Protestant View of Mariology

  • Thread starter Thread starter aidanbradypop
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
PRmerger said:
Don’t forget the royal court that is mentioned in so many places in the OT. And that includes a Queen mother, and a royal steward, who is the keeper of the keys.
Click to expand...
I don’t think you’re really engaging here.
 
Monergistic said:
I don’t think you’re really engaging here.
Click to expand...
Perhaps I am missing your point, then.

Could you please explain exactly what it is that you are arguing regarding the Kingship of God and the Queenship of Mary?

It appears as if you are saying that the royal pageantry that has been applied to Mary is an addition borne of European culture. No?
 
Monergistic said:
***My personal belief is that most, if not all, of the special Marian teachings that came out of Europe are not the result of divine revelation or apostolic tradition with any real ties to Palestine; rather, it is fueled by the presuppositions and expectations of a people-group steeped in monarchy that has a history of taking their royalty far too seriously and then transferring some of those things to their theology. ***As an American without any strong ties to royal tradition, even via the churches I’ve been a part of, there is some groundwork that’s different for me than it is for someone steeped in Catholicism. I will explain.

God the Father and Jesus His Son are both equated with kings. To me, there’s nothing objectively kingly about God- He is all-powerful, though, and to a certain type of people-group a king is the most powerful thing they know about. It’s easy to transfer every detail of royal family life to your understanding of God if that is what you’re accustomed to, but I am not accustomed to that. Therefore, for me, it is equally easy to say that calling God a king (or the King of Kings) only means He is powerful at a level beyond anything that humans have ever come up with. If the Bible had been produced by Romans from Italy, we just might refer to God as the Caesar of Caesars. But it wasn’t them, so it is what it is.

What this means is God doesn’t automatically fit easily and perfectly into any and all like/as illustrations that involve royalty. It means there isn’t a royal family, and we shouldn’t just assume there’s a royal court. God is powerful, and that is all. Kings have nothing to do with me, so it’s easy for me to say that. Beyond the all-powerful thing, there is God and then there is everyone else.

Which brings us to Mary. Is she really part of everyone else? Well, yes, and that’s not disrespectful. I don’t approach this with “proper level of Marian respect” as my starting point. The starting point is God, then the king/royalty thing, then the idea that King means Powerful and the rest of the monarch-court-setup package is left out and does not apply. Isn’t Mary a queen? Isn’t she a part of a royal heavenly family? No, she’s not, and it’s not because I don’t like her. It’s because there’s God and then there’s everyone else, and the full package of expectations generated by Europe’s strong history of strongly centralized government are improperly transferred to expectations of what a heavenly court is supposed to look like.

This has implications concerning…well, every Marian teaching, I think. Seems like all of them are driven by the expectation that the Mother of a King should be a certain way, especially if she’s going to be worthy to sit on her Throne. And in response to this, I must gently remind you that Mary is the mother of God, not really the mother of a King in any sense except that He is omnipotent and kings give us an awfully imperfect and insufficient comparison. And finally, the position/identity of a king’s mother doesn’t necessarily have any bearing at all on the position/identity of God’s mother. It’s not the same thing.
Click to expand...
No offense, but you gave nothing but an opinion,not facts. You are going to have provide legit sources to support your argument.
 
Monergistic,

Likewise, I am also relating to your impression that our devotion to Mary is reflective of monarch Europe.

Devotion to Mary began in the 200’s, when believers became aware of her continued prayers and assistance for believers. This was also the period during the Roman persecutions, and its effect in the ancient Mediterranean world at that time.

Constantine won against the Roman Emperor, and ruled the empire, inspired by the assistance of the Cross on his soldiers’ shields, he likewise made Christianity legal in return, and made Sunday a day of rest for all his subjects. He became a baptized Christian only days before his death. Afterwards, he had two sons, and one son ruled the western part of Christianity, and the other son ruled the Eastern lands of Christianity. All were called the Holy Roman Empire, run by who we call today the Orthodox.

The bishop of Rome, successor to Peter, continued in Rome. But for hundreds of years, the Roman Empire to the West was being decimated by barbarian hoards. So I wouldn’t call this devotion and image of Mary based on European model of monarchy.

I think the biggest difficulty with American evangelicals is that there is alot of (name removed by moderator)ut by those who are anti-Catholic and likewise, do not know history and conjecture up all sorts of things about Catholics.

Remember, the essence of Catholicism is communion. We are drawing on the communion of saints, of whom we wish to join at the end of our lives here on earth.

August 22 was originally both the feast day of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and the Queenship of Mary. Now this date in August is soley for her queenship. The feasts leading up to this, the Transfiguration of Our Lord…the beginning of His coming divine mission from heaven is followed by Mary’s glorious assumption into heaven.

The word, ‘assumption’, is just that, given this by Pope Pius the 12th, almost 2,000 years later, in 1954, a dogma of faith.

I wouldn’t say either by this dogma, that Catholics rush in to believe anything about Mary.
 
Nicea325 said:
No offense, but you gave nothing but an opinion,not facts. You are going to have provide legit sources to support your argument.
Click to expand...
In fairness, do you acknowledge anyone or anything as a legit source of facts if it’s not the Catholic Magisterium, especially when that source reaches a conclusion that disagrees with your favored source?

No matter who the source is, aren’t you just going to call that their opinion and ask where is their apostolic authority, oh wait they have none so why would you listen. Is that where your mind goes?

Anyway, this page mostly consists of excerpts from “History of the Christian Church” vol. III by Philip Schaff. It was published in 1866, so there are a few notes at the end that bring us more up to date and there is a preliminary apology for insensitivity that doesn’t fly well in the 21st century but was more commonplace in the 19th.

www.prayerfoundation.org/why_protestants_dont_pray_to_mary
 
Monergistic said:
In fairness, do you acknowledge anyone or anything as a legit source of facts if it’s not the Catholic Magisterium, especially when that source reaches a conclusion that disagrees with your favored source?

No matter who the source is, aren’t you just going to call that their opinion and ask where is their apostolic authority, oh wait they have none so why would you listen. Is that where your mind goes?

Anyway, this page mostly consists of excerpts from “History of the Christian Church” vol. III by Philip Schaff. It was published in 1866, so there are a few notes at the end that bring us more up to date and there is a preliminary apology for insensitivity that doesn’t fly well in the 21st century but was more commonplace in the 19th.

www.prayerfoundation.org/why_protestants_dont_pray_to_mary
Click to expand...
Ah no! First of all, you do not even know me, so how do come up with such wild conclusions? I am an educated man, so I do believe I know about sources. I do believe I earned my BA in History and my MBA for some good reason.

Ever heard of subjective and objective sources? Primary and secondary sources? This is where my mind goes.
 
Monergistic said:
In fairness, do you acknowledge anyone or anything as a legit source of facts if it’s not the Catholic Magisterium, especially when that source reaches a conclusion that disagrees with your favored source?
Click to expand...
You do see the irony in this statement, given the fact that you also use as a “legit source of facts” our own Catholic Magisterium when it comes to the canon of the NT.

That is the source of your canon, yes?

Unless there is some other way you know that Hebrews is inspired and the Epistle of Barnabas is not?
 
PRmerger said:
You do see the irony in this statement, given the fact that you also use as a “legit source of facts” our own Catholic Magisterium when it comes to the canon of the NT.

That is the source of your canon, yes?

Unless there is some other way you know that Hebrews is inspired and the Epistle of Barnabas is not?
Click to expand...
Oh but wait! The CC/Orthodox church had no role or part in the NT canon. God did it.

Exactly! God did it and HOW? Through His church and its bishops. It is not a question of WHO…but HOW?
 
Nicea325 said:
Oh but wait! The CC/Orthodox church had no role or part in the NT canon. God did it.

Exactly! God did it and HOW? Through His church and its bishops. It is not a question of WHO…but HOW?
Click to expand...
'zactly. :yup:

An analogy would be

Child: “Who made me, Mommy?”
Mommy: “Mommy and Daddy did!”

Child: “Oh, I thought God did.”
Mommy: “Yes, of course, darling. But God used Daddy and Mommy to bring you here.”
Child: “Oh…so God did it but used people!”
Mommy: “You are the smartest child in the entire world!”
 
Monergistic said:
In fairness, do you acknowledge anyone or anything as a legit source of facts if it’s not the Catholic Magisterium, especially when that source reaches a conclusion that disagrees with your favored source?

Can those other sources legitimately say they are guided by the HS, as the Magisterium is?

Does it follow the example of St. Paul here:

Galatians 2:2 I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain.

How does these other sources apply this to themselves:

1John 4:

4 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God; for many false prophets have gone out into the world… 6 We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us, and whoever is not from God does not listen to us. From this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.
No matter who the source is, aren’t you just going to call that their opinion and ask where is their apostolic authority, oh wait they have none so why would you listen. Is that where your mind goes?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
PRmerger said:
Perhaps I am missing your point, then.

Could you please explain exactly what it is that you are arguing regarding the Kingship of God and the Queenship of Mary?

It appears as if you are saying that the royal pageantry that has been applied to Mary is an addition borne of European culture. No?
Click to expand...
Pretty much. I ask myself why those guys came up with their Marian ideas in the first place, and why the distinctions in belief from the East to the West and into Africa even before the dissolution of their union. And I ask myself two questions that plenty of Catholics have asked me- first, how come the early Reformers accepted those ideas, and second, what happened between then and now that took modern American Protestantism to such a different place from the early European Protestants who had been Catholic just a bit earlier in life?

My general premise is that nothing happens in a vacuum, and for good or bad, the sociocultural milieu that anything comes out of is going to play a role in the end result. Again, I feel like much of the uniquely Catholic Marian teaching has a lot to do with the identity and role that a king’s mother is expected to have in his court, that expectation never applied uniformly in all of Christendom due to differing ideas practices and histories of government, and it’s probably never applied any less than in America for the past 200 some years for those same reasons.

In a way, it’s just an assessment of different ideas that ultimately produce different results. But in another way, there is a value-based judgment that’s happening on my end. The end of empires and of monarchy and the beginning of democracy and of republics was not just a zero-sum trade of some ideas for some different ideas; it was an upgrade and it meant the sun began to set on a system of government that is inferior and more likely to be unjust. This assumption carries over to the shift in thinking re:Mary, mostly because I believe the one thing has a large if somewhat indirect effect on the other.

Do you have a different set of answers to those questions? In particular, is there some other thing between the Reformation and the 19th/20th century or so that helps you to explain the shift in mindset?
 
 
Monergistic said:
, and why the distinctions in belief from the East to the West and into Africa even before the dissolution of their union.
Click to expand...
What distinctions? Has the East stripped its theology of any references to a royal family or a royal court? Is Mary not Queen of the Saints in Eastern theology? :confused:
 
Monergistic said:
Do you have a different set of answers to those questions? In particular, is there some other thing between the Reformation and the 19th/20th century or so that helps you to explain the shift in mindset?
Click to expand...
My own assessment is that the further divorced one is from the Apostolic faith, the more man-made its traditions become.

So the Reformers of the 16th century were much more Catholic, esp. in their devotion to Mary, than these folks, who have split from those who split from those who split from those who split* * from the Catholic Church:

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/...WJCcw-qYhb5oVkHL2iTpjsgTFdgcGTdUQIU5fN23mbE4w
 
Gack.:okpeople:

Where is an Orthodox Christian when we need one?

I’ve read enough of this thread to make a comment or two. One comment is that from a Reformed perspective, the Orthodox view of Mary is even more extreme than whatever “errors” we like to slam the Catholics with. Monergistic, your argument falls flat. If it were valid, the Orthodox would be closer to the Reformed position than the Catholics are. Instead they are farther away. I am a little dismayed that the Catholics did not pick up on that.

Secondly, Monergistic, if you follow Schaff, your attack should be more along the lines of the excesses of monasticism and Ambrose and citations from Augustine’s very strange “On Continence” that led to an unbalanced asceticism and celebration of virginity and celibacy and so forth… Also bring up the fact that primary source material for Marian devotion was on Gelasius’ list of banned books. And Catholics will say we don’t know why, but that is ok anyway, or some such. You can also bring up Athanasius’ “On the Incarnation” and his notably passing but significant reference to Mary.

Then the Catholics can bring forth weighty and informed responses. Then you say, etc…

THAT should get the ball rolling. But personally, I am staying out of this…🍿
 
Monergistic said:
In a way, it’s just an assessment of different ideas that ultimately produce different results. But in another way, there is a value-based judgment that’s happening on my end. The end of empires and of monarchy and the beginning of democracy and of republics was not just a zero-sum trade of some ideas for some different ideas; it was an upgrade and it meant the sun began to set on a system of government that is inferior and more likely to be unjust. This assumption carries over to the shift in thinking re:Mary, mostly because I believe the one thing has a large if somewhat indirect effect on the other.
Click to expand...
Oh no. What you are sponsoring without knowing it is post-modernism. You ignore history, especially the Church type and then accept what the world offers you and ignore what the spirit of truth is working through Christ’s Church.

You’d rather believe secularism than the Church of the Living God. And this is bleeding in Protestantism now more than ever.
 
Tomyris said:
One comment is that from a Reformed perspective, the Orthodox view of Mary is even more extreme than whatever “errors” we like to slam the Catholics with. Monergistic, your argument falls flat.
Click to expand...
That’s my girl!

 
Monergistic said:
That is why God is so often referred to as King. I am aware of this. That’s pretty much the only thing I was talking about.
Click to expand...
Then you are well aware of that every Davidic King ruled with his Mother as Queen according to scripture, never his wife but only his mother. If your theology is based on Truth, then scriputre cannot be put aside.

God promised an eternal kingdom from the Davidic Line.

The Gospel’s are proof that Jesus flesh comes from the lineage of King David. See Matthew and Luke.

The Angel Gabriel from heaven who’s name means the strength of God, greeted the virgin Mary as royalty. “Hail Mary full of Grace the Lord is with You”. IF heaven adores the blessed virgin Mary as royalty, what is expected of the human race?

What is interesting here, is that the Holy spirit inspired holy men to record the Word of God to humanity in terms for our humanity to grasp such revelations, such as King, Lord, Kingdom etc. Something to consider here.

Remember what our dear Lord Jesus said; “My Kingdom is not of this world”. Why does it appear that you relate such revelations from God to our humanity as if His Kingdom belongs to this world? By rejecting our Lord Jesus Christ as our King of the human race who perfects us in communion with God our Father and His Father?

Peace be with you
 
Monergistic said:
Pretty much. I ask myself why those guys came up with their Marian ideas in the first place, and why the distinctions in belief from the East to the West and into Africa even before the dissolution of their union. And I ask myself two questions that plenty of Catholics have asked me- first, how come the early Reformers accepted those ideas, and second, what happened between then and now that took modern American Protestantism to such a different place from the early European Protestants who had been Catholic just a bit earlier in life?

Do you have a different set of answers to those questions? In particular, is there some other thing between the Reformation and the 19th/20th century or so that helps you to explain the shift in mindset?
Click to expand...
It is an issue…and continues to this day…of Authority…or lack thereof in protestant circles.

ignatiusinsight.com/features/mbrumley_bouyer1_nov04.asp

*Why Catholicism Makes Protestantism Tick: Louis Bouyer on the Reformation | Mark Brumley

ignatiusinsight.com/features/mbrumley_bouyer1_nov04.asp

Interpreting the Reformation is complicated business. But like many complicated things, it can be simplified sufficiently well that even non-experts can get the gist of it.

Here’s what seems a fairly accurate but simplified summary of the issue: The break between Catholics and Protestants was either a tragic necessity (to use Jaroslav Pelikan’s expression) or it was tragic because unnecessary.

Many Protestants see the Catholic/Protestant split as a tragic necessity, although the staunchly anti-Catholic kind of Protestant often sees nothing tragic about it. Or if he does, the tragedy is that there ever was such a thing as the Roman Catholic Church that the Reformers had to separate from. His motto is “Come out from among them” and five centuries of Christian disunity has done nothing to cool his anti-Roman fervor.

From Bouyer’s conclusion we can infer at least two things. First, Protestantism can’t be all wrong, otherwise how could the Catholic Church bring about the “full flowering of the principles of the Reformation”? Second, left to itself, Protestantism will go astray and be untrue to some of its central principles. It’s these two points, as Bouyer articulates them, I would like to consider here. *

And the disregard for authority…gave rise to Sola Scriptura…this article should give you further insights into this:

freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1858224/posts

*And finally, the Protestant notion of sola scriptura (the Bible alone) fell apart each time I tried to test it. I began to see that Evangelicalism’s insistence on going by the Bible alone led continually into division and problems. Worse yet, claiming to go by the Bible alone didn’t really provide any certitude of belief for believers.

Another church split over the election of a female elder. Splinter groups split from splinter groups which had split from other splinter groups. The church was “multiplying,” all right. *
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top