Protestant View of Mariology

  • Thread starter Thread starter aidanbradypop
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
i was raised protestant, currently seeking conversion - i thought i would have a harder time with the whole Mary concept, but instead, it became so easy for me to accept her, the immaculate conception,perp virginity and assumption.
i have read a several books on her and i have no problems addressing her as my Holy Mother. whenever i am picking up my rosary, i ask her to come and pray with me. i have been praying the rosary daily for the past 5 months and have been overwhelmed by with a sense of her presence and my understanding of her.
 
Godisgreat23 said:
Here is a great piece of article for those have doubts on this subject - It will answer all your questions and doubts…

mostholyfamilymonastery.com/Articles/the_bible_on_the_blessed_virgin_mary.pdf

Here is an event that happened in Egypt Half a million people witnessed this Marian apparitions that brought peace when there was going to be a serious war between Christians and Muslims

youtube.com/watch?v=CUeW5cS3My4
Click to expand...
ummmm…hmmmm…I would reframe from using most holy family monastery anymore. Kind of anti Catholic Church. 😉
 
dee_burk said:
i was raised protestant, currently seeking conversion - i thought i would have a harder time with the whole Mary concept, but instead, it became so easy for me to accept her, the immaculate conception,perp virginity and assumption.
i have read a several books on her and i have no problems addressing her as my Holy Mother. whenever i am picking up my rosary, i ask her to come and pray with me. i have been praying the rosary daily for the past 5 months and have been overwhelmed by with a sense of her presence and my understanding of her.
Click to expand...
Wonderful! I am glad you allow Her to be a part of your daily life!
 
dee_burk said:
i was raised protestant, currently seeking conversion - i thought i would have a harder time with the whole Mary concept, but instead, it became so easy for me to accept her, the immaculate conception,perp virginity and assumption.
i have read a several books on her and i have no problems addressing her as my Holy Mother. whenever i am picking up my rosary, i ask her to come and pray with me. i have been praying the rosary daily for the past 5 months and have been overwhelmed by with a sense of her presence and my understanding of her.
Click to expand...
This is so true one you pray the rosary daily it works wonders.
 
=aidanbradypop;10488988]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?
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
Actually that is EXACTLY what he Did [like Frank Sanatra] God Did It HIS WAY:thumbsup:
 
aidanbradypop said:
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...
I think you’re right. Here’s a brief explanation of different possibilities:

*"The so-called Epiphanian view (named after St. Epiphanius of Salamis in Cyprus) is
the traditional position of Eastern Orthodoxy and the preferred exegesis of the Greek
Fathers. It holds that the brothers and sisters of the Lord are most probably children of
Joseph by a previous marriage as well as other close relatives such as cousins, etc.

The Helvidian view (named after Helvidius who was Jerome’s opponent in the
controversy) is that of most Evangelicals and Protestants today: it holds that the
“brothers and sisters” mentioned in the New Testament are children which Joseph had
with Mary subsequent to the birth of Jesus.

Finally, what I shall call the Jeromian view is named after St. Jerome who did not
accept the idea that the “brothers and sisters” could have been children of Joseph
(whose virginity he also sought to uphold). Instead, he proposed an interpretation of
the Scriptural data which concluded that the “brothers and sisters” were in fact close
cousins. This is the preferred (if not official) position of Roman Catholic theology."*
orthodoxanswers.org/media/documents/didmaryhave.pdf
 
jrtrent said:
I think you’re right. Here’s a brief explanation of different possibilities:

*"The so-called Epiphanian view (named after St. Epiphanius of Salamis in Cyprus) is
the traditional position of Eastern Orthodoxy and the preferred exegesis of the Greek
Fathers. It holds that the brothers and sisters of the Lord are most probably children of
Joseph by a previous marriage as well as other close relatives such as cousins, etc.

The Helvidian view (named after Helvidius who was Jerome’s opponent in the
controversy) is that of most Evangelicals and Protestants today: it holds that the
“brothers and sisters” mentioned in the New Testament are children which Joseph had
with Mary subsequent to the birth of Jesus.

Finally, what I shall call the Jeromian view is named after St. Jerome who did not
accept the idea that the “brothers and sisters” could have been children of Joseph
(whose virginity he also sought to uphold). Instead, he proposed an interpretation of
the Scriptural data which concluded that the “brothers and sisters” were in fact close
cousins. This is the preferred (if not official) position of Roman Catholic theology."*
orthodoxanswers.org/media/documents/didmaryhave.pdf
Click to expand...
Thinking back, I cannot really remember a time in my Protestant days that is way every really an issue. Some spoke of it I’m sure, but not really enough for me to remember. It wasn’t until my conversion that I ever really thought about it.
 
I am open to the IC, PV and Assumption of Mary. I do view her as Mother of God and say the Hail Mary on a regular basis. Also ask the saints to pray for me.
 
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 just do not understand how God would sanctify the OT Ark of the Convenant, yet let a sinner conceive His Son without sin? I do not call that normal,but rather at odds.
 
From Lumen Gentium:
II. The Role of the Blessed Mother in the Economy of Salvation
Click to expand...
  1. The Sacred Scriptures of both the Old and the New Testament, as well as ancient Tradition show the role of the Mother of the Saviour in the economy of salvation in an ever clearer light and draw attention to it. The books of the Old Testament describe the history of salvation, by which the coming of Christ into the world was slowly prepared. These earliest documents, as they are read in the Church and are understood in the light of a further and full revelation, bring the figure of the woman, Mother of the Redeemer, into a gradually clearer light. When it is looked at in this way, she is already prophetically foreshadowed in the promise of victory over the serpent which was given to our first parents after their fall into sin. Likewise she is the Virgin who shall conceive and bear a son, whose name will be called Emmanuel. She stands out among the poor and humble of the Lord, who confidently hope for and receive salvation from Him. With her the exalted Daughter of Sion, and after a long expectation of the promise, the times are fulfilled and the new Economy established, when the Son of God took a human nature from her, that He might in the mysteries of His flesh free man from sin.
Click to expand...
  1. The Father of mercies willed that the incarnation should be preceded by the acceptance of her who was predestined to be the mother of His Son, so that just as a woman contributed to death, so also a woman should contribute to life. That is true in outstanding fashion of the mother of Jesus, who gave to the world Him who is Life itself and who renews all things, and who was enriched by God with the gifts which befit such a role. It is no wonder therefore that the usage prevailed among the Fathers whereby they called the mother of God entirely holy and free from all stain of sin, as though fashioned by the Holy Spirit and formed as a new creature. Adorned from the first instant of her conception with the radiance of an entirely unique holiness, the Virgin of Nazareth is greeted, on God’s command, by an angel messenger as “full of grace”, and to the heavenly messenger she replies: “Behold the handmaid of the Lord, be it done unto me according to thy word”. Thus Mary, a daughter of Adam, consenting to the divine Word, became the mother of Jesus, the one and only Mediator. Embracing God’s salvific will with a full heart and impeded by no sin, she devoted herself totally as a handmaid of the Lord to the person and work of her Son, under Him and with Him, by the grace of almighty God, serving the mystery of redemption. Rightly therefore the holy Fathers see her as used by God not merely in a passive way, but as freely cooperating in the work of human salvation through faith and obedience. For, as St. Irenaeus says, she “being obedient, became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race.” Hence not a few of the early Fathers gladly assert in their preaching, “The knot of Eve’s disobedience was untied by Mary’s obedience; what the virgin Eve bound through her unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosened by her faith.” Comparing Mary with Eve, they call her “the Mother of the living,” and still more often they say: “death through Eve, life through Mary.”.
Click to expand...
Dogmatic Constitution on the Church: Lumen Gentium. In Vatican II Documents. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana
 
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

This doesn’t make any sense. Why would Mary having sinned cause Christ Himself to be imperfect?

Besides, one of the main points of Christ coming to save us and die for our sins is because we are incapable of living perfect lives. The catholic church teaches that Mary still needed Christ as her savior, why would she if she was without sin?

I can understand believing in the immaculate conception as a parallel to the ark of the covenant, but I cannot understand the suggestion that God couldn’t have allowed for the perfection of Christ without Mary’s own sinless life.

Perpetual virginity I have no real issue with, other than the implication that her not being a virgin would have been bad. Likewise, the assumption is something I have no real issue with. Mary being assumed bodily into Heaven doesn’t really change any theology. But her being sinless, in a reality where the Lord tells us that all have sinned and all have fallen short of the glory of God… that is another matter.
 
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...
This pretty much sums up my view as well.
I respect her and can’t wait to meet her one day.

The stories she could tell. (I can hear Jesus now…“Aw mom, don’t tell them THAT story”, lolol)
 
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...
I’m with Pastor Gary here. 👍

Regarding her perpetual virginity, the Formula of Concord confirms it (under the person of Christ), and Walther seems to say that it is beyond question.

And Pastor, correct me if I’m wrong, but Piepkorn, Pieper, Pelikan, Krauth, most all Lutheran theologians believed in the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin.

Jon
 
The 17th century Anglican Divine Mark Frank indicated that Gabriel’s Ave to Mary was significant in the role of salvation as it is “Eva spelled backwards; all Eve’s ill-spun web unravelled, undone, rolled backward by the conception of this blessed Virgin … temporal and eternal woes taken all away; nothing but joy and salvation to us if we will hear it with the Blessed Virgin and accept it

The Anglican Divines tended to maintain the traditional beliefs of the Church with regard to the perpetual virginity of the BVM.

+George Bull says in a sermon:

“Now the necessary consequence of this dignity of the blessed Virgin (that she was the Mother of God) is, that she remained for ever a virgin, as the catholic church hath always held and maintained. For it cannot with decency be imagined, that the most holy vessel, which was thus once consecrated to be a receptacle of the Deity, should afterwards be desecrated and profaned by human use.”

As an Anglican I believe that the Blessed Virgin Mary is God-Bearer (Theotokos) All-Holy (Panagia) and Ever-Virgin (Aeiparthenos). I also believe Mary is the chief of Saints and the gate of Heaven.
 
In lieu that Christ is the Son of God, that He received His body and blood from Mary…and they are now saying medically that there is an actual exchange of DNA between the mother and the unborn child…and both genes can be found in each person’s body of mother and child…

So considering the greatness of Mary to be the very spot upon which the Son of Man came into the world, and stayed ‘on that very spot’ until His birth, the alleged 33 years He lived a humble, ordinary life in the care of His mother…where now — is the tomb of Mary?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top