Protestant View of Mariology

  • Thread starter Thread starter aidanbradypop
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

aidanbradypop

Guest
I am not interested in Luther’s or Calvin’s view so please do not make this thread another Luther bashing one! Thanks 👍 I would like to know your personal opinion of Mariology?

For me, the Blessed Virgin Mother holds a dear place in my heart.
 
As the earthly mother of Jesus, highly favored of God and used in bringing forth our Lord in a miraculous way, Mary is to be respected and honored. I do not believe in the immaculate conception, perpetual virginity, or assumption of Mary. I do not believe she can hear our prayers or in any way mediate for us with God. However, she is, as Elisabeth said, blessed among women, and as Mary said, “he that is mighty hath done to me great things,” and “from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.”
 
jrtrent said:
As the earthly mother of Jesus, highly favored of God and used in bringing forth our Lord in a miraculous way, Mary is to be respected and honored. I do not believe in the immaculate conception, perpetual virginity, or assumption of Mary. I do not believe she can hear our prayers or in any way mediate for us with God. However, she is, as Elisabeth said, blessed among women, and as Mary said, “he that is mighty hath done to me great things,” and “from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.”
Click to expand...
👍 thanks pal! She is Blessed indeed! What about the IC,PV and AoM do you find hard to believe? Are there parts you can relate to and other not so much?
 
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.
 
gcnuss said:
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.
Click to expand...
Nice post and thoughts. Thanks for being honest!
 
(Hi Rev gcnuss,

I just heard this the other day on EWTN…about the Assumption of Mary into heaven, the one point I was a little dubious about in my faith formation as a cradle Catholic.

We have to look at the dogmatic use of ‘assumption’. How it happened, we do not know. We can only assume…hence, the word, assumed into heaven. Yes, it does go back to her immaculate conception, she conceived without sin, the wages of sin are death…

We have to see her as blessed among all women, uniquely created by God Himself, she still created with free will but full of grace that her inclination is the Fiat, “yes!”.)
 
KathleenGee said:
(Hi Rev gcnuss,

I just heard this the other day on EWTN…about the Assumption of Mary into heaven, the one point I was a little dubious about in my faith formation as a cradle Catholic.

We have to look at the dogmatic use of ‘assumption’. How it happened, we do not know. We can only assume…hence, the word, assumed into heaven. Yes, it does go back to her immaculate conception, she conceived without sin, the wages of sin are death…

We have to see her as blessed among all women, uniquely created by God Himself, she still created with free will but full of grace that her inclination is the Fiat, “yes!”.)
Click to expand...
Amen. Nice post…well stated.
Mary.
 
=aidanbradypop;10488440]I am not interested in Luther’s or Calvin’s view so please do not make this thread another Luther bashing one! Thanks 👍 I would like to know your personal opinion of Mariology?
Click to expand...
For me, the Blessed Virgin Mother holds a dear place in my heart.
Click to expand...
She ALONE was chosen by God at GREAT personal sacrifice to Be the Very Mother of GOD!

How can I NOT love and reverence her?🤷 😃
 
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.
 
MaryT777 said:
Amen. Nice post…well stated.
Mary.
Click to expand...
👋 Mary
PJM said:
She ALONE was chosen by God at GREAT personal sacrifice to Be the Very Mother of GOD!

How can I NOT love and reverence her?🤷 😃
Click to expand...
A priest once told me, which brought me so much closer to the Blessed Mother, that each time we sin, we not only offend God but we also bring more sorrow to the Blessed Mother. She desires us to be closer to God through her Son and each time I sin, I make the death of her Son needed.

I never really understood that until I had a son of my own.
 
hansard said:
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.
Click to expand...
Thanks for bringing your thoughts into the thread.

I would like to talk about 6 if I may. Co-Redemptrix is not a dogma of the Church. The concept of Co-redemption is not new. Even before the year 200, the Church Father Irenaeus referred to Mary as “causa salutis” [cause of our salvation] given her “fiat” It is a concept which was the subject of considerable theological debate, reaching a peak in the 15th century, but attempts to have it declared a dogma were not successful.

The concept of Co-redemptrix refers to an indirect or unequal but important participation by the Blessed Virgin Mary in redemption, notably: that she gave free consent to give life to the Redeemer, to share his life, to suffer with him under the cross, to offer His sacrifice to God the Father for the sake of the redemption of mankind, and to bring about all particular post-assumption graces by way of intercession. The latter concept is included in the concept of Mediatrix which is a separate concept but regularly included by faithful who use the title of co-redemptrix.

The title has received some support from the Catholic Magisterium though it is not included in the concluding chapter of the dogmatic constitution Lumen gentium of the Second Vatican Council, which chapter many theologians hold to be a comprehensive summary of Roman Catholic Marian teaching. Even so, it is not a dogma.
 
hansard said:
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.
  1. 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.
Mary does not figure in my belief system. Not one bit. That’s another reason why I can’t be a true Catholic.
Click to expand...
May I ask…what is your concept/idea of a queen…is it like the Queen of England? A ruler who rules like the Q of E?

My point is…how do you a queen of heaven is like…like the queen of England?
 
aidanbradypop said:
👍 thanks pal! She is Blessed indeed! What about the IC,PV and AoM do you find hard to believe?
Click to expand...
They are hard to believe because they are not normal, not scriptural, and not necessary. Only Jesus is described as being without sin, and there are scriptures indicating that, other than Christ, all have sinned; that would include Mary, unless there is clear scriptural warrant for saying she did not sin. As to PV, there have been long threads on the subject, and I don’t believe there is absolute scriptural proof on either side of the question; however, a normal reading of the text indicates that Mary and Joseph had other children who were described as the brothers and sisters of Jesus, so that is what I choose to believe. On the issue of the AoM, again there is simply no scriptural record of so unusual a thing having occurred. The scriptures tell us of Elijah and Enoch, but not a word about something similar having happened to Mary. Not believing in the immaculate conception, perpetual virginity, or assumption of Mary in no way reduces the respect and honor she is due, nor does it detract from the miracle of Christ’s virgin birth or the work He came to perform.
 
=hansard;10488860]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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
I don’t believe in praying to saints, so I don’t pray to Mary.
Click to expand...
Mary does not figure in my belief system. Not one bit. That’s another reason why I can’t be a true Catholic.
Click to expand...
***Actually my friend,

While I TRULY apprecite your post; MARY in an ABSOLUTE SENSE HAD TO BE [emphasis not shouting] free of ALL Si both before She Conceived Jesus and afterwards as well.

WHY?

Because God is; must be; and must always remin PERFECT in order to “be God”🙂

Simply put:

Because God Is Perfect Mary HAD to 1. Be perfected brior to her own conception and birth which i accomplised through the Merits of her Son, jesus [time does not exist for God]; then MARY HAD TO and DiD choose to remain sinless with God’s Grace an Her Own FREEWILL in order to merit [be worthy of] such a SINGULAR honor*.**

As a FYI, I can address your other issues as well if your really interested?

God Bless you,
Pat/PJM
 
jrtrent said:
They are hard to believe because they are not normal, not scriptural, and not necessary. Only Jesus is described as being without sin, and there are scriptures indicating that, other than Christ, all have sinned; that would include Mary, unless there is clear scriptural warrant for saying she did not sin. As to PV, there have been long threads on the subject, and I don’t believe there is absolute scriptural proof on either side of the question; however, a normal reading of the text indicates that Mary and Joseph had other children who were described as the brothers and sisters of Jesus, so that is what I choose to believe. On the issue of the AoM, again there is simply no scriptural record of so unusual a thing having occurred. The scriptures tell us of Elijah and Enoch, but not a word about something similar having happened to Mary. Not believing in the immaculate conception, perpetual virginity, or assumption of Mary in no way reduces the respect and honor she is due, nor does it detract from the miracle of Christ’s virgin birth or the work He came to perform.
Click to expand...
I believe the Eastern Churches believe that the “brothers and sisters” of Christ are children from a Joesph’s marriage prior with a deceased wife. I could be wrong but I believe I remember hearing something to that effect.
 
PJM said:
***Actually my friend,

While I TRULY apprecite your post; MARY in an ABSOLUTE SENSE HAD TO BE [emphasis not shouting] free of ALL Si both before She Conceived Jesus and afterwards as well.

WHY?

Because God is; must be; and must always remin PERFECT in order to “be God”🙂

Simply put:

Because God Is Perfect Mary HAD to 1. Be perfected brior to her own conception and birth which i accomplised through the Merits of her Son, jesus [time does not exist for God]; then MARY HAD TO and DiD choose to remain sinless with God’s Grace an Her Own FREEWILL in order to merit [be worthy of] such a SINGULAR honor***.
Click to expand...
As a FYI, I can address your other issues as well if your really interested?

God Bless you,
Pat/PJM

A Protestant friend of mine stated this…If God could allow his Son to be born of a human, could he not have also kept Mary’s sin from passing onto Christ at birth?

I answered this. God creating the Mother sinless was not for her, but was for His Son’s sake. Christ came down from Heaven for the sake of man and the Father created a Holy and sinless womb (temple) for him to dwell in.
 
=aidanbradypop;10488973]I believe the Eastern Churches believe that the “brothers and sisters” of Christ are children from a Joesph’s marriage prior with a deceased wife. I could be wrong but I believe I remember hearing something to that effect.
Click to expand...
The term at THAT TIME in history INCLUDED cosins and close family members:)
 
hansard said:
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.
Click to expand...
👍
hansard said:
  1. She must have been holy; not sinless, but holy.
Click to expand...
Upon what do you base this notion? Just one question. Do you believe God is capable of creating Mary free from original sin?
hansard said:
  1. 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.
Click to expand...
Well, we do have a way of knowing, or at least a reason to believe and that is because the Church, which is prevented from error by the Holy Spirit, has said so. We can believe this as much as we can believe that the canon of Scripture is the inspired word of God. Why? Because the Church said so. If you can’t trust the Church in these matters, then you really can trust anything it has taught.
hansard said:
  1. The Assumption: more guesswork. How can anyone take us seriously when we insist on myths like this?
Click to expand...
Are you making an infallible statement that the Assumption is a myth? The Church, which was around when Mary walked the earth (you weren’t), has proclaimed that she was, indeed, assumed, body and soul, into heaven. In fact the Church is so convinced of this that it is a doctrine. Again, if you are going to question this then you had better question the inspiration of the Bible as well.
hansard said:
  1. 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.
Click to expand...
FIrst of all the Catholic Church does know of some who are in heaven. They are called saints. The reason we know they are in heaven is because they have comminicated that to the Church through miracles. How many miracles have been attributed to Mary? Countless miracles (Lourdes, Fatima, Quadalupe, and on and on and on). Fatima was witnessed by over 100,000 people. Trust me, Mary is in heaven and if she is not then we might as well throw in the towel 'cause we don’t have a chance.
hansard said:
  1. Co-Redemptrix: highly presumptuous. I believe Christ does the job of redeeming all by himself, without any assistance.
Click to expand...
Well, Christ did redeem the world all by himself, but it was only because of Mary’s “yes”, her willingness become the mother of God. Therefore, she also had a role to play.
hansard said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yes, those male chauvinist pigs. How dare they? But wait a minute, why would a bucnh of male, chauvinit pigs be looking for a female figurehead? :confused:
hansard said:
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.
Click to expand...
Sounds like you don’t believe in much of anything. I would recommend that you try and inform yourself concerning the Church you profess and ask yourself honestly if you have any real evidence on which to base your current beliefs. Hope you find your way back, you don’t know what you’re missing. 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top