Protestant View of Mariology

[GaryTaylor]

And it took Augustine 16-years to finish the work, which eventually led us up to St Thomas and Scotus. God does the watering, the conversation continues.

 

[Monergistic]

If this were the way that the Holy Spirit intended to guide His Church, then no one ought to be opposed to this. After all, if the leader is being inspired by the 3rd Person of the Holy Trinity, what’s not to like about that?

What’s not to like about that?

It doesn’t work very well, it presents problems that are totally avoidable as long as you just don’t do that thing, and it gives you some quality control issues that are unnecessary and eventually harmful. And there’s the tricky explanation as to why, all of a sudden, there’s one particular family in which the individual charism of infallibility is passed to the eldest son where it lies dormant until awakened by the death or resignation of his father and there’s no other families in which this happens and…well, it’s a lot to explain and it’s a lot to swallow.

It’s interesting, however, that you focus on a formal equivalency between whatever (and I think you do mean a full commitment to Whatever) is done via Magisterial authority and the inspired will of the Holy Spirit. I guess it’s nice to know your mentality. If any crazy and/or stupid thing, then what’s not to like, so long as it’s your guys doing it.

If you don’t mind, though, I do have to consider some other offers that are slightly better. You have a set of leaders that perfectly mirror the will of God and guide you into all truth, and while that is impressive, I can’t help but notice that the Mormons have a living prophet at all times. That’s pretty serious, and after all, if you have a living prophet what’s not to like about that?

Long as you’re doing what you’re doing, might as well go all in.

 

[PRmerger]

What’s not to like about that?

It doesn’t work very well, it presents problems that are totally avoidable as long as you just don’t do that thing, and it gives you some quality control issues that are unnecessary and eventually harmful. And there’s the tricky explanation as to why, all of a sudden, there’s one particular family in which the individual charism of infallibility is passed to the eldest son where it lies dormant until awakened by the death or resignation of his father and there’s no other families in which this happens and…well, it’s a lot to explain and it’s a lot to swallow.

This sounds just like an atheist could argue against the Incarnation. He says, “Let’s just propose that God did become a man. It doesn’t work very well. It presents problems that are totally avoidable as long as you just don’t do that thing, and it gives you some quality control issues that are unnecessary and eventually harmful. And there’s the tricky explanation as to why, all of a sudden, there’s one particular family in which divinity is passed to the only begotten son where it lies dormant until awakened by the death or resignation of his father and there’s no other families in which this happens and…well, it’s a lot to explain and it’s a lot to swallow”

How would you respond to this atheist?

 

[PRmerger]

It’s interesting, however, that you focus on a formal equivalency between whatever (and I think you do mean a full commitment to Whatever) is done via Magisterial authority and the inspired will of the Holy Spirit. I guess it’s nice to know your mentality. If any crazy and/or stupid thing, then what’s not to like, so long as it’s your guys doing it.

This, too, is the argument of the atheist, is it not?

"Belief in God makes all things possible–child rape, genocide, fratricide–in the name of ‘But God said!’ "

How do you respond as a Christian, Mongergistic?

If you don’t mind, though, I do have to consider some other offers that are slightly better. You have a set of leaders that perfectly mirror the will of God and guide you into all truth, and while that is impressive, I can’t help but notice that the Mormons have a living prophet at all times. That’s pretty serious, and after all, if you have a living prophet what’s not to like about that?

I don’t think you have a good grasp on the Catholic teaching regarding the charism of infallibility. This is limned by your phrase “perfectly mirror the will of God”. (Think: Peter and his denial of Christ. NOT even close to perfectly mirroring the will of God. Yet still the leader Christ chose for his Church.)

Here’s a pithy explanation: catholic.com/video/scott-hahn-explains-papal-infallibility

Long as you’re doing what you’re doing, might as well go all in.

Oh, I love poker references! You don’t want to play poker with me, Mongergistic. I win. A lot.

Just sayin’…

 

[Monergistic]

This sounds just like an atheist could argue against the Incarnation. He says, “Let’s just propose that God did become a man. It doesn’t work very well. It presents problems that are totally avoidable as long as you just don’t do that thing, and it gives you some quality control issues that are unnecessary and eventually harmful. And there’s the tricky explanation as to why, all of a sudden, there’s one particular family in which divinity is passed to the only begotten son where it lies dormant until awakened by the death or resignation of his father and there’s no other families in which this happens and…well, it’s a lot to explain and it’s a lot to swallow”

How would you respond to this atheist?

I don’t have to, because your comparison isn’t a good one. I suppose you don’t want to talk about the pros and cons of a hereditary monarchy?

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t have to, because your comparison isn’t a good one. I suppose you don’t want to talk about the pros and cons of a hereditary monarchy?

Only as much as you want to talk about the possibility of Jesus having children. It might be interesting to consider the pros and cons of hereditary divinity.

Shall we?

 

[Monergistic]

Only as much as you want to talk about the possibility of Jesus having children. It might be interesting to consider the pros and cons of hereditary divinity.

Shall we?

You don’t understand why your comparison was a bad one, do you?

 

[PRmerger]

You don’t understand why your comparison was a bad one, do you?

No. Why was it bad?

 

[KathleenGee]

Back to king and queenship.

Our Lord called His a kingdom but not of this earth. So the Lord is not saying His democracy is not of this earth. He did not say His government is of this earth. He said His kingdom.

So because our Lord said our life in Him is a kingdom, He already has defined it…but you cannot compare, either, using His full terms…a kingdom like a monarchy here on earth.

Secondly, Christ got His humanity from His mother who is a descendant of the House of David, and David was a king.

So Our Lord got His Kingship so to speak from His mother. Just as He received His humanity, her DNA, her flesh and blood from Mary herself.

Jesus, King of Heaven and Earth is the crown of Mary. In Jesus in turn through His divine crown and her glorious assumption into heaven is made queen by Our Lord, and the Church formalized this union.

What is bound on earth by the Church through Peter is bound in heaven.

 

[KathleenGee]

Through Christ, we become adopted sons and daughters.

We are Christ’s adopted sons and daughters by having Christ through the Word and Eucharist come to want to live within us in our hearts and share His divine life, which is eternal life, with us.

 

[Monergistic]

No. Why was it bad?

I was saying that a hereditary monarchy has some drawbacks and is not the best way to go about doing things. You decided this is somehow like saying I am certain that God does not exist, and you contrast this with what is so far your insistence on saying nothing in particular about monarchy and its value/reliability/efficacy relative to the forms of government most prevalent as of now, and in doing so you compare yourself to one who argues for the existence of God.

Why would you think that was a good comparison? It’s nonsense, right on the face of it. By the way, in case you missed what I was doing with the papacy argument (ad absurdium), I did that in order to demonstrate that a hereditary monarchy is a relatively poor way to choose a leader and maintain succession while having a peaceful transfer of power- but in the process, I basically said that the Catholic way of doing all that is far superior to the way in which secular leaders of kingdoms and countries in Europe had been chosen for much of its history.

You’re welcome, and I accept your apology in advance.

 

[lynnettejane]

I’m technically a Catholic, although I have some strong Protestant leanings. You seem interested in a genuine discussion about Mary, which is unusual around here.

My beliefs:

1. There can hardly be any greater honour than bringing to birth the son of God. Mary, therefore, has a special place in humanity.
2. She must have been holy; not sinless, but holy.
3. I suppose she had to be virginally pure before she gave birth to Jesus. Perpetually a virgin? Guesswork on the part of the church. We have no way of knowing that and no reason to believe it. In any case, what does the state of Mary’s virginity, after the birth of Jesus, have to do with anything? Does it change anyone’s faith? If she married and had sex, does it make her less holy? If she had other children to Joseph, does it make her less holy? I believe that Mary would not have been rendered “impure” by having other children in the context of marriage.
4. The Assumption: more guesswork. How can anyone take us seriously when we insist on myths like this?
5. Queen of Heaven: no-one knows who is in Heaven and who is not. It is extremely presumptuous to declare someone to be the Queen of Heaven.
6. Co-Redemptrix: highly presumptuous. I believe Christ does the job of redeeming all by himself, without any assistance.

I think that much of Mariology is a load of wishful nonsense perpetuated by a male-dominated church desperate for a female figurehead to revere–if not as a god, as the next best thing.

I don’t believe in praying to saints, so I don’t pray to Mary.

Mary does not figure in my belief system. Not one bit. That’s another reason why I can’t be a true Catholic.

If Mary was not without sin, then wouldn’t it follow that Jesus also would have inherited our sinful nature from her, he would have been tainted by Adam’s sin as we all are, there could not have been a sinless sacrifice for us .
The jury is out for me too with regard to Jesus having siblings. And coming from a protestant/mormon background praying to Mary and saints doesn’t come naturally to me, although I believe she was full of grace from girlhood and highly favoured by God so deserves reverence. Her example of faithful obedience is also something to revere her for, what if she had said, no way?

 

[GaryTaylor]

And coming from a protestant/mormon background praying to Mary and saints doesn’t come naturally to me, although I believe she was full of grace from girlhood and highly favoured by God so deserves reverence. Her example of faithful obedience is also something to revere her for, what if she had said, no way?

Grace it comes through Grace. No surprise, to perceive the reality is one aspect, to believe is indeed another.

What if Mary said no? Then we wouldn’t have had Mary to intercede for us, like She still says “yes” for us today.

Or we would imho have to re-evaluate what indeed we believe about this spiritual reality.

Mary has a relentless faith in God, that is what found favor, the yes sealed the deal. Marys intercession is a contingent of our Salvation? That has to be a yes?

 

[GaryTaylor]

This statement “I believe Christ does the job of redeeming all by himself, without any assistance.”

Its non Biblical, doesn’t coincide with the Annunciation, Incarnation of Jesus Christ.

 

[PRmerger]

I was saying that a hereditary monarchy has some drawbacks and is not the best way to go about doing things.

Sure. I don’t disagree with that.

But a monarchy ensouled with the Holy Spirit shouldn’t be a problem for you as a Christian.

You decided this is somehow like saying I am certain that God does not exist, and you contrast this with what is so far your insistence on saying nothing in particular about monarchy and its value/reliability/efficacy relative to the forms of government most prevalent as of now, and in doing so you compare yourself to one who argues for the existence of God.

Ah, I see where your error lies. None of the above is anything at all remotely close to what I said.

Perhaps if you re-read my arguments you can re-present them as I have actually argued.

Why would you think that was a good comparison? It’s nonsense, right on the face of it. By the way, in case you missed what I was doing with the papacy argument (ad absurdium), I did that in order to demonstrate that a hereditary monarchy is a relatively poor way to choose a leader and maintain succession while having a peaceful transfer of power- but in the process, I basically said that the Catholic way of doing all that is far superior to the way in which secular leaders of kingdoms and countries in Europe had been chosen for much of its history.

I suppose I missed where you said that the Catholic way of doing all that is far superior.
Could you direct me to that post? Thanks.

You’re welcome, and I accept your apology in advance.

Careful, Monergistic. I won’t report this because it is good for you to be here in dialogue with knowledgeable Catholics. However, you can’t continue to chat this way.

I suggest you follow the models of some kind, thoughtful, charming, and uber-charitable non-Catholic posters so that you can stay, learn and discourse.

 

[pablope]

What exactly does being “Queen of Heaven” entail?

It gets confusing — God the Father and God the Son are one and co-eternal. Mary gave birth to Jesus, becoming mother of God.

But Mary is not the mother of God the Father, and God the Father is King, and the only reason Mary is queen is because of her mothership to God the Son.

If Jesus sits at the right hand of God the Father, where is Mary? Is she next to Jesus or bowing down before the Holy Trinity like the rest of created beings?

Is Mary “Queen of Heaven” or “queen of Heaven”?

When the word queen is mentioned…what comes to your mind or what do you envision?

Do you envision a queen like the queen of England…which rules a kingdom…or has powers or authority? (like the kings/queen of medieval england or europe?)

Or do you envision something else…a queen who loves and prays for us…who cares and who has concerns for us?

 

[dronald]

Jesus, King of Heaven and Earth is the crown of Mary. In Jesus in turn through His divine crown and her glorious assumption into heaven is made queen by Our Lord, and the Church formalized this union.

What is bound on earth by the Church through Peter is bound in heaven.

It is baffling that such an important fact like the one you put together here is not stated by one of the Apostles in their letters… It makes me wonder if they went around preaching this even though they never wrote it down, and it can’t be found in the Acts.

 

[PRmerger]

It is baffling that such an important fact like the one you put together here is not stated by one of the Apostles in their letters… It makes me wonder if they went around preaching this even though they never wrote it down, and it can’t be found in the Acts.

Exactly, dronald. Exactly.

St. Paul preached in the temple for 3 months. It is impossible that everything he preached was contained in the written word.

With Catholicism, we are able to preserve all that was preached, through Sacred Tradition.

 

[dronald]

If Mary was not without sin, then wouldn’t it follow that Jesus also would have inherited our sinful nature from her, he would have been tainted by Adam’s sin as we all are, there could not have been a sinless sacrifice for us .
The jury is out for me too with regard to Jesus having siblings. And coming from a protestant/mormon background praying to Mary and saints doesn’t come naturally to me, although I believe she was full of grace from girlhood and highly favoured by God so deserves reverence. Her example of faithful obedience is also something to revere her for, what if she had said, no way?

I can’t follow this line of reasoning… Jesus was without sin because Mary was without sin, but Mary’s parents had sin and did not pass it to Mary. So if it’s possible that Mary could not adopt inherited sin from 2 sinful parents then why is it so hard to believe that Jesus was protected from sin by the Holy Spirit. We know that Jesus only had one biological parent and if He had two He would have inherited sin, just like Mary did because she had two parents.

 

[dronald]

Exactly, dronald. Exactly.

St. Paul preached in the temple for 3 months. It is impossible that everything he preached was contained in the written word.

With Catholicism, we are able to preserve all that was preached, through Sacred Tradition.

Surely Paul in one of his many inspired letters could have brought up the issue of Mary though, no?

Again, was Paul also preaching about Mary but completely left her out in all of his letters? What about James, Peter, John and Jude? Were they preaching about Mary but didn’t touch on one thing about her also?