Protestant View of Mariology

  • Thread starter Thread starter aidanbradypop
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Its good the Lutheranism allows such beliefs. Many denominations are against such. The whole denying Mary is the Mother of God baffles me. If one believes Christ is God, then one has to affirm that Mary is the Mother of God. BUT they do not. 🤷
If one believes Jesus is God from His Incarnation, it seems one must accept that Mary is the God-bearer. Perhaps it is a matter of understanding the meaning of the term, “Mother of God”, but no one I know believes in the notion that Mary was the mother of God the Father. 🤷

Jon
 
If one believes Jesus is God from His Incarnation, it seems one must accept that Mary is the God-bearer.
I think the concern is that Jesus is God from before His incarnation. The following quote I found is from an ex-Catholic, but I think it states the position clearly and succinctly:

No one disputes the fact that Mary is the mother of the human Jesus even though she was not the “supplier” of His human soul. Nor is there any question that the man Christ Jesus was created human in body, soul and spirit. What is disputed is the extension of the title “mother” to a divine nature that eternally existed and was not created in the womb of the virgin. A mother is only the mother of what originates within her womb. The second person of the blessed trinity did not originate in Mary’s body. He is without beginning – has always existed – and has no mother. . . Conclusion: Jesus Christ the man is the son of Mary. The Second Person of the Trinity is her God, not her son, for He did not originate in her womb. contenderministries.org/Catholicism/marymother.php

Many Protestants take no issue with the term mother of God because there is a use and sense of that phrase that simply emphasizes the deity of Christ. However, others see it as part of a package of Marian devotion that oversteps scriptural warrant. Here is an excerpt from Philip Schaff’s History of the Christian Church, volume III, chapter VII:

It is perfectly natural, nay, essential, to sound religious feeling, to associate with Mary the fairest traits of maidenly and maternal character, and to revere her as the highest model of female purity, love, and piety. From her example issues a silent blessing upon all generations, and her name and memory are, and ever will be, inseparable from the holiest mysteries and benefits of faith. For this reason her name is even wrought into the Apostles’ Creed, in the simple and chaste words: “Conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary.”

The Catholic church, however, both Latin and Greek, did not stop with this. After the middle of the fourth century it overstepped the wholesome Biblical limit, and transformed the “mother of the Lord” into a mother of God, the “humble handmaid of the Lord” into a queen of heaven, the “highly favored” into a dispenser of favors, the “blessed among women” into an intercessor above all women, nay, we may almost say, the redeemed daughter of fallen Adam, who is nowhere in Holy Scripture excepted from the universal sinfulness, into a sinlessly holy co-redeemer. ccel.org/s/schaff/history/3_ch07.htm
 
I think the concern is that Jesus is God from before His incarnation. The following quote I found is from an ex-Catholic, but I think it states the position clearly and succinctly:

No one disputes the fact that Mary is the mother of the human Jesus even though she was not the “supplier” of His human soul. Nor is there any question that the man Christ Jesus was created human in body, soul and spirit. What is disputed is the extension of the title “mother” to a divine nature that eternally existed and was not created in the womb of the virgin. A mother is only the mother of what originates within her womb. The second person of the blessed trinity did not originate in Mary’s body. He is without beginning – has always existed – and has no mother. . . Conclusion: Jesus Christ the man is the son of Mary. The Second Person of the Trinity is her God, not her son, for He did not originate in her womb. contenderministries.org/Catholicism/marymother.php
Yes, yes. I worded it poorly, for sure. Your link is interesting, and again the question is was Jesus fully God when Mary gave birth to Him? If yes, then she is indeed the God-bearer. The above wants to divide the nature of Jesus, contrary to the Athanasian Creed: "Who, although He be God and Man, yet He is not two, but one Christ: One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking the manhood into God; One altogether; not by confusion of Substance, but by unity of Person."

Jon
 
I recognize Mary as a supreme example of faith, allowing herself to be used by God to bring his son into this world. She is the Mother of God. For this, we cannot help but honor her.

With regard to the Immaculate Conception, I am certain that God made sure that Mary was a fit vessel to bear his son. How or when that was accomplished I do not know.
What Would Mary Do?

John 2
  1. And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there:
  2. And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage.
3.*And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine.

4.*Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.

5.*His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.
 
What Would Mary Do?

John 2
  1. And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there:
  2. And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage.
3.*And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine.

4.*Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.

5.*His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.
Welcome to CAF. 🙂
I guess she would have done what she did.
I’m not sure I understand the point of your post, as it relates to Pastor Gary’s. Perhaps you could elaborate.

Jon
 
I think the concern is that Jesus is God from before His incarnation. The following quote I found is from an ex-Catholic, but I think it states the position clearly and succinctly:

No one disputes the fact that Mary is the mother of the human Jesus even though she was not the “supplier” of His human soul. Nor is there any question that the man Christ Jesus was created human in body, soul and spirit. What is disputed is the extension of the title “mother” to a divine nature that eternally existed and was not created in the womb of the virgin. A mother is only the mother of what originates within her womb. The second person of the blessed trinity did not originate in Mary’s body. He is without beginning – has always existed – and has no mother. . . Conclusion: Jesus Christ the man is the son of Mary. The Second Person of the Trinity is her God, not her son, for He did not originate in her womb. contenderministries.org/Catholicism/marymother.php

Many Protestants take no issue with the term mother of God because there is a use and sense of that phrase that simply emphasizes the deity of Christ. However, others see it as part of a package of Marian devotion that oversteps scriptural warrant. Here is an excerpt from Philip Schaff’s History of the Christian Church, volume III, chapter VII:

It is perfectly natural, nay, essential, to sound religious feeling, to associate with Mary the fairest traits of maidenly and maternal character, and to revere her as the highest model of female purity, love, and piety. From her example issues a silent blessing upon all generations, and her name and memory are, and ever will be, inseparable from the holiest mysteries and benefits of faith. For this reason her name is even wrought into the Apostles’ Creed, in the simple and chaste words: “Conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary.”

The Catholic church, however, both Latin and Greek, did not stop with this. After the middle of the fourth century it overstepped the wholesome Biblical limit, and transformed the “mother of the Lord” into a mother of God, the “humble handmaid of the Lord” into a queen of heaven, the “highly favored” into a dispenser of favors, the “blessed among women” into an intercessor above all women, nay, we may almost say, the redeemed daughter of fallen Adam, who is nowhere in Holy Scripture excepted from the universal sinfulness, into a sinlessly holy co-redeemer. ccel.org/s/schaff/history/3_ch07.htm
Because being impregnated by the Holy Spirit is not a Divine Act?

or

Since Jesus was before Abraham?

or

Because in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God?

The Blessed Virgin birthed the only begotten Son of God. Fully God and Fully human. period.

If we intend on separating the 2 natures we will fall into heresy.

Peace.
 
Because being impregnated by the Holy Spirit is not a Divine Act?

or

Since Jesus was before Abraham?

or

Because in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God?

The Blessed Virgin birthed the only begotten Son of God. Fully God and Fully human. period.

If we intend on separating the 2 natures we will fall into heresy.

Peace.
And you get really close to Gnosticism by separating the two
 
I recognize Mary as a supreme example of faith, allowing herself to be used by God to bring his son into this world. She is the Mother of God. For this, we cannot help but honor her.

With regard to the Immaculate Conception, I am certain that God made sure that Mary was a fit vessel to bear his son. How or when that was accomplished I do not know.

With regard to Mary’s perpetual virginity, I go along with Luther for whom it was an article of faith. That said, if incontrovertible proof were to arise that Mary had other children, it would not diminish my respect for her in any way. Note – I don’t expect that to happen.

With regard to the Assumption, again I go with Luther in believing that Mary is in heaven although I cannot know just how she arrived there.
Well, getting back to the post by gcnuss, I cannot say for sure exactly what my church’s official view on Mary is. I know that it does not view her in a negative way, but I do know that the overall emphases’ that many of the Catholic faith place upon Mary, are not very focused upon.

I myself view Mary as a very strong woman of faith. Mary’s faith, in and of itself, is a very beautiful thing. One thing that puzzles me is why many Catholics seem to think there had to be something extraordinarily special about Mary. I mean, like she had somewhat of a divine touch placed upon her before she was even born. So, I guess I don’t personally believe in the Immaculate Conception.

What made Mary sinless?
 
I have a question about something…

It has to do with two women in the bible. Mary and Sarah

What is the overall Catholic view of Sarah, the wife of Abraham? To me it seems that Mary and Sarah were both recipients of great miracles.

Mary was a young lady when her miracle manifested itself, or should I say Himself.

Sarah was on the other end of the age issue when she gave birth to Isaac.

What do Catholics feel about Sarah in general?
 
One thing that puzzles me is why many Catholics seem to think there had to be something extraordinarily special about Mary. I mean, like she had somewhat of a divine touch placed upon her before she was even born. So, I guess I don’t personally believe in the Immaculate Conception.
Incarnation is one of the most important mysteries in the NT. Out of all, Divinity chose Mary, and by Marys Faith. Very much part of the saviors plan.
What made Mary sinless?
Gods Grace. Just as you actively seek Christ and His gifts, you will walk in that direction. As far as the IC, I’m not sure that’s aidanbradypop intent to dive deep into that here. I’ll leave that to him.

Nevertheless while its right to focus on Christ Crucified that is the focal point of the Apostolic Church’s, however, we can’t place Gods Saints at odds with Him. These are His chosen who earned the right to be His people. And they should be held in the highest regard in His Kingdom especially since He thought that much of them. Especially Mary. The Lord would have it no other way.
 
Incarnation is one of the most important mysteries in the NT. Out of all, Divinity chose Mary, and by Marys Faith. Very much part of the saviors plan.

Gods Grace. Just as you actively seek Christ and His gifts, you will walk in that direction. As far as the IC, I’m not sure that’s aidanbradypop intent to dive deep into that here. I’ll leave that to him.
Gary, i would add…and we can look to scripture.

“Hail Mary full of grace, The Lord is with you”
Nevertheless while its right to focus on Christ Crucified that is the focal point of the Apostolic Church’s, however, we can’t place Gods Saints at odds with Him. These are His chosen who earned the right to be His people. And they should be held in the highest regard in His Kingdom especially since He thought that much of them. Especially Mary. The Lord would have it no other way.
and more scripture.

“Blessed art thou amongst women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb Jesus.”

And still…

“All generations shall call me blessed.”

Heres a quick summary of what the Protestant reformers said about Mary

Mary always point and leads us to her Son…“do whatever he tells you.”
 
I have a question about something…

It has to do with two women in the bible. Mary and Sarah

What is the overall Catholic view of Sarah, the wife of Abraham? To me it seems that Mary and Sarah were both recipients of great miracles.

Mary was a young lady when her miracle manifested itself, or should I say Himself.

Sarah was on the other end of the age issue when she gave birth to Isaac.

What do Catholics feel about Sarah in general?
One cannot compare the two in anyway really. Sarah gave birth to Issac. Although Issac was a great man, he was not the son of God nor was Sarah a virgin. I do not see why one would even compare the two. :confused:
 
One cannot compare the two in anyway really. Sarah gave birth to Issac. Although Issac was a great man, he was not the son of God nor was Sarah a virgin. I do not see why one would even compare the two. :confused:
Fyi, the Catechism makes the following comment on Sarah
Mary’s predestination
488 “God sent forth his Son”, but to prepare a body for him,125 he wanted the free co-operation of a creature. For this, from all eternity God chose for the mother of his Son a daughter of Israel, a young Jewish woman of Nazareth in Galilee, “a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary”:126
The Father of mercies willed that the Incarnation should be preceded by assent on the part of the predestined mother, so that just as a woman had a share in the coming of death, so also should a woman contribute to the coming of life.127
489 Throughout the Old Covenant the mission of many holy women prepared for that of Mary. At the very beginning there was Eve; despite her disobedience, she receives the promise of a posterity that will be victorious over the evil one, as well as the promise that she will be the mother of all the living.128 By virtue of this promise, Sarah conceives a son in spite of her old age.129 Against all human expectation God chooses those who were considered powerless and weak to show forth his faithfulness to his promises: Hannah, the mother of Samuel; Deborah; Ruth; Judith and Esther; and many other women.130 Mary "stands out among the poor and humble of the Lord, who confidently hope for and receive salvation from him. After a long period of waiting the times are fulfilled in her, the exalted Daughter of Sion, and the new plan of salvation is established."131
 
Fyi, the Catechism makes the following comment on Sarah
Thanks Pork…I want to wait and see the angle the poster is coming from. If it is from the quote from the CCC then I agree with that, but I have heard many Protestant compare Sarah and Mary as being no different. SO lol I will just wait and see. 😉
 
One cannot compare the two in anyway really. Sarah gave birth to Issac. Although Issac was a great man, he was not the son of God nor was Sarah a virgin. I do not see why one would even compare the two. :confused:
Um…seriously?

Sarah was technically beyond child bearing years yet God made birth possible for her…

The comparisons here are based in MIRACLE!
 
Um…seriously?

Sarah was technically beyond child bearing years yet God made birth possible for her…

The comparisons here are based in MIRACLE!
It was a miracle indeed, but are you saying the Sarah and Mary are the same in nature?
 
What made Mary sinless?
You seem to be missing the point. God had to send in human form his perfect son who was spotless and had no sin to make the greatest sacrifice for us sinners. Remember god knows our every move before we are born. Mary was blessed among all women and he had this plan set in advance.

Apart from that if you know the story of Lourdes and St. Bernadette where Mary told her she was the Immaculate conception. Her body still remains in-corrupt to this very day. Lourdes is most visited Marian shrine.

Ps All saints that have remained in corrupt are Living miracles 🙂

youtube.com/watch?v=G5711hI04mw
 
Again, when you experience the sacred presence of God in the tabernacle, receive the Eucharist, you are brought into God’s time, eternal time. Mysteries begin to open up, and from here, you begin to reflect on the nature of the Virgin.

Our form of worship is so entirely different from Protestant, especially the non-denominationals, as Christians roots were totally severed.
 
It was a miracle indeed, but are you saying the Sarah and Mary are the same in nature?
That I cannot say really. But, why were these two women chosen to receive the types of miracles that they did?

Why do people here say that Isaac was a great man?
What about Abraham?
 
That I cannot say really. But, why were these two women chosen to receive the types of miracles that they did?

Why do people here say that Isaac was a great man?
What about Abraham?
There were a lot of great people in Sacred Scripture, but they simply prepared the way for Christ. Also none of them were the Mother of God. 😉
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top