Protestant versus Catholic

[John_Paul_Jones]

OK, so if Mary has grace to restore us to God, where is Jesus in this picture? The Bible clearly states that we have the confidence through the shed blood of Christ to come boldly to God.** IT DOES NOT SAY through Mary.**
I would have to agree the regenerate is a BAD choice of words. It is the Holy Spirit who does those things and regenerates out enthusiasm for Christ, not Mary. With all due respect you sound like a convert to Catholicism that is trying to apply the Role of Jesus and the Holy Spirit to Mary.

Don’t you realize that Mary is full of grace and the Lord is with her? So where ever you’ll find Jesus and the Holy Spirit you’ll find Mary. Name one person closer to God, to Jesus than Mary. Catholicism isn’t applying the Role of Jesus and the Holy Spirit to Mary, but recognizes the role of Mary in relation to her Son, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit, and God the Father.

I think KathleenGee try to articulate the best she could, but it does mean she is a neophyte because you didn’t like how she said it; try to understand the meaning underneath what she said - read in between the lines.

 

[WholeHeart]

As for the Mary-as-ever-virgin thing, I really don’t see why, after the point of Jesus’ birth, it would matter any longer. Wasn’t the virgin birth a sign? The message had been delivered…

Anyway, why worry about whether her having relations with her husband (“marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled”) would mean any dishonor to Christ? And even if it would, didn’t He purposely dishonor Himself by coming to earth in the first place, let alone being born in a stable? There might have been animals born in the same barn, so why worry about whether another person was born from the same womb?

As for the Catholic/Protestant division, the whole thing reminds me of the Paul/Apollos camp controversy, to which Paul answered something like this (loose paraphrase follows)… “Shut up about it, you’re all Christians. I sure didn’t die for your sin.” Peter didn’t die for our redemption any more than Paul did…

 

[Edwin78]

As for the Mary-as-ever-virgin thing, I really don’t see why, after the point of Jesus’ birth, it would matter any longer. Wasn’t the virgin birth a sign? The message had been delivered…

Oh goodness…we have received the message…throw the envelope away

Anyway, why worry about whether her having relations with her husband (“marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled”) would mean any dishonor to Christ?

It does? I thought it was because it would dishonor Mary’s wishes?

Luke Chapter 1: [26] And in the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God into a city of Galilee, called Nazareth, [27] To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. [28] And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. [29] Who having heard, was troubled at his saying, and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be. [30] And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God.

[31] Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus. [32] He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the most High; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father; and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever. [33] And of his kingdom there shall be no end. [34] And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man? [35] And the angel answering, said to her: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

A question: Mary already has a fiance. Why would she ask, “How shall this be done (have a son), because I know not man?” when in fact, Gabriel did not mention that she was going to be pregnant right there and then?

And even if it would, didn’t He purposely dishonor Himself by coming to earth in the first place, let alone being born in a stable? There might have been animals born in the same barn, so why worry about whether another person was born from the same womb?

Imagine, WholeHeart: you are a pious Jew who cannot even say or write the name of YHWH out of deep respect and fear of Him. You grew up with stories of Moses having to remove his sandals to get near the burning bush, of stories of people dying on touching the Ark of the Covenant, of scenes of priests doing elaborate cleansing rituals before entering the temple. You married a woman who you learned was made pregnant by YHWH, and she is carrying in her womb YHWH. Add the fact that your wife wants to remain virgin after her birth. And YHWH talks in your dreams about how to take care of your wife. Are you going to have sexual relations with her after the birth of her first-born Son?

I honestly do not know if Jesus, the Holy Spirit, or the Eternal Father would have minded (other more knowledgeable people may know about Catholic doctrine on this), but the pious St. Joseph? I think he would have minded a LOT.

As for the Catholic/Protestant division, the whole thing reminds me of the Paul/Apollos camp controversy, to which Paul answered something like this (loose paraphrase follows)… “Shut up about it, you’re all Christians. I sure didn’t die for your sin.” Peter didn’t die for our redemption any more than Paul did…

Well, St. Peter for sure did not teach anything that was contrary to St. Paul’s teachings, and vice versa. Do you think Jesus would be happy that Protestants protested against His own teachings through St. Peter AND St. Paul, among others?

 

[RevJoeBonner]

Don’t you realize that Mary is full of grace and the Lord is with her? So where ever you’ll find Jesus and the Holy Spirit you’ll find Mary. Name one person closer to God, to Jesus than Mary. Catholicism isn’t applying the Role of Jesus and the Holy Spirit to Mary, but recognizes the role of Mary in relation to her Son, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit, and God the Father.

I think KathleenGee try to articulate the best she could, but it does mean she is a neophyte because you didn’t like how she said it; try to understand the meaning underneath what she said - read in between the lines.

I am understanding her. She was corrected by FrJohnb as to proper use of words, and repeated posts of Padrej of the catechism showed that what she was saying was not even lining up with the core beliefs as outlined therein. What am I supposed to think? It appeared from her recent posts that Mary replaces the work of the Holy Spirit.
As to one person being closer to God, I have no real problem with that EXCEPT Jesus said John the Baptist was the greatest.

 

[FrJohnB]

Don’t you realize that Mary is full of grace and the Lord is with her? So where ever you’ll find Jesus and the Holy Spirit you’ll find Mary. Name one person closer to God, to Jesus than Mary. Catholicism isn’t applying the Role of Jesus and the Holy Spirit to Mary, but recognizes the role of Mary in relation to her Son, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit, and God the Father.

I think KathleenGee try to articulate the best she could, but it does mean she is a neophyte because you didn’t like how she said it; try to understand the meaning underneath what she said - read in between the lines.

I am going to have to agree with Revjoebonner that Kathleen had been corrected and shown the catechism but still uses the wrong wording. I can tell she has a great love for Mary and there is nothing wrong with this. Her words do not line up with what the church is saying in the catechism.
I too suspected that she may be a convert to Catholicism and many converts do tend to have overlapping theology or try to apply some facet of their old faith to Catholicism and in this case her wording does not apply and can be misleading. I do know what she is trying to say, but it is not coming out right at all.

 

[Padrej]

Don’t you realize that Mary is full of grace and the Lord is with her? So where ever you’ll find Jesus and the Holy Spirit you’ll find Mary. Name one person closer to God, to Jesus than Mary. Catholicism isn’t applying the Role of Jesus and the Holy Spirit to Mary, but recognizes the role of Mary in relation to her Son, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit, and God the Father.

I think KathleenGee try to articulate the best she could, but it does mean she is a neophyte because you didn’t like how she said it; try to understand the meaning underneath what she said - read in between the lines.

QUESTION: If Mary was “full of grace” and the Catholic church interprets this to mean “sinless” why then in the Magnificat does she say “my spirit rejoices in God my SAVIOR;” Wouldn’t a Person WITH sin need a Savior? Can anyone explain this.

 

[WholeHeart]

Oh goodness…we have received the message…throw the envelope away

Well, some people do throw envelopes away. It might not be generally recommended, but it’s not the same as throwing away the card or letter.

It does? I thought it was because it would dishonor Mary’s wishes?

On another thread somewhere about here there were a bunch of people saying how it would dishonor Christ. This might have been a while back.

A question: Mary already has a fiance. Why would she ask, “How shall this be done (have a son), because I know not man?” when in fact, Gabriel did not mention that she was going to be pregnant right there and then?

I would think that the very presence of an angel conveys a sense of relative immediacy. I mean, seriously, why bother sending one to say, “You will have a baby six years from now, so get ready!” He didn’t say she wasn’t going to be pregnant right away, either.

Imagine, WholeHeart: you are a pious Jew who cannot even say or write the name of YHWH out of deep respect and fear of Him. You grew up with stories of Moses having to remove his sandals to get near the burning bush, of stories of people dying on touching the Ark of the Covenant, of scenes of priests doing elaborate cleansing rituals before entering the temple. You married a woman who you learned was made pregnant by YHWH, and she is carrying in her womb YHWH. Add the fact that your wife wants to remain virgin after her birth. And YHWH talks in your dreams about how to take care of your wife. Are you going to have sexual relations with her after the birth of her first-born Son?

Imagine that this same pious Jew knows there has been a miracle but doesn’t really know why. He doesn’t understand that the baby is God. He knows that he was told to marry the woman, anyway, because she had not been unfaithful to him. Also, I’ve never seen any proof that Mary wanted to remain virgin afterward. If she wanted to be virgin forever, getting married wouldn’t exactly be the most logical way to do it, especially given that the very definition of marriage includes and requires sexual union.

I honestly do not know if Jesus, the Holy Spirit, or the Eternal Father would have minded (other more knowledgeable people may know about Catholic doctrine on this), but the pious St. Joseph? I think he would have minded a LOT.

So, are you saying that our salvation depends on believing something about Joseph, now?

Well, St. Peter for sure did not teach anything that was contrary to St. Paul’s teachings, and vice versa. Do you think Jesus would be happy that Protestants protested against His own teachings through St. Peter AND St. Paul, among others?

It wasn’t Peter/Paul. It was Paul/Apollos. I think Apollos was the guy that they found out was preaching inaccurately, so they explained stuff to him better and let him get on with it… So, at one point Apollos was preaching stuff that the main group didn’t agree with. Anyway, Paul didn’t say “Shut up about it and all follow me,” he got upset and started thanking God he hadn’t baptized any of them personally, then went on to name every person he ever baptized, making a point that there weren’t very many.

You know, it’s perfectly Biblical to avoid false teaching, and that’s what the original Protestants were trying to do. The point wasn’t “We don’t like you,” the point was, “We cannot in good conscience subscribe to what you are teaching.” And if they were coming from within the system, they probably were knowledgeable enough of what that teaching was.

–Edited to correct a typo in spelling.

 

[Edwin78]

Well, some people do throw envelopes away. It might not be generally recommended, but it’s not the same as throwing away the card or letter.

And that is the problem, ain’t it? Mary is not an envelope, but someone that is very blessed…as declared by the Holy Spirit Himself.

You just demonstrated how disdainful you are with Mother Mary.

Gotcha.

On another thread somewhere about here there were a bunch of people saying how it would dishonor Christ. This might have been a while back.

Can you please quote them?

I would think that the very presence of an angel conveys a sense of relative immediacy. I mean, seriously, why bother sending one to say, “You will have a baby six years from now, so get ready!”

Why are you adding to the meaning of the Scriptures, WholeHeart? Gabriel, nor the passage itself, never said anything about timing.

He didn’t say she wasn’t going to be pregnant right away, either.

Exactly.

Imagine that this same pious Jew knows there has been a miracle but doesn’t really know why.

He knows that the Holy Spirit—YHWH Himself—entered her womb (Matthew 1:20)

He doesn’t understand that the baby is God.

HUH?! Where did you get that idea? You mean Mary wouldn’t have told him?

He knows that he was told to marry the woman, anyway, because she had not been unfaithful to him.

Also, I’ve never seen any proof that Mary wanted to remain virgin afterward. If she wanted to be virgin forever, getting married wouldn’t exactly be the most logical way to do it, especially given that the very definition of marriage includes and requires sexual union.

catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp

So, are you saying that our salvation depends on believing something about Joseph, now?

No, I just said St. Joseph would have minded very much if he had sexual relations with Mary.

It wasn’t Peter/Paul. It was Paul/Apollos. I think Apollos was the guy that they found out was preaching inaccurately, so they explained stuff to him better and let him get on with it… So, at one point Apollos was preaching stuff that the main group didn’t agree with. Anyway, Paul didn’t say “Shut up about it and all follow me,” he got upset and started thanking God he hadn’t baptized any of them personally, then went on to name every person he ever baptized, making a point that there weren’t very many.

I know, but you didn’t get my drift:

Well, St. Peter for sure did not teach anything that was contrary to St. Paul’s teachings, and vice versa. Do you think Jesus would be happy that Protestants protested against His own teachings through St. Peter AND St. Paul, among others?

Let me change that, if you will:

Well, St. Apollos for sure did not teach anything that was contrary to St. Paul’s teachings, and vice versa. Do you think Jesus would be happy that Protestants protested against His own teachings through St. Apollos AND St. Paul, among others?

You know, it’s perfectly Biblical to avoid false teaching, and that’s what the original Protestants were trying to do.

And they did it by embracing not just a nonbiblical but most importantly an unlogical doctrine called sola scriptura. I mean, I understand and believe that Scripture is the premier inerrant source of our faith…but infallible and only source? Infallible means someone or something that cannot judge incorrectly. And one should read the end of the Gospel of John about Scripture’s completeness.

The point wasn’t “We don’t like you,” the point was, “We cannot in good conscience subscribe to what you are teaching.” And if they were coming from within the system, they probably were knowledgeable enough of what that teaching was.

Probably.

 

[WholeHeart]

The envelope analogy was yours, not mine. And it is quite possible that Mary didn’t understand exactly who Jesus was either, at the very beginning. No one did, or they wouldn’t have been so totally surprised when He died. I don’t have time at the moment, but I’ll probably be back later…

 

[Edwin78]

The envelope analogy was yours, not mine.

And yet no vigorous denial of the analogy in your previous post?

And it is quite possible that Mary didn’t understand exactly who Jesus was either, at the very beginning. No one did, or they wouldn’t have been so totally surprised when He died.

Possibly.

There was no response I don’t have time at the moment, but I’ll probably be back later…

OK.

God bless.

 

[Edwin78]

Hi Padrej

QUESTION: If Mary was “full of grace” and the Catholic church interprets this to mean “sinless” why then in the Magnificat does she say “my spirit rejoices in God my SAVIOR;” Wouldn’t a Person WITH sin need a Savior? Can anyone explain this.

If someone catches you BEFORE you fell inside a deep well, wouldn’t he be your savior too?

 

[Padrej]

Hi Padrej

If someone catches you BEFORE you fell inside a deep well, wouldn’t he be your savior too?

Interesting analogy. If the holy tradition holds that Mary was conceived without sin by Joachim and Anna would it not also negate the verse “in sin was I born and in sin did my mother conceive me?”
I prefer to think that Mary was prepared for the reception of the Savior, thus the need to be “full of Grace.” If one is full of grace that to me would indicate a person who has been in sin but is now in grace/Gods favor.
So are you saying that before Mary fell into sin God rescued her and thus God was her Savior? Or was she referring to God being the savior of Israel?

 

[FrJohnB]

Thank you FrJohnB for your explanation.

God Bless,
Brandon

I hope that it was understandable.
God Bless you

 

[KathleenGee]

I was trying to come back to the thread where I answered Padrej,came back several times and couldn’t find it.

No Fr John B, my father was in the Benedictine seminary for a few years, decided he did not have a vocation, but continued to serve the poor in our community through parish organizations. I have been a Catholic my entire life, but I did not have belief much in Mary until I worked overseas as a lay missionary for my diocese with southern Italian clergy men.

What I sense you may be reacting to is what I saw in a particular Dominican parish where in my mind the Marian Catholics were extreme…it was like the only thing that existed was the Fifth Gospel…

What I will refer to for now is that the Church has grown to understand Mary over the centuries. She has gain various titles for what she had done with her prayers for those who had called on her through a specific time and location.

When I used the word regenerate…I do not mean to say that Mary is working independently of the Holy Spirit…because when people truly bear the fruit of Jesus Christ in their Christian witness, it is likewise the fruit of the Holy Spirit. Of all creatures, Mary was most in union with the Holy Spirit.

I was driving last night to a medical case…and thinking about the word regeneration…Mary, in her prayers, regenerates us…I find so much of the world opposing me, draining me…and after being with European Latin Catholics who are the heart of Christianity, I learned a different way of relating to Mary I do not see here in the USA…

America does not have enough of Mary.

Anyway, the word regeneration…I ask God to give me more faith…when I get more worn down, I ask Mary to pray for me…and I place myself in her immaculate heart – the only safe refuge in this world…per her request of Fatima…and I am instantly ‘recharged’…and i say this also in context when I am unable to go to Mass…I should go to Mass 3 times a week but my current work load, reflecting issues of our economy makes it hard…a spiritual communion must suffice…but I do note an instant support from my Heavenly Mother…and …

I think of Mother Theresa who called Mary the greatest contemplative – afterall, that is what she was doing when the Angel Gabriel appeared to her – and that she is the Great Transmitter of Grace…I imply Mary is like a recharger…and Theresa saw her as a transmitter…

Mary is sounding now like parts of an automobile.

 

[Brandon72]

Interesting analogy. If the holy tradition holds that Mary was conceived without sin by Joachim and Anna would it not also negate the verse “in sin was I born and in sin did my mother conceive me?”
I prefer to think that Mary was prepared for the reception of the Savior, thus the need to be “full of Grace.” If one is full of grace that to me would indicate a person who has been in sin but is now in grace/Gods favor.
So are you saying that before Mary fell into sin God rescued her and thus God was her Savior? Or was she referring to God being the savior of Israel?

This question made me think of something about grace. Aren’t we who believe and trust in Christ as our Savior full of grace to? If we are saved by grace, we would be full of grace also. I don’t think there is a measurement per say, that God goes by. We’ve all received grace if we believe, but who’s to say we don’t have the same as Mary? And if we are also full of grace, we are still sinners according to Scripture, but we are being transformed in the likeness of Christ in our walk with Him. Wouldn’t the same apply to Mary?

Just a thought…

 

[Edwin78]

Interesting analogy. If the holy tradition holds that Mary was conceived without sin by Joachim and Anna would it not also negate the verse “in sin was I born and in sin did my mother conceive me?”

Padrej, how does that apply to either Jesus or Mary?

I prefer to think that Mary was prepared for the reception of the Savior, thus the need to be “full of Grace.”

She was. She was prepared by God even before conception.

If one is full of grace that to me would indicate a person who has been in sin but is now in grace/Gods favor.

Actually, that is quite the opposite.

“Hail Mary, full of grace! The Lord is with thee…”

Remember first of all who was saying this: Gabriel, an angel. Check an online Bible search engine, you will see that all who greeted anyone with “Hail!” was very happy and/or excited to meet him/her. Gabriel knows he is privileged to meet Mary, as if greeting an equal or a superior. There never was a greeting like this by an angel to anyone before, nor since.

So are you saying that before Mary fell into sin God rescued her and thus God was her Savior? Or was she referring to God being the savior of Israel?

Both.

 

[KathleenGee]

Our faith professes that Mary was saved at her conception She has a different constitution than ours…and not only is it to bring forth the messiah but to be our mother as well.

Back to the previous posts…I was searching here but did not realize I was being corrected by several with the catechism until this morning…

I responded a little but will go back and review them more deeply…

Again, I was referring to Mary and not to Jesus…the New Adam…regenerating…us…in Him…

 

[Edwin78]

Hi Brandon72

This question made me think of something about grace. Aren’t we who believe and trust in Christ as our Savior full of grace to? If we are saved by grace, we would be full of grace also. I don’t think there is a measurement per say, that God goes by. We’ve all received grace if we believe, but who’s to say we don’t have the same as Mary? And if we are also full of grace, we are still sinners according to Scripture, but we are being transformed in the likeness of Christ in our walk with Him. Wouldn’t the same apply to Mary?

Just a thought…

You are getting close to why Catholics venerate the Blessed Virgin.

Mary is what theologians call the prototype of the Church. She is first Christian, and the epitome of what we aspire for as a Christian.

She has been full of grace before Stephen was (Acts 6:8)

She has been the temple of the Holy Spirit before any other Christian was (1 Cor 6:19)

Like Mary, we are all called to be overshadowed by the power of the Holy Spirit to give birth to Jesus Christ in our lives (Galatians 2:20).

 

[KathleenGee]

Yes, good question, Brandon…now just having read my ‘corrections’ I originally took off on your place in God…in the process of being regenerated…and see that as Mary’s work in restoring us in Christ if we have fallen out of grace…she is the bridge between Christ and ourselves…yes we go directly to Christ…but for those who seek more of His kingdom she is there and she is there to help us get closer to Him…

Jesus is the source of our life…of all life. Because of Mary, God came to humanity. He became one of us…How many other religions have God walking among us? Emmaus…He is with us always.

 

[John_Paul_Jones]

I am understanding her. She was corrected by FrJohnb as to proper use of words, and repeated posts of Padrej of the catechism showed that what she was saying was not even lining up with the core beliefs as outlined therein. What am I supposed to think? It appeared from her recent posts that Mary replaces the work of the Holy Spirit.
As to one person being closer to God, I have no real problem with that EXCEPT Jesus said John the Baptist was the greatest.

A more fuller passage reads “For I say to you: Amongst those that are born of women, there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist. But he that is the lesser in the kingdom of God, is greater than he.”

Honestly I didn’t think Jesus said that to distance Himself from His mother, but to have us understand something about the Kingdom of God.

I am going to have to agree with Revjoebonner that Kathleen had been corrected and shown the catechism but still uses the wrong wording. I can tell she has a great love for Mary and there is nothing wrong with this. Her words do not line up with what the church is saying in the catechism.
I too suspected that she may be a convert to Catholicism and many converts do tend to have overlapping theology or try to apply some facet of their old faith to Catholicism and in this case her wording does not apply and can be misleading. I do know what she is trying to say, but it is not coming out right at all.

Your right and I’m worng. To be honest I have a tough time expressing myself, so I know how hard it is to express oneself, so I try to be patient as possible to understand what a person says beneath an how a person expresses themselves. I sometimes forget that theology is an exact science that relies on exact phraseology

QUESTION: If Mary was “full of grace” and the Catholic church interprets this to mean “sinless” why then in the Magnificat does she say “my spirit rejoices in God my SAVIOR;” Wouldn’t a Person WITH sin need a Savior? Can anyone explain this.

Yes, your right, a person “WITH” sin would need a Saviour, on the other hand if you don’t mind me saying so, I think you are more interested in whether or not a person without sin would need a Saviour. There are so many proud people who feel they are their own Saviour that everything they have is done everything they own and their position in society is through their own merit, there is no recognition in God that what they have, life & talent, comes from God. Where would any of us be without God? So Mary is really recognizing everything God has done for her. You might feel compelled to think Mary is saying that because she bares sins on her soul, because those who us who are sinners recognize Jesus Christ (God) as our Saviour. When Mary said “in God my Saviour,” it wasn’t because she was feeling a bit guilty inside for sinning. Even the slightest sin would be unbearable to Mary, so through the special Grace from God, He preserved her from all sin, even original sin. So when Mary says “in God My Saviour,” it is truly an act of humility to acknowledge everything she has, Grace and Virtue, comes from God. She recognize that through the love of God she is preserved from sinning, God saves her from being a sinner and losing the Grace He has given her, and because of that is her Saviour. In short Mary rejoices in God for keeping her soul in mint condition while we, as sinners, rejoice in God for be refurbished souls.