Protestant converts: How did you deal with the Church's Marian doctrines?

  • Thread starter Thread starter NewJourney
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Here’s what convinced me to join the RCC.

They have a definitive traceable lineage back to the 12 apostles and each of the founding churches.

Up until 1054, there was no other Christianity. Only the Catholic church, and then the Eastern schismatics broke with Rome and went their own way, largely more to do with cultural differences than theological ones.

Then you have Luther, who fractured Europe into centuries of disunity and warfare, taught various heresies, and committed a lot of other heinous acts/encouraged them/or set the stage for them all the while claiming he alone knew what real Christianity was.

And through it all, for roughly 2000 years, the Catholic Church has stood. It has watched empires rise and fall, it has survived scandal and war, it has been persecuted and it has prospered. I see no better argument in defense of the phrase “the gates of hell shall not prevail.”

Read “Triumph: The Power and Glory of the Catholic Church” by HW Crocker III, it covers a good history of the Church.
 
The Spring of 2013 God told me that He wanted me to become Catholic. I had been Lutheran for 10 years. The first meeting with the RCIA director, she asked me what questions I had. Of course, I asked if it is necessary to believe in prayers to Mary. She said, No, it’s not necessary to follow that tradition, and that I didn’t have to believe every single doctrine. This freed me to study , attend RCIA, and accept things at my own pace. Eventually I discovered Our Lady Of Guadalupe, the Spanish history of her, the unexplainable miraculous image … and now pray to Mary. But she leads us always to Jesus, so if you don’t feel drawn to the Marian aspect of Catholicism at this time or ever, it’s okay. There is a lifetime of information to study and try to understand when you become Catholic. I recommend Father Barron’s Catholicism dvds ( available for online streaming through Amazon ).
 
(I didn’t get a chance to read all 162 posts dating back to last November.)

As a typical Protestant, I was nervous about Marian devotion, too. Before converting, I wanted to show veneration (subconsciously), but my Protestant prejudice prevented me.

I read The Dialogue by St. Catherine of Siena, and in it, it is mentioned that those devoted to the Blessed Virgin Mary will not be sent to hell, in deference to the Word.

It’s private revelation, and no one is bound to believe the writing of any saint, nor do I think there’s dogmatic statement on the belief that devotion to the Immaculate Virgin somehow guarantees salvation.

But what I found interesting is that devotion to Mary is really devotion to Jesus Christ Who honors His own mother.

Then the other dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and Assumption I just accepted as part of the faith of the Catholic Church.
 
I have yet to see any of the hyperbole which men come up with about Mary in order to feel good about themselves actually conform to the reality of the only references to Mary the mother of Jesus we have. Could you give me an example of something you believe is true of Mary in the scriptures? An excerpt perhaps out of this book?
Gods blessings…
 
JanSobieskiIII said:
They have a definitive traceable lineage back to the 12 apostles and each of the founding churches.
Click to expand...
The problem as I see it with your first statement is that it is only traceable and definitive after the fact. After about 300 years after the fact actually and then only because one particular opinion gained the upper hand through secular enforcement and political maneuvering. Shortly after Christ ascended Christianity fragmented into opinion, speculation, and striving for dominance. Even the much quoted Church fathers bickered amongst themselves and disagreed as I’ve shown in my earlier postings should you care to look. There was no unified observable early Christian Church. Yet in spite of this there was a unified Christian character in many overshadowed by all this other hogwash and it survives, not only in the Catholic Church, but throughout the totality of Christianity in the form of those who strive for the truth of Christ with hope and charity (and the gates of hell will not withstand it hard as it may try…wink wink.
JanSobieskiIII said:
Up until 1054, there was no other Christianity. Only the Catholic church, and then the Eastern schismatics broke with Rome and went their own way, largely more to do with cultural differences than theological ones.
Click to expand...
No other Christianity? Yes there was. It has always been there striving to break free of the Roman Catholic dominance and suppression it was being subjected to and the Eastern Church broke with “Rome” because of theological differences not despite them in favor of cultural differences. Do you have references for this opinion. I’ll get some for you but perhaps you have better ones.

continued…
 
JanSobieskiIII said:
Then you have Luther, who fractured Europe into centuries of disunity and warfare, taught various heresies, and committed a lot of other heinous acts/encouraged them/or set the stage for them all the while claiming he alone knew what real Christianity was.
Click to expand...
Luther did not swoop down single handedly and tear the Church apart. As I’ve said there was already a suppressed Christianity boiling to break free of the cruelties inflicted by those who claimed to know better. The Roman Catholic hierarchy itself created the environment in which these things came to a head resulting in schism, they were by no means innocent victims under attack for holding to Gods truth.
JanSobieskiIII said:
And through it all, for roughly 2000 years, the Catholic Church has stood. It has watched empires rise and fall, it has survived scandal and war, it has been persecuted and it has prospered. I see no better argument in defense of the phrase “the gates of hell shall not prevail.”
Click to expand...
Yes it has survived and prospered to the point of being “rich” by worldly standards. Amazingly the Church largely creates the very scandals from which you so proudly proclaim she has survived. Satan himself was with the Church from the beginning so says scripture and I would expect exactly such scenarios of proudly claiming surviving persecution in spite of creating the scandals, for instance the handling of the child sexual abuse scandals or implementing the use of torture on heretics, itself. Does it not strike you as odd the use of Gates in the scripture you’ve quoted? The Gates of hell- one use of Gates is as established defensive fortifications against those who would storm them. Its just as well to believe that the gates of the Roman Catholic Church in all its worldly power and glory are the gates which the phrase is talking about. Gates to recognizing its own failures to be Christ like, the very gates of hell that Christ’s truth is storming in order to save those held within from their arrogance and pride, refusing to see the sins they’ve promoted. The phrase is not talking about an established fortress of truth established unchanging from the beginning, for 2000 years as you might put it, it is the other way around, it refers to the lies and falsely justified sins of Satan established from the beginning being assaulted by Gods truth. Those Gates shall not hold. It has been said, “history is made by the winners” and I would absolutely believe this to be aptly applied to the Roman Catholic church. We will never know all the sordid details of her sins but if we look hard some may be discerned and eventually she will be judged for them all.
 
I’m now answering from mobile so I can’t go through and answer every point effectively, but what you call “other forms of Christianity” are just heresies. They may have contained pieces of Christianity, but not the whole.
 
You’re right, I think the problem is, is a lot of times when we think of monarchy, we think of the western aspects of monarchy.
 
Here’s a great article on the Queen Mother - from a Protestant source, no less.

“John’s simple reference to “the mother of Jesus,” then, evokes this ancient institution of Judah’s royalty. Mary takes her place as the last and greatest of the queen mothers of Judah. (In Luke this evocation is conveyed by the expression “mother of my Lord” in 1:43).”


I’m sorry @setarcos - you don’t get to rewrite or deny history because it offends your sensibilities.
 
Last edited:
To gain a proper sense of the difference between a biblical king’s wife and his mother, one need only compare two scenes found close together in the First Book of Kings. In the first of those scenes, Bathsheba “bowed down and did homage” to her husband David (1:16); in the second, however, her son Solomon “rose up to meet her and bowed down to her, and sat on his throne and had a throne set for the king’s mother; so she sat at his right hand” (2:19).

Such regard for the queen mother was most conspicuous in the line of the covenanted Davidic kings, Solomon being the first. We observe that in the passion accounts Jesus is not called the “King of Israel,” but specifically “the King of the Jews.” It is the royal house of Judah that is envisaged. Now in all but two instances the Books of Kings explicitly name the mothers of the kings of Judah, in striking contrast to the uncovenanted kings of Israel.
 
As I said before, you either accept Jesus as the Son of David and King of kings, and his mother Mary as the Queen Mother of the Kingdom.

Or you can deny the Kingship of Jesus and Queenship of Mary.

Trying to accept King Jesus and reject Queen Mary is a textbook example of “having your cake and eating it too.” It is a logically and theologically indefensible position to take.
 
Here are a couple.

How great then should be our confidence in this queen, knowing how powerful she is with God, and at the same time how rich and full of mercy; so much so that there is no one on earth who does not share in the mercies and favors of Mary! This the blessed Virgin herself revealed to St. Bridget: “I am,” she said to her, “the queen of heaven and the mother of mercy; I am the joy of the just, and the gate of entrance for sinners to God; neither is there living on earth a sinner who is so accursed that he is deprived of my compassion; for everyone, if he receives nothing else through my intercession, receives the grace of being less tempted by evil spirits than he otherwise would be; no one, therefore,” she added, “who is not entirely accursed” (by which is meant the final and irrevocable malediction pronounced against the damned), “is so entirely cast off by God that he may not return and enjoy his mercy if he invokes my aid. I am called by all the mother of mercy, and truly the mercy of God towards men has made me so merciful towards them.” And then she concluded by saying, “Therefore he shall be miserable, and forever miserable in another life, who in this, being able, does not have recourse to me, who am so compassionate to all, and so earnestly desire to aid sinners.”*

Liguori, A. (1888). The Glories of Mary https://ref.ly/logosres/glrymaryliguori?ref=Page.p+33&off=1120&ctx=ing+to+her+prayers. ~How+great+then+shoul (New Revised Edition, pp. 33–34). New York: P. J. Kenedy & Sons.

If you do not believe Mary holds a royal office of Queen mother see 2 Chr 15:16 and Jer 13:18. I hope you believe Jesus is a king who sits on the throne of his father David.

Another quote

says, that the kingdom of God consisting of justice and mercy, the Lord has divided it: he has reserved the kingdom of justice for himself, and he has granted the kingdom of mercy to Mary, ordaining that all the mercies which are dispensed to men should pass through the hands of Mary, and should be bestowed according to her good pleasure.* St. Thomas confirms this in his preface to the Canonical Epistles, saying that the holy Virgin, when she conceived the divine Word in her womb, and brought him forth, obtained the half of the kingdom of God by becoming queen of mercy, Jesus Christ remaining king of justice.†

Liguori, A. (1888). The Glories of Mary https://ref.ly/logosres/glrymaryliguori?ref=Page.p+27&off=1083&ctx=+to+thee%2C+O+Lord%2C”†+~says%2C+that+the+kingd (New Revised Edition, pp. 27–28). New York: P. J. Kenedy & Sons.
 
Last edited:
Ran out of room on the other email

says, that the kingdom of God consisting of justice and mercy, the Lord has divided it: he has reserved the kingdom of justice for himself, and he has granted the kingdom of mercy to Mary, ordaining that all the mercies which are dispensed to men should pass through the hands of Mary, and should be bestowed according to her good pleasure.* St. Thomas confirms this in his preface to the Canonical Epistles, saying that the holy Virgin, when she conceived the divine Word in her womb, and brought him forth, obtained the half of the kingdom of God by becoming queen of mercy, Jesus Christ remaining king of justice.†

Liguori, A. (1888). The Glories of Mary https://ref.ly/logosres/glrymaryliguori?ref=Page.p+27&off=1083&ctx=+to+thee%2C+O+Lord%2C”†+~says%2C+that+the+kingd (New Revised Edition, pp. 27–28). New York: P. J. Kenedy & Sons.

I would also like too say something about the Annunciation. Lk 1:29 says Mary was greatly troubled at the Angels greeting. What could be troubling about being called highly favored daughter. Because this is not what the angel said to her. He called her by a strange name kecharitomene. The root meaning is grace. But what is really strange about it is that it is in the past tense and is perfect or complete. He does not say she is currently enjoying the favor of God but enjoyed it at some time in the past. Namely at her conception. At that moment God the Father looked ahead to the Death and Resurrection of Jesus and applied those graces earned by Jesus to protect Mary from the stain of original sin. Therefore she was like Adam and Eve before The Fall. She did not have a disposition toward sin like the rest of so she could remain sinless he whole life.
 
Last edited:
I found a really good exposition on kecharitomene. It makes a good case that the grace continuid her whole life lending support for the Catholic contention she lived a sinless life. You will surely quote the verse that says all have sinned but Jesus was True Man and he was sinless.
 
Last edited:
Heresies? Granted, if it can be shown that a certain teaching goes against Christ’s teaching and the spirit of Christian charity which he left us with then one can truly say a heresy has been committed. Unfortunately many of the so called heresies declared by the Roman Church are a matter of unproved theological opinion enforced through threat of excommunication or worse in order to promote a personal agenda. Declaring doctrine or dogma based upon these types of heresies is a dangerous practice. Has it not occurred to you that the early heresies were themselves declared by members of the same Church that has been declared coherent and unified? That was my whole point! It was only after the fact that an unhindered continuously unified and agreeing lineage of Christian truth passed through what you call the Roman Catholic Church was sought after and created in order to establish a so called endorsement from Christ. The reality of the early Church is much, much messier and that’s just from the records we have. Who knows what has been destroyed or suppressed in order to promote an agenda?
 
setarcos said:
Who knows what has been destroyed or suppressed in order to promote an agenda?
Click to expand...
If it has been destroyed or suppressed it was not of Christ. Either that or you’re saying men or Satan can beat God. The Catholic Church, not just the Roman rite of Catholicism, is the one True church founded by Christ, and it alone carries the ability to authoritatively decide dogma. You’re free to disagree of course, we all have to make choices.
 
I’m sorry, I have been unable to see how I am in error in what I said? I did not pull this ex nihilo out of my hat and declare it truth. From what I’ve researched the title Queen was rarely used because of the practice of Jedean Polygamy among its Kings. There could have been many Queens. There can only be one Queen Mother. Here is an excerpt from the Oxford research encyclopedia of religion on such matters…see following posts.
 
Royal Women and Other Women Who Served in Leadership Positions
As noted above, some of the Bible’s most famous women are its queens: for example, King David’s wife, Bathsheba, and King Ahab’s wife, Jezebel. It might come as something of a surprise to learn, then, that the title “queen” is never assigned to a wife of an Israelite king. Instead, the biblical records, especially those from the Southern Kingdom, tend to focus upon the role of the “queen mother.” Indeed, the archival records of all but two of the nineteen kings of the Southern Kingdom record the name of the king’s queen mother. These queen mothers, moreover, seem to have served as official functionaries within their sons’ courts. This can be seen especially in 1 Kings 15:13, where King Asa, angered by one of the undertakings of his queen mother, Ma‘acah, deposed her from her post (1 Kgs. 15:13).
Responsibilities assumed by Israel’s queen mothers include playing a role in naming their husbands’ heir. For example, in 1 Kings 1, the story of how Solomon succeeds to the throne of his father David, we are told that David is on his deathbed and that his throne is about to be inherited by his oldest living son, Adonijah. There is, however, dissent, expressed particularly by the prophet Nathan. Nathan thus approaches Bathsheba, the mother of Solomon, and urges her to go to her ailing husband, whereupon she persuades him to appoint Solomon as the next king. Bathsheba thus plays a crucial role in determining the royal succession. This role is also indicated in a text from the Song of Songs (Cant. 3:11).
As the story of Solomon’s monarchy continues, the text describes another important role Bathsheba plays as queen mother: she acts as a counselor within her son’s court. In fact, Solomon accords so much respect to Bathsheba in her advisory capacity that he is said to rise and bow down to her when she enters his throne room to consult and then has a seat placed for her at his right hand (1 Kgs. 2:19). A comparison with Psalms 80:17 (Hebrew 80:18) and 110:1, where the king is described as sitting at the right hand of God, suggests that after the throne of the monarch himself, Bathsheba’s seat is the place of highest honor on the royal dais.46
 
There are several reasons for the superior position of queen mothers in Israel. The first concerns the biblical tradition of royal polygyny, for the fact that a king has many wives means it is not immediately obvious which of his royal consorts should be his “queen.” Only one royal women, conversely, can be the king’s mother. Queen mothers in the Southern Kingdom, moreover, assume power based on an understanding that they have a special relationship with the divine, since the southern ideology of kingship holds that God is the king’s metaphorical father (2 Sam. 7:14; Pss. 2:7; 89:19–37 [Heb. 89:20–38]; 110:1–7; and Isa. 9:6 [Heb. 9:5]). It follows that the king can be envisioned as having a metaphorical divine mother as well, and the actual queen mother seems to represent this heavenly being on earth. This would explain why the queen mother Ma‘acah is described in 1 Kings 15:13 as making an image in honor of Asherah, who was the mother goddess of the larger Levantine world of which Israel was a part.47
Goddess traditions of the larger Levantine world may have somewhat similarly influenced the portrayals of other biblical women who are said to serve in leadership positions. The depictions of the judge and prophet Deborah found in Judges 5:1–23, for example, and of Jael found in Judges 5:24–27 are very reminiscent of depictions of the warrior goddess Anat found in Canaanite mythology.48
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top