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

[JMM1957]

“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.

First, John was the son of Zebedee along with James, so how could he possibly be Jesus sibling? Secondly, I don’t agree that it would have been “very abnormal” that Jesus didn’t have younger siblings. Given who Jesus was, I think it “very likely” he didn’t have siblings.

 

[Padres1969]

First, John was the son of Zebedee along with James, so how could he possibly be Jesus sibling? Secondly, I don’t agree that it would have been “very abnormal” that Jesus didn’t have younger siblings. Given who Jesus was, I think it “very likely” he didn’t have siblings.

Assuming it was the Apostle John and you’re going by Mark or Matthew regarding the apostle John’s family lineage and assuming the “disciple whom he loved” was in fact the Apostle John, then yes you’re correct on your first part. But that’s a lot of assumptions too

With regard to siblings. We just don’t know. The scriptures don’t tell us one way or the other. Catholic doctrine holds that Mary was perpetually virgin as does Orthodox and indeed my own Church’s Anglo-Catholic tradition. But we actually don’t know based on the scriptures alone. In the absence of evidence to the contrary I choose to believe she remained perpetually virgin. But it wouldn’t shake my faith, nor even surprise me to find out Mary wasn’t perpetually virgin and Christ did have siblings should evidence showing such ever be uncovered and determined to be genuine.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

She is the theotokos and a saint of the Church

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).

“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.

Thanks for the reply.

Definitely do not see Mary as the same level as God and I hope no other Catholics think that either.

John was the son of Zebedee and Salome, according to the Gospels.

biblegateway.com/resources/all-women-bible/Salome-No-2

Salome was actually there at the crucifixion. Maybe even close enough to hear Jesus say “BEHOLD, YOUR MOTHER!!!” to her own son. One would think “John, look after mom for me” would have been much more appropriate if that’s all that is taking place.

So I suppose that the question is why did John need two earthly mothers? Or is it possible that Jesus is handing his mother off to the Church as well as to John?

Pax

 

[Padres1969]

Thanks for the reply.

Definitely do not see Mary as the same level as God and I hope no other Catholics think that either.

John was the son of Zebedee and Salome, according to the Gospels.

biblegateway.com/resources/all-women-bible/Salome-No-2

Salome was actually there at the crucifixion. Maybe even close enough to hear Jesus say “BEHOLD, YOUR MOTHER!!!” to her own son. One would think “John, look after mom for me” would have been much more appropriate if that’s all that is taking place.

So I suppose that the question is why did John need two earthly mothers? Or is it possible that Jesus is handing his mother off to the Church as well as to John?

Pax

Or he was simply making sure his favorite disciple was going to watch over his mother in his absence like a good son would do to ensure she’s cared for. Sometimes I feel we try to read too much into fairly straight forward statements by Christ that even the writer of the piece of scripture didn’t intend.

I mean if he’d wanted to convey he was handing her off to the Church (from a Catholic POV) you think it would have been Peter, not the loved disciple, that would have been charged with her care, no?

 

[Lenten_ashes]

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 guess mothers look after their own. As a Catholic i believe Mary did that on earth and continues to do it in heaven. They are also great role models in many cases.We also refer to the Church as “Mother Church” because she looks after our souls and nurtures us.

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.

You’re exactly right. It’s extreme haste in order to dismiss all things Catholic. In 13 years as a protestant i think I only heard one sermon on the blessed Virgin, and that came at, you guessed it, Christmas. That’s a shame because Jesus clearly told us that the humble will be exalted - and what created being is more humble than she was? Would be hard pressed to find anyone.

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.

A true warrior for God in every since of the word, and a enemy of Satan, Genesis 3:15. My momma wears combat boots!!!

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.

Any examples you can share with us, Tommy? I mean did you actually hear someone claim she was a goddess?

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.

That’s correct. At least you obviously have a correct understanding of it. If I hear one more person accuse us of necromancy, I’m gonna slam my head into the wall repeatedly lol

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.

I think you have a decent understanding of her and Catholic teaching. God knows our hearts and He knows all things. If we are for some reason attempting to substitute Him for a created being, I have no doubt he will put us in our place as He chastises those whom He loves.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Or he was simply making sure his favorite disciple was going to watch over his mother in his absence like a good son would do to ensure she’s cared for. Sometimes I feel we try to read too much into fairly straight forward statements by Christ that even the writer of the piece of scripture didn’t intend.

I mean if he’d wanted to convey he was handing her off to the Church (from a Catholic POV) you think it would have been Peter, not the loved disciple, that would have been charged with her care, no?

I think if God wanted to make the bible in a textbook form he could have done that and everything would have been spelled out. But unfortunately He did not, and we have 30,000 denominations(or whatever the number) rejecting Catholic tradition and coming up with varying opinions. Not sure how the Church can be the pillar and foundation of truth(1 Tim 3:15) if it’s splintered off into thousands of pieces and they are all saying different stuff?

John was a young man with a full life ahead of him. We know he was the only apostle to not be martyred for the faith and lived to be a old man in Patmos. Peter was martyred but prior to that, had a Church to lead and family to attend to as well. Maybe the Lord knew all that and understood He had his hands full.

Thanks for replying.

 

[Hatikvah]

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

“The others” would be particularly other reformers like Calvin, Hyldrych, and many others. To be honest, I didn’t know about the history of the doctrine (that is, the perpetual virginity of Mary) before I looked it up while writing (e.g., ecumenical council affirmations).

Luther because he is the most famous reformer, save for his contemporary, Calvin. Also, I stated that Luther is the closest to my theology.

 

[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.

Here’s how: Jesus is only begotten Son of the Father, being sanctified, we are brothers and sisters to Jesus (Hebrews 2:11), and adopted children of the Father. The mother of the human Jesus is Mary, even though Joseph was Mary’s husband, she is still called Spouse of the Holy Spirit in the way she conceived Jesus in her womb. Christianity arose as a direct result of Jesus coming to earth and making disciples, who formed a church, and the members of that church came to be called Christians, which we are to this day. So taking all of this into consideration, would Mary not be the Mother of all Christians, spiritually speaking? I don’t look at it as a stretch at all to say this.

Also, you didn’t respond to my post #32 yet on original sin. Thanks!

 

[wmscott]

Whenever I see posts on the Blessed Mother I scroll through and look at the Protestant responses. It always seems to amaze me, however it should not, how many Protestants marginalize, undervalue, and diminish the Blessed Mother and Her Perpetual Virginity as if they have never heard of someone remaining chaste i.e. innocent, virtuous, pure, sinless, undefiled, unsullied, immaculate. They cannot admit or even imagine that God would create such a person, they presume to know Gods mind and box Him in with boundaries conceived by their flawed human intellect.

Many base all of their “presumptions” on what they think they know on the Blessed Mother based on “Where does it say that in the Bible” mentality. Again they have boxed themselves in and limited themselves to within the pages and covers of the Bible. No Church Fathers, No Sacred Tradition, No Magisterium, and No 2000+ years of continuous successions of Bishops and Popes who have preserved the Deposit of Faith. As we know the New Testament itself declares the Church to be “the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15).

 

[Tommy999]

Any examples you can share with us, Tommy? I mean did you actually hear someone claim she was a goddess?

This is regarding the comment I made in paragraph 4 of post #38.

In all fairness, no, I have not heard a Catholic say that. And I must say that I have not met a Catholic on CAF who I thought viewed her as a goddess, either. Most view her and the saints as “heavenly prayer partners”, which I have no problem with. I also don’t consider the US to have many Catholics who elevate her to “goddess” status, from the best I can tell.

However, there is a noticeable number of Catholics in the world (Latin America comes to mind) who I believe elevate her beyond what the Catholic Church teaches and who pray to her as if she were omnipotent and omniscient and had powers to grant prayers, etc. In other words, they treat her as the “Go to person” instead of Jesus Christ (i.e goddess, in my view). I have a big problem with that if that is the case. I have even heard a few priests on EWTN when describing prayer recite the following motto: “To Jesus through Mary” as if to imply that praying to Jesus or God the Father in Jesus’ name was somehow inadequate.

Even some prominent Catholics like Al Kresta have acknowledged on his program that he knows some Catholics who "see Mary on every street corner’. However, in all fairness he went on the say that some Catholics don’t pay enough attention to her and that it is important to have a balanced view of her that comes from proper formation as a Catholic.

Perhaps there are cultural beliefs about Mary that play a part in this – I don’t really know.

That’s why I like to follow Mary’s own advice in Holy Scripture, which says in John 2:5
"His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.” (NIV)

She also says that she will forever be called “blessed”. I think us Protestants need to reflect on Mary’s Magnificat and give her more recognition in Christ’s life and role.

 

[Hatikvah]

… diminish the Blessed Mother and Her Perpetual Virginity as if they have never heard of someone remaining chaste i.e. innocent, virtuous, pure, sinless, undefiled, unsullied, immaculate. They cannot admit or even imagine that God would create such a person, they presume to know Gods mind and box Him in with boundaries conceived by their flawed human intellect.

It really depends who you’re talking about. Lutherans and Anglicans look at things differently when compared to Baptists and ultra-Evangelicals (a more extreme form of Baptist, usually with KJV-onlyism).

Many base all of their “presumptions” on what they think they know on the Blessed Mother based on “Where does it say that in the Bible” mentality. Again they have boxed themselves in and limited themselves to within the pages and covers of the Bible. No Church Fathers, No Sacred Tradition, No Magisterium, and No 2000+ years of continuous successions of Bishops and Popes who have preserved the Deposit of Faith. As we know the New Testament itself declares the Church to be “the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15).

Sigh

Again, not trying to polemize, I’m just reviewing.

It always stinks to refer to this over and over again. It is these particular Protestants who do not understand what sola scriptura is (or, was supposed to be). Sola scriptura is merely one means to an end: finding Christ in faith, being a Christian. I know that Catholics will never cease to misinterpret sola scriptura, nor shall many Protestants cease to do the exact same thing.

Luther looked through many of the writings of the Church Fathers and took a lot of stuff from St. Augustine, also from St. Jerome and others. He did not ignore Tradition, he merely came to a conclusion; Calvin did the same, just far more radicalized and anti-papacy.

Also, you will notice that the sola scriptura misinterpretation comes solely out of a few traditions: for example, Reformed tradition, Baptists, somewhat Anabaptists, and Pentecostalism.

I know there will always be people saying “well, you’re wrong anyhow” and it just bugs me that they make these claims.

 

[jane_doe]

how many Protestants marginalize, undervalue, and diminish the Blessed Mother and Her Perpetual Virginity as if they have never heard of someone remaining chaste i.e. innocent, virtuous, pure, sinless, undefiled, unsullied, immaculate. They cannot admit or even imagine that God would create such a person, they presume to know Gods mind and box Him in with boundaries conceived by their flawed human intellect.

Have you seen any examples of this in this thread?

Edit for elaboration: My purpose is asking this is to understand your view, not to polarize. For example, I do not believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary, but do not find that this view defiles her because there is nothing defiling about a wedded couple having martial relations. I am wondering if you feel otherwise.

 

[wmscott]

It really depends who you’re talking about. Lutherans and Anglicans look at things differently when compared to Baptists and ultra-Evangelicals (a more extreme form of Baptist, usually with KJV-onlyism).

Sigh

Again, not trying to polemize, I’m just reviewing.

It always stinks to refer to this over and over again. It is these particular Protestants who do not understand what sola scriptura is (or, was supposed to be). Sola scriptura is merely one means to an end: finding Christ in faith, being a Christian. I know that Catholics will never cease to misinterpret sola scriptura, nor shall many Protestants cease to do the exact same thing.

Luther looked through many of the writings of the Church Fathers and took a lot of stuff from St. Augustine, also from St. Jerome and others. He did not ignore Tradition, he merely came to a conclusion; Calvin did the same, just far more radicalized and anti-papacy.

Also, you will notice that the sola scriptura misinterpretation comes solely out of a few traditions: for example, Reformed tradition, Baptists, somewhat Anabaptists, and Pentecostalism.

I know there will always be people saying “well, you’re wrong anyhow” and it just bugs me that they make these claims.

My point being is that there are far too many out there that try and box God into a finite set of rules saying God did not or would not do that, or the He would never do that, and base these notions on what they read or don’t read, the Bible is just part of it. They fail to see that God is infinite and boundless in His will and what he can do. So tell me why there are so many out there that believe God could not or would not create a chaste, innocent, virtuous, pure, sinless, undefiled, unsullied, immaculate being.

 

[Hatikvah]

My point being is that there are far too many out there that try and box God into a finite set of rules saying God did not or would not do that, or the He would never do that, and base these notions on what they read or don’t read, the Bible is just part of it. They fail to see that God is infinite and boundless in His will and what he can do. So tell me why there are so many out there that believe God could not or would not create a chaste, innocent, virtuous, pure, sinless, undefiled, unsullied, immaculate being.

Because of their misinterpretation of sola scriptura: they’re using the incorrect formula, or they don’t see value in Tradition. (Perhaps more commonly, however, they don’t care because Mary is not relevant to them as an example of piety.) God can do anything within His nature, and this certainly is one.

 

[JMM1957]

It really depends who you’re talking about. Lutherans and Anglicans look at things differently when compared to Baptists and ultra-Evangelicals (a more extreme form of Baptist, usually with KJV-onlyism).

Sigh

Again, not trying to polemize, I’m just reviewing.

It always stinks to refer to this over and over again. It is these particular Protestants who do not understand what sola scriptura is (or, was supposed to be). Sola scriptura is merely one means to an end: finding Christ in faith, being a Christian. I know that Catholics will never cease to misinterpret sola scriptura, nor shall many Protestants cease to do the exact same thing.
**
Luther looked through many of the writings of the Church Fathers and took a lot of stuff from St. Augustine, also from St. Jerome and others. He did not ignore Tradition, he merely came to a conclusion; Calvin did the same, just far more radicalized and anti-papacy.**

Also, you will notice that the sola scriptura misinterpretation comes solely out of a few traditions: for example, Reformed tradition, Baptists, somewhat Anabaptists, and Pentecostalism.

I know there will always be people saying “well, you’re wrong anyhow” and it just bugs me that they make these claims.

Luther was just one man among many. He didn’t do anything different than many others attempted to do before him since the time of the Apostles, taking a little of this and that, throwing out some traditions and books, giving new meaning to some Scripture, all according to his personal tastes, and then “voila”, and new church sprang up.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

This is regarding the comment I made in paragraph 4 of post #38.

In all fairness, no, I have not heard a Catholic say that. And I must say that I have not met a Catholic on CAF who I thought viewed her as a goddess, either. Most view her and the saints as “heavenly prayer partners”, which I have no problem with. I also don’t consider the US to have many Catholics who elevate her to “goddess” status, from the best I can tell.

However, there is a noticeable number of Catholics in the world (Latin America comes to mind) who I believe elevate her beyond what the Catholic Church teaches and who pray to her as if she were omnipotent and omniscient and had powers to grant prayers, etc. In other words, they treat her as the “Go to person” instead of Jesus Christ (i.e goddess, in my view). I have a big problem with that if that is the case. I have even heard a few priests on EWTN when describing prayer recite the following motto: “To Jesus through Mary” as if to imply that praying to Jesus or God the Father in Jesus’ name was somehow inadequate.

Even some prominent Catholics like Al Kresta have acknowledged on his program that he knows some Catholics who "see Mary on every street corner’. However, in all fairness he went on the say that some Catholics don’t pay enough attention to her and that it is important to have a balanced view of her that comes from proper formation as a Catholic.

Perhaps there are cultural beliefs about Mary that play a part in this – I don’t really know.

That’s why I like to follow Mary’s own advice in Holy Scripture, which says in John 2:5
"His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.” (NIV)

She also says that she will forever be called “blessed”. I think us Protestants need to reflect on Mary’s Magnificat and give her more recognition in Christ’s life and role.

Thanks for the clarification. This was a issue for me prior to conversion so interested in other’s opinions. If the Church is doings to cause people to stumble(even inadvertently) then she needs to correct herself on that. But when i went through RCIA the focus was 90% Jesus so I know that’s not the case now, but I do wonder if the Church has always done a good enough job in proper catechises in years past. I just had a long discussion with a older, dear protestant family member and he insists that the Church has been forced to reform from within. If you are catecized and you hear a guy on EWTN say to Jesus through Mary you don’t think anything of it - but if you are not you could easily misunderstand what he means by that and start exalting her to goddess like status. So while I do not disagree with the priest who said it, I wouldn’t say it myself because i would not want to be responsible for anyone else stumbling.

I think you are correct that in certain areas, there is a cultural aspect to it. I live in the southwest and some of the apparitions that have been approved by the Church as worthy of belief are placed in very high regard by many. And I do not know how beneficial that is, though I must admit that Mexico, in particular, was totally pagan prior to the Virgin of Guadalupe, and now it’s almost totally Catholic Christian. So much good did come out of them.

Overall, you have a healthy view of her, imo. I think she pointed us to her Son then, and will still do it now if we somehow get derailed. But we should not get derailed, or even come close to it over a Church practice, so it’s something to make note of and observe.

Pax

.

 

[wmscott]

Because of their misinterpretation of sola scriptura: they’re using the incorrect formula, or they don’t see value in Tradition. (Perhaps more commonly, however, they don’t care because Mary is not relevant to them as an example of piety.) God can do anything within His nature, and this certainly is one.

Well thanks for letting me grouse a bit on this, as a convert, who did the research before converting, I really have a hard time understanding how some can so easily dismiss the Blessed Mother. Thanks again.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

For example, I do not believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary, but do not find that this view defiles her because there is nothing defiling about a wedded couple having martial relations. I am wondering if you feel otherwise.

Was a non-issue for me as a protestant.

As a Catholic it is a issue as I understand her to be the Ark of the New Covenant. If you examine the old Ark and how important and Holy it was, then the idea of Mary having sex becomes totally absurd and incomprehensible. To the credit of the earliest reformers, they understood this very well.

 

[JMM1957]

Was a non-issue for me as a protestant.

As a Catholic it is a issue as I understand her to be the Ark of the New Covenant. If you examine the old Ark and how important and Holy it was, then the idea of Mary having sex becomes totally absurd and incomprehensible. To the credit of the earliest reformers, they understood this very well.

Agreed. I think many fail to ponder the possibility of what Mary may have wanted for herself, they try to impose their view of normal sexuality on her. For a married woman to not have sex with her husband, back then or now, does seem abnormal, but we are not talking about a normal family situation here with Mary, Joseph, and Jesus are we?

 

[Padres1969]

My point being is that there are far too many out there that try and box God into a finite set of rules saying God did not or would not do that, or the He would never do that, and base these notions on what they read or don’t read, the Bible is just part of it. They fail to see that God is infinite and boundless in His will and what he can do. So tell me why there are so many out there that believe God could not or would not create a chaste, innocent, virtuous, pure, sinless, undefiled, unsullied, immaculate being.

Well considering the notion of Immaculate Conception is a Catholic dogma that even the RCC didn’t define until 1854 and it’s not part of the doctrine of any other Christian Church including the other “one true church” in the Orthodox, does it really surprise you that the rest of us can be a bit skeptical of it?