Protestant View of Mariology

[pablope]

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?

Paul spoke both of oral and written traditions, not just the written one.

What was the purpose of Paul writing his letters…was it to lay down doctrine/dogma?

To lay down the whole of Christianity in written form?

, St. Irenaeus writes:

It is possible, then, for every Church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the Apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the Apostles, and their successors to our own times. … But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the Churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all Churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world; and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition.

 

[Nicea325]

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?

Because the Bible was not written for her or about her,but about God and Jesus. Where do any of those authors mention there exact whereabouts or of others? They don’t because that is not the point of scripture.

 

[dronald]

Paul spoke both of oral and written traditions, not just the written one.

What was the purpose of Paul writing his letters…was it to lay down doctrine/dogma?

To lay down the whole of Christianity in written form?

, St. Irenaeus writes:

It is possible, then, for every Church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the Apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the Apostles, and their successors to our own times. … But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the Churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all Churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world; and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition.

But she’s the blessed Mary! How could he never bring up something so extremely important unless it wasn’t that important. Paul mentions Christ’s death on the cross, His resurrection, what it does for us, etc. He mentions the story in the Acts of him being lowered from a basket, he mentions many of the Apostles, and he doesn’t even say one thing on Mary in a way that should ever make us feel like she’s an important part of being a faithful Christian.

 

[Nicea325]

But she’s the blessed Mary! How could he never bring up something so extremely important unless it wasn’t that important. Paul mentions Christ’s death on the cross, His resurrection, what it does for us, etc. He mentions the story in the Acts of him being lowered from a basket, he mentions many of the Apostles, and he doesn’t even say one thing on Mary in a way that should ever make us feel like she’s an important part of being a faithful Christian.

Answer this:

Name ONE Apostle or NT author who mentions the complexity of the Trinitarian doctrine or the NT canon?

Are they important…yes or no?

 

[dronald]

Because the Bible was not written for her or about her,but about God and Jesus. Where do any of those authors mention there exact whereabouts or of others? They don’t because that is not the point of scripture.

Paul touches on many extremely important components of Christianity but ignores Mary completely. So do James, John and Peter. This wasn’t just Scripture, they were letters to Churches. Surely in a letter to a Church, used to help Churches understand their faith more Mary should have been mentioned.

 

[Nicea325]

Paul touches on many extremely important components of Christianity but ignores Mary completely. So do James, John and Peter. This wasn’t just Scripture, they were letters to Churches. Surely in a letter to a Church, used to help Churches understand their faith more Mary should have been mentioned.

Answer this:

Name ONE Apostle or NT author who mentions the complexity of the Trinitarian doctrine or the NT canon?

Are they important…yes or no?

 

[dronald]

Answer this:

Name ONE Apostle or NT author who mentions the complexity of the Trinitarian doctrine or the NT canon?

Are they important…yes or no?

Are you telling me that the importance of the Holy Spirit, Jesus and God were completely left out of Pauls letters the same way that Mary was? The Spirit of God, the Father and the Son are extremely evident in Pauls letters. Not Mary.

 

[Nicea325]

Are you telling me that the importance of the Holy Spirit, Jesus and God were completely left out of Pauls letters the same way that Mary was? The Spirit of God, the Father and the Son are extremely evident in Pauls letters. Not Mary.

You did not answer. I did not ask you if Paul mentions the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Listen to what I am asking you:

Name ONE Apostle or NT author who mentions or discusses the **complexity **of the Trinitarian doctrine or the NT canon?

Are they important…yes or no?

 

[dronald]

You did not answer. I did not ask you if Paul mentions the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Listen to what I am asking you:

Name ONE Apostle or NT author who mentions or discusses the **complexity **of the Trinitarian doctrine or the NT canon?

Are they important…yes or no?

“The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with all of you” 2 corin 13:13

But we ought to give thanks for you always…because God chose you as the first fruits for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in truth…to possess the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 2 thes 2:13

The one who gives us security with you in Christ and who anointed us is God; he has also put his seal upon us and given the Spirit in our hearts as a first installment 2 corin 1:21-22

But now you have had yourselves washed; you were sanctified; you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God 1 corin 6:11

God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ…has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavens, in Christ eph 1:3 You were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, which is the first installment of our inheritance (1:13)

As proof that you are children, God sent the spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying out, ‘Abba, Father!’ Gal 4:6

Peter calls pauls letters Scripture.

Your turn with passages on Mary!

And yes, it is important.

 

[PRmerger]

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?

I think it’s a mistake to infer that because Paul doesn’t mention something in his letters that it means he did not preach about it, or believe in it.

Were you aware that Paul never mentions the virgin birth?

 

[PRmerger]

But she’s the blessed Mary! How could he never bring up something so extremely important unless it wasn’t that important. Paul mentions Christ’s death on the cross, His resurrection, what it does for us, etc. He mentions the story in the Acts of him being lowered from a basket, he mentions many of the Apostles, and he doesn’t even say one thing on Mary in a way that should ever make us feel like she’s an important part of being a faithful Christian.

Yet he never mentions the virgin birth.

 

[Nicea325]

“The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with all of you” 2 corin 13:13

But we ought to give thanks for you always…because God chose you as the first fruits for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in truth…to possess the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 2 thes 2:13

The one who gives us security with you in Christ and who anointed us is God; he has also put his seal upon us and given the Spirit in our hearts as a first installment 2 corin 1:21-22

But now you have had yourselves washed; you were sanctified; you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God 1 corin 6:11

God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ…has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavens, in Christ eph 1:3 You were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, which is the first installment of our inheritance (1:13)

As proof that you are children, God sent the spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying out, ‘Abba, Father!’ Gal 4:6

Peter calls pauls letters Scripture.

Your turn with passages on Mary!

And yes, it is important.

The above verses do not explain the complexity of the Trinitarian doctrine. A relationship between all three? Yes. The only reason you use the above verses is because we have had the complexity of the Trinitarian doctrine defined,explained and layed-out for us by the CHURCH. We are 2,000 years separated from Christ and the church has had many centuries to understand it and give us the understanding we have now. Do you believe people living in 150 AD would have quoted the verses as the above to define the complexity of the doctrine? No! The Trinitarian doctrine is IMPLICITLY supported and taught in the Bible,but not explicitly.

Nope! Sorry,but the complexity of the Trinitarian doctrine was defined and formulated by the CHURCH…not scripture!

And what does Peter calling Paul’s letters as scripture have to do with the NT canon? Nothing.

Again,if it is important according to you, how come not ONE of the NT authors or the 12 apostles or Paul mention a NT canon?

 

[dronald]

The Trinitarian Doctrine was established by the Apostles and the Catholic Church CAN explain it, but any other Church can also explain it without being Catholic. After all, in order to be a Christian one has to accept the Trinity, and the Trinity is found throughout Scripture. Even its complexity:

Phil 2:5Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, 10so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11*and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Galatians 4:4 makes no mention of any father being involved in Christ’s birth. We don’t need the CC to understand the Trinity, nor to believe that the Messiah would be born of a virgin; we need the letters, the Gospel and ancient Prophecies for that.

What we DO need the CC for is to believe that Mary is meant to be prayed to, that she’s the Queen of Heaven, that she interceeds on our behalf, that we should make statues of her and kneel before them, that we should say hail Mary’s, etc.

 

[PRmerger]

What we DO need the CC for is to believe that Mary is meant to be prayed to, that she’s the Queen of Heaven, that she interceeds on our behalf, that we should make statues of her and kneel before them, that we should say hail Mary’s, etc.

And don’t forget you need the CC to tell you what is the inspired NT and what is not.

You would not know it any other way, dronald.

Don’t forget about that one!

 

[Nicea325]

The Trinitarian Doctrine was established by the Apostles and the Catholic Church CAN explain it, but any other Church can also explain it without being Catholic. After all, in order to be a Christian one has to accept the Trinity, and the Trinity is found throughout Scripture. Even its complexity:

Phil 2:5Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, 10so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11*and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Galatians 4:4 makes no mention of any father being involved in Christ’s birth. We don’t need the CC to understand the Trinity, nor to believe that the Messiah would be born of a virgin; we need the letters, the Gospel and ancient Prophecies for that.

What we DO need the CC for is to believe that Mary is meant to be prayed to, that she’s the Queen of Heaven, that she interceeds on our behalf, that we should make statues of her and kneel before them, that we should say hail Mary’s, etc.

The Trinitarian doctrine was defined and explained in its great depth by the Church…period! The mystical body of Christ (Eph 1:23) and in essence and extension of His Incarnation. No matter how much you wish to DENY it.

We do not need the CC to understand the Trinity? Now you don’t,but guess what? Name one Protestant church that existed back then? None! Christ left the full deposit of faith to the CHURCH…not a written Book.

And do you need to CC to believe in the NT canon?

Do you need the CC to believe in it? Did the Apostles establish the NT canon?

Where DOES Scripture say we need it to believe in the NT canon,that Scripture is meant to be used at services, that Scripture is an authority, that we should make mass copies of the Bible and kneel before it (many non-Catholics do at services), that we should call it: Holy Bible, etc

**Again,if it is important according to you, how come not ONE of the NT authors or the 12 apostles or Paul mention a NT canon? **

 

[lynnettejane]

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.

It’s not hard to believe that Jesus was protected from sin by the Holy Spirit, but the same thing could apply to Mary couldn’t it, that through a work of grace she was immaculately conceived. Either way there had to be some intervention by God through the Holy Spirit whereby the effects of original sin could not be passed onto Christ, or else he could not have atoned for us.

 

[dronald]

It’s not hard to believe that Jesus was protected from sin by the Holy Spirit, but the same thing could apply to Mary couldn’t it, that through a work of grace she was immaculately conceived. Either way there had to be some intervention by God through the Holy Spirit whereby the effects of original sin could not be passed onto Christ, or else he could not have atoned for us.

I suppose it “could” but you just admitted yourself that it would not be needed for Mary if the same could be applied to Jesus.

 

[dronald]

We do not need the CC to understand the Trinity? Now you don’t,but guess what? Name one Protestant church that existed back then?

You’re right, now we don’t. What we do need (or believe we need now) is to have the authority to break off of one strict authority when they begin telling us to say hail Mary’s. Now we have that, and it’s much needed.

 

[PRmerger]

I suppose it “could” but you just admitted yourself that it would not be needed for Mary if the same could be applied to Jesus.

You are correct. Catholic theology states that it was** fitting** but not “needed” for Mary to be immaculately conceived.

 

[Nicea325]

You’re right, now we don’t. What we do need (or believe we need now) is to have the authority to break off of one strict authority when they begin telling us to say hail Mary’s. Now we have that, and it’s much needed.

Yes of course…the famous line:

What we do need (or believe we need now) is to have the authority to break off of one strict authority when they begin telling us to say hail Mary’s. Now we have that, and it’s much needed

How many denominations because of the above attitude? So yes…continue to have that much needed belief.

Again:

**Again,if it is important according to you, how come not ONE of the NT authors or the 12 apostles or Paul mention a NT canon? **