Protestant Argument Against Devotion to Mary

[Goya]

friardchips;13043297]

If we believe our Creator’s plan was perfectly loving then we could also note that His plan was necessary and to have done anything, any other way, would have been less than perfect. Our Creator can not go against His own nature: Perfect Love.

Interesting you put: “created for”. “Created for” or chosen for - maybe the same meaning, in entirety?

Yes, someone on here once corrected me on that one. I stated the bit about how Mary was chosen amongst all women–in fact, all hb’s–from all time, and a poster responded by saying something along the lines of “…in fact, you could say He created her for that purpose”–which prompted me to think… and then concur. Since then, I’ve always included the ‘created for’ characterization, as I concur with that poster.

If I could remember his/her name, I’d tip my hat to him/her; as it is, all I can do tip my hat…to some anonymous poster.

If our Creator’s plan was to be fulfilled, then what He Willed, was from the Beginning, necessarily loving.

New Eve. New Adam

.

 

[patricius79]

How should you respond? Tell them you were mistaken and they were correct. There was no absolute necessity for the Virgin Mary to be sinless, full of grace, or even a virgin in order to be the mother of God. However, it was altogether fitting that she be all those things.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 722, says, “The Holy Spirit prepared Mary by his grace. It was fitting that the mother of him in whom ‘the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily’ should herself be ‘full of grace.’”

What about the argument of “No Mary, no Jesus. Know Mary, know Jesus”.

Some point out that without Mary we would not have Christ. But then Protestants respond, “well, then we should also highly venerate Anne and Joaichim, and all their forebears, because without them we would have no Mary and no Jesus either”

 

[eddie_too]

what is the protestant argument for their belief that Mary did sin, for their belief that Mary’s body decayed in the grave, for their belief that Mary was born into original sin, or for their belief that Mary had other children?

I know that some protestants find random verses in scripture that lead them to disbelieve the faith we received from the apostles. for example, paul writes that all have sinned. in several of the gospels there are isolated references to the brothers of Jesus.

but, these are isolated verses and can be understood differently from the protestant understanding. also, there are other verses that lend support to the apostolic teachings on Mary.

 

[friardchips]

13043297]



Yes, someone on here once corrected me on that one. I stated the bit about how Mary was chosen amongst all women–in fact, all hb’s–from all time, and a poster responded by saying something along the lines of “…in fact, you could say He created her for that purpose”–which prompted me to think… and then concur. Since then, I’ve always included the ‘created for’ characterization, as I concur with that poster.

If I could remember his/her name, I’d tip my hat to him/her; as it is, all I can do tip my hat…to some anonymous poster.

.

The same page, we be.

 

[Todd977]

I think you all make some very good arguments for Mary but I’d like to see more info from the early Church Fathers. I’ve been studying almost any book or writing that they wrote and I can’t see anything that speaks to the Immaculate Conception, or Mary’s Assumption.

I think the Virgin Mary’s immaculate conception is implied in the early Church Fathers when they compared the obedient Virgin Mary to disobedient Eve, who came into existence immaculately, in a manner similar to the way that they (and St. Paul) compared obedient Jesus Christ to disobedient Adam, two men who came into existence immaculately. Two very early Church Fathers who compare the Virgin Mary to Eve are St. Justin Martyr ( 100Dialogue with Trypho,) and St. Irenaeus ( Against Heresies, 3:22:4 and 5:19:1). Otherwise, wouldn’t they be comparing apples to oranges?

I think Mary’s immaculate conception is also implied in Genesis 3:15 when the LORD said to the ancient serpent, Satan, "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.” St. Irenaeus ( 5:21:1Against Heresies,) understood the reference in Genesis 3:15 to the woman’s seed as a prophecy concerning Jesus Christ. The enmity mentioned between Jesus and Satan and Satan’s seed is most certainly a reference to Jesus’ own immaculate conception and subsequent sinless life. It doesn’t take much of a stretch to likewise see the reference in Genesis 3:15 to the woman as a prophecy of the Virgin Mary and the enmity mentioned between her and Satan as a reference to her immaculate conception and subsequent sinless life, does it?

Also, the name or title by which the Angel Gabriel addressed the Virgin Mary in Luke 1:28, translated as “full of grace” or “highly favored,” means that she had already received some special grace or favor from God prior to the angel’s visit and Mary’s immaculate conception would certainly qualify as such a special grace or favor.

The assumption of Mary follows logically her immaculate conception and subsequent sinless life. If the words of Psalm 16:8-11 about God not allowing his faithful one to undergo the corruption of the grave apply to God’s faithful servant, Jesus Christ, who was immaculately conceived and remained sinless throughout his life (Acts 2:25-28), would they not equally apply to God’s faithful handmaid, the Virgin Mary, who was immaculately conceived and remained sinless throughout her life?

 

[slh3016]

I believe the argument is that if Mary could have been protected from sin; then Jesus likewise by the same means could have been protected by sin.

Since Mary, who according to the CC was sinless but had parents who had sinned; then God could have equally done the exact same thing for Jesus, so it makes this requirement sort of unnecessary. Although, I would say that Jesus is quite different in that He wasn’t born of natural relations.

I’m not saying that the immaculate conception didn’t happen… Perhaps God wanted it that way and therefore it’s true. What I’m saying is that there’s really no reason for it, because any criteria of conception that God supposedly applied to Mary, who had sinful parents, can be applied to Jesus, who wasn’t even conceived by natural means.

Yes, I agree with you…the teachings on Mary’s Immaculate Conception really is not a good argument for the sinlessness of Jesus because of what you rightly pointed out.

The reality of it is that Mary’s sinlessness can be argued for on account of many things, some of which are as follows:

1. The greeting the angel gave her in “Hail, full of grace.”
2. She is the new Eve.
3. She is the Ark of New Covenant. Her body carried the Word of God made flesh inside her for nine months.
4. She is the Queen Mother.

I suggest Scott Hahn’s “The Virgin Mary Revealed in Scripture” which you can listen to on Youtube for a great understanding of the Catholic teachings of the above statements and Biblical support of Mary’s Immaculate Conception.

 

[slh3016]

Good post–except that the ‘argument’ doesn’t hinge on ‘Full of Grace’–that is merely more (and very compelling) evidence supporting the propriety and Truth, of the Immaculate Conception.

No, I didn’t mean the argument for it hinged on the “full of grace” salutation…the success of the argument with a Protestant does. The majority (like 99.9% ) of Protestants want evidence explicitly from the Bible to support something so Catholic Church teaching and even ECF writings don’t always hold a lot of weight. It still gets touted as a “Catholic invention.” However, showing that the Bible actually does support the teaching is about the only thing that Protestants will sincerely consider. Sad, but true.

 

[Telstar]

I think you all make some very good arguments for Mary but I’d like to see more info from the early Church Fathers. I’ve been studying almost any book or writing that they wrote and I can’t see anything that speaks to the Immaculate Conception, or Mary’s Assumption. I am a Lutheran but just because Martin Luther spoke to these I don’t follow him blindly. I am in a “seeker’s” mode right now but I don’t pin my salvation on anything that I want to learn. I base it on Christ’s death, resurrection,** assumption** and His imminent return. I hope it’s soon.

Please understand that none of this is said in malice or anger. I love my Catholic and Protestant friends that I’ve made on here.

God bless all!!

Rita

Hi, Rita.

I just want to clarify something about your use of the word that I highlighted in red. Catholics don’t use the word “assumption” to refer to when Jesus returned to the Father in Heaven. Jesus was not “assumed” as Mary was. He’s God, so He ascended into Heaven under His own power. On the other hand, Mary was “assumed” into Heaven. That means that she was drawn into Heaven by the power of God. She doesn’t have any power of her own, so she wasn’t able to “ascend” into Heaven like Jesus did. So, Catholics celebrate the ‘Ascension of Jesus’ and the ‘Assumption of Mary’ as holy days.

I wasn’t sure if everyone understood the difference between those two terms, so I figured I’d point it out, just to make sure we’re all on the same page.

 

[ericc]

I hope you realize that Catholics believe the underlined part as well. I don’t necessarily think that the “other stuff” is tied into our salvation, BUT I do think it can be an aid along the way.

As for ECF’s on the issue, yes, I have struggled with that as well but, and this is huge, I believe in the authority of the Catholic Church. There are many things I still don’t fully understand but I believe the Catholic Church to be the authority left by Christ. I also had to come to understand that the ECF’s did not address every single belief that the Church holds as true because many of the ECF writings are done *in response to *an issue going on in the Church at the time, just as most of the NT writings are. Therefore, if you are only writing to settle the issue or to remind a group of Christians of what had previously been taught regarding that issue, you wouldn’t necessarily remind them OF EVERY SINGLE article of the faith. You’d only remind them of what needed reminding, right? Therefore, if the beliefs held by the Church surrounding Mary had never been questioned, you wouldn’t have to write about them, would you?

That reason, along with the “full of grace” meaning, helped solidify the Immaculate Conception belief in my mind.

catholic.com/tracts/mary-full-of-grace

Some ECFs quotes.

 

[Petaro]

While devotion to Mary is nice and swell, I don’t think that the reason for her immaculate conception was related to aesthetics. It has more to do with original sin. If Jesus was to be sinless, he couldn’t have any original sin in him. So his mother was cleansed of original sin in order to prevent this from happening.

Just my two cents.

I appreciate your point. I was speaking allegorically or metaphorically if you like. Never considered aesthetics; rather concerned with theology. I leave it to the Jesuits as to whether Mary “needed” to be sinless. However, it is most proper and just and rightful to salvation that Mary was conceived without sin. God Bless.

 

[slh3016]

catholic.com/tracts/mary-full-of-grace

Some ECFs quotes.

A lot of ECF writings don’t hold weight with Protestants, though. Many believe the church had already become corrupt before the 4th century. The Bible is what they place all their bets on so, to successfully argue the point of Mary’s sinlessness (i.e., the Immaculate Conception), the Bible is where you have to start

 

[vz71]

My wife was asking about this last night.
how timely that the thread us right here to answer her.

 

[JohnR77]

But Protestants argue that if Mary had to be so great and sinless to be the Mother of God, then St. Anne and Joachim must also have been so great and sinless, and likewise their parents, and their parents’ parents, and so on back to the beginning.

How do we respond to this?

To add to what Todd said above,

I would emphasize that it is not because Jesus was sinless that He deserved a sinless mother. Rather, it is because He is God that He deserves to have a sinless mother. While Mary was also sinless, she is not God. Therefore, she doesn’t get a sinless mother.

Protestants often emphasize that Jesus was the sinless, spotless lamb. They mistakenly think that to say Mary was also sinless takes away from His uniqueness. We need to emphasize that it is the fact that He is the God-Man, that makes Him so unique.

.