't sound right, it comes across as sounding like she came before God and created him, and is in some way superior to him". An analogous case of being scandalized by linguistics, "the 'sound' of something", might be how the Greek equivalent of filioque "just doesn't come out right" in Greek, so I have heard.

By the quote, do you mean "I cannot think such language either right, or becoming, or suitable. ... To call the Virgin Mary the mother of God can only serve to confirm the ignorant in their superstitions."
I found it disturbing.
I do not think that the mainstream protestants have a problem understanding "mother of God". I shared that I went to a German school in which the majority of students were Lutherans. They believe that Mary had a "normal" life and that Jesus had brothers, but they accept the Holy Trinity, and its logical conclusion: Mary is the mother of God and that was that. (meaning,end of discussion, no problem, but also: Mary has no role interceding for us). Anglicans and Presbyterians as well honor Mary as Theotokos .

But the typical evangelical in the pew, the common person you would encounter at the tens of thousands of simple, rural, "country" churches in the American heartland, would very likely not even be able to tell you who the Fathers of the Church even were. At best they might have heard their names. They cling to the Bible and only the Bible. My evangelical grandmothers, and several of my aunts, were simple, holy, Bible-believing women, but if you had asked them what they thought of Augustine of Hippo, Cyprian, Polycarp, and so on, they would have had no clue who you were talking about. For the average evangelical layperson, their consciousness of the historical Church begins and ends with their own lifetimes and possibly with the history of evangelicalism in this country. If they even knew who Luther or Calvin were, they would have said something like "they were preachers who got people back to the Bible". To them, Catholicism was some weird quasi-cult that "foreigners" brought over here with them, and isn't the Christianity of the Bible. You'd have to explain the Church Fathers to them as "preachers from way back in ancient times" (which, in a sense, they were). If you explained that the Assumption was "Mary being 'raptured' into heaven", they'd say "that's not anywhere in the Bible"

Thanks for the description- it rings true. Especially the description of what Catholicism would be to them (cult and "foreigners")
What about the ministers in those churches? How well do they know teachings that are not the Bible? I think that is were the issue is. That is were Calvin's double standard would have had an effect: if those ministers fell on the category of "do not include these teaching (to them), even if I belief it", they were not taught all the writings of the Church fathers and they went into the world only with the "knowledge" of the bible.
" " around knowledge is to recognize that our knowledge of the bible is influenced by the centuries of theological writings.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

By the quote, do you mean "I cannot think such language either right, or becoming, or suitable. ... To call the Virgin Mary the mother of God can only serve to confirm the ignorant in their superstitions."
I found it disturbing.
I do not think that the mainstream protestants have a problem understanding "mother of God". I shared that I went to a German school in which the majority of students were Lutherans. They believe that Mary had a "normal" life and that Jesus had brothers, but they accept the Holy Trinity, and its logical conclusion: Mary is the mother of God and that was that. (meaning,end of discussion, no problem, but also: Mary has no role interceding for us). Anglicans and Presbyterians as well honor Mary as Theotokos .

Well, those were Lutherans, and if you mean by "German school" that the school was in Germany, chances are they were more erudite and sophisticated than the plain, simple fundamentalists whom I described.

Thanks for the description- it rings true. Especially the description of what Catholicism would be to them (cult and "foreigners")
What about the ministers in those churches? How well do they know teachings that are not the Bible? I

In such churches, the ministers wouldn't even entertain any "teachings that are not in the Bible".

 

[Nanny1935]

Well, those were Lutherans, and if you mean by "German school" that the school was in Germany, chances are they were more erudite and sophisticated than the plain, simple fundamentalists whom I described.



In such churches, the ministers wouldn't even entertain any "teachings that are not in the Bible".

Apologies, I am not trying to be fastidious. It is strange for me to associate fundamentalist with protestant doctrine - historically, protestants are Lutherans and then Calvinist (my German history class at the Gymnasium- yes, the top academic high school in German school system, so even religious teachings was strong), that is, associated with mainline protestants.
But, to make things more complicated, not all evangelicals are fundamentalists. I was unable to get an estimate for the share of evangelical fundamentalists. Note that famous evangelicals, like Billy Graham and Tim Keller did not considered themselves fundamentalists.
Fundamentalists seem to be a smaller share and not representative by theological teaching either (like a deviation from Luther and Calvins original intent, since both of them valued writings from early church fathers to interpret the bible)

 

[HomeschoolDad]

You are quite right, evangelicals and fundamentalists are not necessarily one and the same. One could say that all fundamentalists are evangelicals, but not all evangelicals are fundamentalists.

My frame of reference is small-town and rural life in a broad area of the Southern and Midwestern United States (really on the edges of both areas, they tend to overlap in places). For most, religion is not really a scholarly thing, it is more "getting saved" by "accepting Jesus as your Lord and personal Savior". It's all about that radical change in one's life, and about, as they see it, the plain words of the Bible. Much of it is about feelings, and emotions, and lived experience. It's something that may be hard to understand unless you've lived among these people, as I have.

 

[Nanny1935]

You are quite right, evangelicals and fundamentalists are not necessarily one and the same. One could say that all fundamentalists are evangelicals, but not all evangelicals are fundamentalists.

My frame of reference is small-town and rural life in a broad area of the Southern and Midwestern United States (really on the edges of both areas, they tend to overlap in places). For most, religion is not really a scholarly thing, it is more "getting saved" by "accepting Jesus as your Lord and personal Savior". It's all about that radical change in one's life, and about, as they see it, the plain words of the Bible. Much of it is about feelings, and emotions, and lived experience. It's something that may be hard to understand unless you've lived among these people, as I have.

Actually, I can relate. Many catholics, especially in rural areas and small towns have simple lives of faith as well. In early adolescence I spent summer in the country side - in a predominately Catholic community. Nobody was concerned with theology, nor questioned too much. When in doubt they consulted the deacon or the priest, the rest was submission to God's will in the way it made sense in their lives.
It brings to mind the many followers of Padre Pio - the type of faith he inspired in people. I visited San Giovanni Rotondo, got there by train/bus. A few changes along the route and then stayed in a "pensione" from a local family (it was simply a family that rented rooms). Part of the journey was the people I met and what Padre Pio meant to them.
On the other hand, (again, i hope I will not get comments attacking me) - I belief that God listens to all prayers, especially those from pure hearts - I doubt not that your grandmother and aunts had lives of spirituality, probably filled with small miracles that confirmed their faith.