Non-Catholic Christians: Mary, mother of the Church?

[Lenten_ashes]

So, I have to ask, why would Jesus leave Mary with John instead of one of his siblings taking her into their house, after all it is their own mother?

Million dollar question for fundamentalists.

If they believe He had those siblings then they must also believe that the last thing He did on the cross was to grievously insult them. Because in 1st century Judea it would have been their responsibility to do so…Heck, in 21st century America it should be their responsibility to do so.

 

[JMM1957]

Million dollar question for fundamentalists.

If they believe He had those siblings then they must also believe that the last thing He did on the cross was to grievously insult them. Because in 1st century Judea it would have been their responsibility to do so…Heck, in 21st century America it should be their responsibility to do so.

I have thought about this question quite a lot over the years, and I just cannot come up with any answer that really makes sense to why Jesus would leave his mother with John and not one of her biological children, if she had some. Not that John wouldn’t be a good caretaker for her, obviously he was.

Years ago I discussed this question with a JW, and the answer they gave was that they believed that some of the siblings of Jesus may have died before the crucifixion, and/or his siblings were not believers and Jesus wanted his mother to be with John instead.

 

[MichaelP3]

What role does the blessed Virgin have in the Church?

Do you object to Catholics claiming she is mother of the Church? I mean, is it something you could see yourself ever believing?

When Jesus is on the cross he has the famous exchange between Him, Mary and John:

Woman, behold thy son! 27 Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home

What does that statement mean in your opinion?

Thank you.

I rather think of Mary drinking a Martini and having a conversation with Moses while having a good time somewhere in heaven.

I wouldn’t say I object primerally to any dogma related to her. I would rather ask what would be the point of it?

 

[Lenten_ashes]

I have thought about this question quite a lot over the years, and I just cannot come up with any answer that really makes sense to why Jesus would leave his mother with John and not one of her biological children, if she had some. Not that John wouldn’t be a good caretaker for her, obviously he was.

Years ago I discussed this question with a JW, and the answer they gave was that they believed that some of the siblings of Jesus may have died before the crucifixion, and/or his siblings were not believers and Jesus wanted his mother to be with John instead.

Life expectancy and medicine wasn’t so great back then, right? Maybe they could say they died? Or they were disabled?

 

[Lenten_ashes]

I rather think of Mary drinking a Martini and having a conversation with Moses while having a good time somewhere in heaven.

I wouldn’t say I object primerally to any dogma related to her. I would rather ask what would be the point of it?

Not sure I understand…what’s the point in the dogmas or the point of objecting to them?

Just out of curiosity is that what you think heaven will be like? The book of revelation seems to paint a different picture. I think we are going to be put to work, just so much easier in a glorified state.

 

[Hatikvah]

I think we are going to be put to work, just so much easier in a glorified state.

What work would there be in Heaven? And do you mean the New Earth or Heaven as it is pre-Judgment?

Of course, we’ll have the Beatific Vision as Mary does now, consisting of perfect happiness. Would it be work in love? St. Augustine says, On Christian Doctrine, Book I, Chapter 33-34, that when we have the Vision, we will be charitably increased to the fullness of human capacity.

But our charitable works would not go towards anything in particular: there’s no way for us to manifest them if everything will be cleansed of sin. We wouldn’t even need to comfort one another:

He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away. (Revelation 21:4, ESV)

All we could do is be in communion with one another, whatever that may be… what would it be?

 

[Lenten_ashes]

What work would there be in Heaven? And do you mean the New Earth or Heaven as it is pre-Judgment?

Of course, we’ll have the Beatific Vision as Mary does now, consisting of perfect happiness. Would it be work in love? St. Augustine says, On Christian Doctrine, Book I, Chapter 33-34, that when we have the Vision, we will be charitably increased to the fullness of human capacity.

But our charitable works would not go towards anything in particular: there’s no way for us to manifest them if everything will be cleansed of sin. We wouldn’t even need to comfort one another:

All we could do is be in communion with one another, whatever that may be… what would it be?

Well, I think it will be much busier before the new earth…

Perhaps a lot of record keeping? I mean God is a God of order and I’m thinking our roles in the communion of saints become more defined there.

I just want my big brick house with the indoor basketball court and the ability to 360 dunk on people lol

 

[Hatikvah]

Well, I think it will be much busier before the new earth…

Perhaps a lot of record keeping? I mean God is a God of order and I’m thinking our roles in the communion of saints become more defined there.

I just want my big brick house with the indoor basketball court and the ability to 360 dunk on people lol

Maybe we can make a thread on this at some point? It’s pretty important to define whether “Eternity” and “after the Last Judgment” consists of 360 dunks and two-pointer shots!

 

[PatrickC]

Catholics believe that Mary was redeemed in advance (born without original sin) and that is why she calls God her Savior – because He is.

Orthodox generally do not believe this and yet ultimately her own Son is her Savior. No one is “born with original sin” like it’s some sort of disease, just the consequences of it.

 

[Reuben_J]

I’m not in the habit of questioning why the Lord does what He does.

Because we do not want to even think of the possibility of why he did that? Because it would make him look bad or otherwise Catholics look right?

There are many things that the Lord did in the Gospels and we often have something to say on why he did them or he would say the reasons himself.

It is highly unlikely that the Gospel writer included this instruction and that it didn’t mean anything. Or that only Jesus knew why he did it but not for us to know. That there were precious few that the writer could write and much more was not written. It would be a terribly waste of space and leaving us with a Gospel puzzle unanswered.

Just a food for thought.

 

[JMM1957]

Orthodox generally do not believe this and yet ultimately her own Son is her Savior. No one is “born with original sin” like it’s some sort of disease, just the consequences of it.

 

[susanlo]

What role does the blessed Virgin have in the Church?

Do you object to Catholics claiming she is mother of the Church? I mean, is it something you could see yourself ever believing?

When Jesus is on the cross he has the famous exchange between Him, Mary and John:

Woman, behold thy son! 27 Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home

What does that statement mean in your opinion?

Thank you.

I personally do not understand how Mary is the mother of Christians. Jesus is the begotten son of God and was present with God before creation. Mary gave birth to Jesus when He came to Earth conceived in her by the Holy Spirit. So although Jesus existed before Mary was created, she was His Earthly mother. While Jesus was on Earth, He invited His followers to call His Father God their Father (Matthew 6:9, Luke 11:2). Paul’s letters teach about how believers are the adopted children of God. I don’t know where it is stated that Mary has adopted all believers as children. I don’t know how we know that she now has the ability to mother all believers and to hear millions of people praying to her at the same time.

I don’t focus very much on whether Mary may or may not have had relations with Joseph after Jesus was born. I don’t think this changes who Jesus is and what He did.

Whether Mary was assumed into heaven would be fascinating to know, but if conclusive evidence was found one way or the other, it would not affect my faith. This would not change the Gospel message and who Jesus is and what He did. It would surprise me that such an event would occur without it being mentioned in writing until centuries later. When is the first writing that isn’t considered a Gnostic writing that mentions Mary’s assumption?

What does seem alarming to me is that I hear from Catholics that it is taught that believing that Mary was born without Original Sin, was a perpetual virgin and was assumed into heaven are necessary for salvation. I find it confusing because Augustine and Ambrose were both canonized as saints and are guaranteed to be saved and in heaven, but they did not believe that Mary was free of Original Sin. Augustine was the one who created the teaching on Original Sin, yet when quoting Ambrose in his writing On the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin (Book II) he denies that anyone except Jesus who was born of a woman is free from sin:

The same holy man also, in his Exposition of Isaiah, speaking of Christ, says: “Therefore as man He was tried in all things, and in the likeness of men He endured all things; but as born of the Spirit, He was free from sin. For every man is a liar, and no one but God alone is without sin. It is therefore an observed and settled fact, that no man born of a man and a woman, that is, by means of their bodily union, is seen to be free from sin. Whosoever, indeed, is free from sin, is free also from a conception and birth of this kind.” Moreover, when expounding the Gospel according to Luke, he says: “It was no cohabitation with a husband which opened the secrets of the Virgin’s womb; rather was it the Holy Ghost which infused immaculate seed into her unviolated womb. For the Lord Jesus alone of those who are born of woman is holy, inasmuch as He experienced not the contact of earthly corruption, by reason of the novelty of His immaculate birth; nay, He repelled it by His heavenly majesty.”

newadvent.org/fathers/15062.htm

So when was this requirement for salvation added to Christianity? Did God give certain men the ability to add new requirements for salvation that weren’t taught by the Apostles? Why is it essential to believe these doctrines in order to know Jesus and His Gospel?

 

[JMM1957]

I personally do not understand how Mary is the mother of Christians. Jesus is the begotten son of God and was present with God before creation. Mary gave birth to Jesus when He came to Earth conceived in her by the Holy Spirit. So although Jesus existed before Mary was created, she was His Earthly mother. While Jesus was on Earth, He invited His followers to call His Father God their Father (Matthew 6:9, Luke 11:2). Paul’s letters teach about how believers are the adopted children of God. I don’t know where it is stated that Mary has adopted all believers as children. I don’t know how we know that she now has the ability to mother all believers and to hear millions of people praying to her at the same time.

I don’t focus very much on whether Mary may or may not have had relations with Joseph after Jesus was born. I don’t think this changes who Jesus is and what He did.

Whether Mary was assumed into heaven would be fascinating to know, but if conclusive evidence was found one way or the other, it would not affect my faith. This would not change the Gospel message and who Jesus is and what He did. It would surprise me that such an event would occur without it being mentioned in writing until centuries later. When is the first writing that isn’t considered a Gnostic writing that mentions Mary’s assumption?

What does seem alarming to me is that I hear from Catholics that it is taught that believing that Mary was born without Original Sin, was a perpetual virgin and was assumed into heaven are necessary for salvation. I find it confusing because Augustine and Ambrose were both canonized as saints and are guaranteed to be saved and in heaven, but they did not believe that Mary was free of Original Sin. Augustine was the one who created the teaching on Original Sin, yet when quoting Ambrose in his writing On the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin (Book II) he denies that anyone except Jesus who was born of a woman is free from sin:
newadvent.org/fathers/15062.htm

So when was this requirement for salvation added to Christianity? Did God give certain men the ability to add new requirements for salvation that weren’t taught by the Apostles? Why is it essential to believe these doctrines in order to know Jesus and His Gospel?

Why did Ambrose say this then?

“Mary, a virgin not only undefiled but a virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free from every stain.” - St. Ambrose of Milan, 340-370 AD.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

I personally do not understand how Mary is the mother of Christians. Jesus is the begotten son of God and was present with God before creation. Mary gave birth to Jesus when He came to Earth conceived in her by the Holy Spirit. So although Jesus existed before Mary was created, she was His Earthly mother. While Jesus was on Earth, He invited His followers to call His Father God their Father (Matthew 6:9, Luke 11:2). Paul’s letters teach about how believers are the adopted children of God. I don’t know where it is stated that Mary has adopted all believers as children. I don’t know how we know that she now has the ability to mother all believers and to hear millions of people praying to her at the same time.

I don’t focus very much on whether Mary may or may not have had relations with Joseph after Jesus was born. I don’t think this changes who Jesus is and what He did.

Whether Mary was assumed into heaven would be fascinating to know, but if conclusive evidence was found one way or the other, it would not affect my faith. This would not change the Gospel message and who Jesus is and what He did. It would surprise me that such an event would occur without it being mentioned in writing until centuries later. When is the first writing that isn’t considered a Gnostic writing that mentions Mary’s assumption?

What does seem alarming to me is that I hear from Catholics that it is taught that believing that Mary was born without Original Sin, was a perpetual virgin and was assumed into heaven are necessary for salvation. I find it confusing because Augustine and Ambrose were both canonized as saints and are guaranteed to be saved and in heaven, but they did not believe that Mary was free of Original Sin. Augustine was the one who created the teaching on Original Sin, yet when quoting Ambrose in his writing On the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin (Book II) he denies that anyone except Jesus who was born of a woman is free from sin:
newadvent.org/fathers/15062.htm

So when was this requirement for salvation added to Christianity? Did God give certain men the ability to add new requirements for salvation that weren’t taught by the Apostles? Why is it essential to believe these doctrines in order to know Jesus and His Gospel?

Thanks for replying, Susan.

As a protestant I had always felt the same way about perpetual virginity and the assumption - meaning it didn’t matter if it happened.

The Marian dogmas were organic beliefs already held in the church, just maybe not universally. It wasn’t something really emphasized early on and my theory is that this is because it wasn’t being challenged and so it wasn’t necessary. In short, with Arianism and other heretics attempting to tear the church apart(including the EO’s later) the Church had bigger fish to fry. It wasn’t until the radical reformers started in with their blatant disrespect of our Lady, saying she had 5-6 kids and was a incubator for Jesus, that these issues became dogmatic. Luther and Calvin were at least respectful and sensible, the ones to come after them needed their mouths washed out with soap, imo.

And I would say there are multiple accounts in which Peter hears directly from God. Acts 10:13 - Matthew 16:17 - Acts 15:6-11 We believe that his office still exists today and God still speaks to him/it. And so while you wont see change from what was previously revealed, it’s possible to see clearer definition.

And I think the church has had so many problems over the years with wild minds attempting to tear it down, that it has taken the hardliner approach that it’s all or nothing. Believe it or not w/o compromise. They don’t want to become the Episcopalians who start out harmlessly(or so they thought) okaying birth control, and now, to this day, don’t even resemble a church.

My personal opinion is that I wish it had been left sort of undefined as it is in the Eastern Churches because it seems to scare potential converts away. Took me quite sometime to understand the typology involved and the churches reasoning on this. So i do sympathize with anyone else who has struggled.

Pax

 

[JMM1957]

Thanks for replying, Susan.

As a protestant I had always felt the same way about perpetual virginity and the assumption - meaning it didn’t matter if it happened.

The Marian dogmas were organic beliefs already held in the church, just maybe not universally. It wasn’t something really emphasized early on and my theory is that this is because it wasn’t being challenged and so it wasn’t necessary. In short, with Arianism and other heretics attempting to tear the church apart(including the EO’s later) the Church had bigger fish to fry. It wasn’t until the radical reformers started in with their blatant disrespect of our Lady, saying she had 5-6 kids and was a incubator for Jesus, that these issues became dogmatic. Luther and Calvin were at least respectful and sensible, the ones to come after them needed their mouths washed out with soap, imo.

And I would say there are multiple accounts in which Peter hears directly from God. Acts 10:13 - Matthew 16:17 - Acts 15:6-11 We believe that his office still exists today and God still speaks to him/it. And so while you wont see change from what was previously revealed, it’s possible to see clearer definition.

And I think the church has had so many problems over the years with wild minds attempting to tear it down, that it has taken the hardliner approach that it’s all or nothing. Believe it or not w/o compromise. They don’t want to become the Episcopalians who start out harmlessly(or so they thought) okaying birth control, and now, to this day, don’t even resemble a church.

My personal opinion is that I wish it had been left sort of undefined as it is in the Eastern Churches because it seems to scare potential converts away. Took me quite sometime to understand the typology involved and the churches reasoning on this. So i do sympathize with anyone else who has struggled.

Pax

Good comment. Perpetual Virginity, Assumption, and to some extent Mother of God are three of the Marian dogmas that usually don’t bother non-Catholics as much as the Immaculate Conception imo. The reason being the first three cannot be refuted using Scripture. The last can be argued to not be true according to a couple Scriptural verses by non-Catholics.

 

[jane_doe]

Because we do not want to even think of the possibility of why he did that?

The Lord is always right in His actions, so I’m sure He had a good reason for what He did what He did. I feel it to be “well He did it because XYZ” when I do not know that certain.

Because it would make him look bad or otherwise Catholics look right?

No worries about Christ looking bad. Catholic beliefs don’t factor in one way or another.

 

[JMM1957]

Orthodox generally do not believe this and yet ultimately her own Son is her Savior. No one is “born with original sin” like it’s some sort of disease, just the consequences of it.

From the Catechism:
Quote:
405 Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called “concupiscence”. Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

We are not born with a fault, iow, original sin is not the same kind of fault that we would have if we stole something from someone, because we personally didn’t choose to do something wrong, its more like we were born with a wound in us that someone else gave us, we are not born in absolute holiness and perfection. Adam and Eve wronged God, and since these are humanities original parents, we as their descendants inherited a wound from their sin.

 

[pablope]

Hello. F

For me, Mary may have been a perpetual virgin like Luther and the others believed, and the virgin birth of Christ is a fact of orthodoxy, but I would never say that any human, save for Jesus Christ, is sinless now.

God bless and I hope this helps.

Have you come across this verses from Luke 1:

5 In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah; his wife Elizabeth was also a descendant of Aaron. 6 Both of them were righteous in the sight of God, observing all the Lord’s commands and decrees blamelessly.

Just out of curiosity…you said… perpetual virgin like Luther and the others believed…who are the “others” you are referring too?

And why always Luther? How about St. Jerome…in his letter to Helvedus…newadvent.org/fathers/3007.htm

 

[Tommy999]

I’m not sure I really know what ‘Mother of the Church’ means exactly, or what role(s) this entails. Perhaps someone can explain that a little more in depth.

I think Protestants in general (perhaps excluding Lutherans) do not give Mary enough credit for her role in salvation history. Perhaps it is over-compensation for what many Protestants believe is an over-emphasis of her in Catholicism. About the only mention of her is at Christmas time and in Nativity scenes in most Protestant churches I’ve attended.

She is truly blessed among women and should be acknowledged as such, in my view. She risked a lot and never wavered. She was obedient and never doubted. She was true to our Lord, even risking punishment to be there at His crucifixion when even Peter had denied Him prior to that.

However, I think in certain Catholic circles she is ascribed goddess-like powers that she doesn’t possess to answer prayers as if she was the 4th member of the Holy Trinity or something.

If I understand Catholic teaching correctly, Mary and the saints cannot grant our prayers but they are our heavenly intercessors, like our best friends here on earth except they are present with the Lord in heaven now advocating on our behalf based on their closeness to the Lord. I actually am ok with this doctrine/dogma, if this is the case.

One Catholic on CAF told me once that Mary was praying for me whether or not I knew it or acknowledged it. I’m ok with that and appreciate it if that is the case. I consider it an honor. I just prefer to pray to God the Father in the name of Jesus and will continue to do so because Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior and not Mary, although I have come to love and appreciate her more now.

 

[Padres1969]

What role does the blessed Virgin have in the Church?

She is the theotokos and a saint of the Church

Do you object to Catholics claiming she is mother of the Church? I mean, is it something you could see yourself ever believing?

I’ve no issue with Catholics claiming she’s the mother of the church as they see it. I don’t believe that myself. She’s a great saint, arguably the greatest of all saints. But in my view she wasn’t the “mother” of the Church (or co-redemptrix) as that implies that she’s on some level the same as the father of the Church, Christ (God).

When Jesus is on the cross he has the famous exchange between Him, Mary and John:

Woman, behold thy son! 27 Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home

What does that statement mean in your opinion?

Thank you.

“John, look after my mom for me.” And he did. Whether it has any familial connotation I’m not sure. I mean it’s sometimes read as implying John was Jesus’ brother. Which if you deny the perpetual virginity of Mary is possible. With regard to her perpetual virginity, personally I don’t think it matters to my faith particularly one way or the other given the scriptures being silent on the issue. I’m open to the possibility Christ had siblings. It would definitely have been very abnormal for him to not have younger siblings born of Mary and Joseph given trends of the day. But I’m equally open to the idea that she remained perpetually virgin contrary to her times and position.