Protestant View of Mariology

[brumano]

[QU OTE=PRmerger;10861365]I am not following you here. What do you mean byMary “conceived in her heart by the Holy Spirit”?

It is the Catholic teaching from Catholic Dogma on how the Immaculate Conception of, Jesus took place, that is, how it was actually done, happened, took place, occured; became reality, as in “The Word became Flesh” it makes the Immaculate Conception of Mary necessary and very very fitting, in fact perfectly fitting. The Immaculate Conception of Jesus is absolutely necessary, correct or no? Even if only for own necessity for salvation it needs be true. If this is correct Mary must also necessarily be, herself, conceived without any sin by necessity and nothing less. And the other scriptures, and the dogmas not only suggest, but establish Immaculate Mary as Holy and true Mother of God. That is not in case those are concerns, deification of Mary, it is only the full acceptance on our part of the gift of our Blessed Virgin Mary.

Now, where does this doctrine of fittingness originate from? It’s not part of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is it? Who made this doctrine? This doctrine that says it was not necessary that Mary be sinless but that it was fitting and so that is why it is so, where did they get that? Why is that more favorable, and for some unknown reasons ought to be assented to? You know what I’m really asking here with all due respect, is why would we possibly want to propose anything about the Immaculate Conception that could in anyway, by anyone be looked at as open to dissent?

Of course.

Of course, of course i’m happy we agree on that.

Again, if you argue that it was necessary, it prompts the question: then why did God not deem it necessary to make St. Ann and St. Joachim immaculately conceived as well?

No it really settles questions before they issue, fitting opens up a all kinds of boxes and creates confusion. Because it was not necessary to them, it was necessary to their daughter, Mary. It is a new individual that is conceived from and in the parents.

It’s actually NOT fitting that Mary would have other children. Just as it would be NOT fitting for the Ark of the Covenant, which carried the Word of God, to also carry some pretty desert pebbles.

Again we agree, as from the last post, but out of necessity she does not have other flesh offspring which otherwise if not necessary would be good and wonderful to have as God would have given. Also, she would not be able to be our Mother too, otherwise she could not have been made John’s Mother, too.

No one has argued that the IC is true “because it is only fitting.”

]

Then I’ll be happy to admit that I don’t know what we’re arguing about.

It is true because it’s what happened.

However, it’s misguided to argue that it was NECESSARY for Mary to be immaculately conceived. Rather, it was FITTING that she was immaculate, to hold the Divine Word Made Flesh.

You do know that it is NOT Catholic teaching that Mary did not die. That she was assumed into heaven is dogma. But whether she died first or not is open to speculation

.

Respective speculation produces debates, oh well; the teaching is that she was assumed, that is by necessity, body and soul into heaven. If Mary had died her soul would have vacated her body like all the rest of the human race and her body would have remained like ours will, because we have original and actual sins, she does not. That she entered into death is impossible, that possibility is not from the Roman Catholic Church it’s from the Eastern Catholic Church, I belong to the Roman Catholic Church,

 

[rinnie]

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.

I LOVE the Blessed Mother. Here is my own personal reason why.

My Dad always told me no matter how bad or sad we are, when we are in trouble go to the Blessed Mother. Especially as a parent about out kids.

He said she watched her Son get crucified on the cross,she knows your pain, and your fear, and hurt. She will Go with you to her Son and pray for your child.

She is your Mother. She was given to us by Christ at the foot of the cross.

Not just to the Apostle, she was given to all of us. Jesus knew we needed her also. The compassion of a Mother is awesome.

 

[rinnie]

It is the Catholic teaching from Catholic Dogma on how the Immaculate Conception of, Jesus took place, that is, how it was actually done, happened, took place, occured; became reality, as in “The Word became Flesh” it makes the Immaculate Conception of Mary necessary and very very fitting, in fact perfectly fitting. The Immaculate Conception of Jesus is absolutely necessary, correct or no? Even if only for own necessity for salvation it needs be true. If this is correct Mary must also necessarily be, herself, conceived without any sin by necessity and nothing less. And the other scriptures, and the dogmas not only suggest, but establish Immaculate Mary as Holy and true Mother of God. That is not in case those are concerns, deification of Mary, it is only the full acceptance on our part of the gift of our Blessed Virgin Mary.

Now, where does this doctrine of fittingness originate from? It’s not part of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is it? Who made this doctrine? This doctrine that says it was not necessary that Mary be sinless but that it was fitting and so that is why it is so, where did they get that? Why is that more favorable, and for some unknown reasons ought to be assented to? You know what I’m really asking here with all due respect, is why would we possibly want to propose anything about the Immaculate Conception that could in anyway, by anyone be looked at as open to dissent?

Of course, of course i’m happy we agree on that.

No it really settles questions before they issue, fitting opens up a all kinds of boxes and creates confusion. Because it was not necessary to them, it was necessary to their daughter, Mary. It is a new individual that is conceived from and in the parents.

Again we agree, as from the last post, but out of necessity she does not have other flesh offspring which otherwise if not necessary would be good and wonderful to have as God would have given. Also, she would not be able to be our Mother too, otherwise she could not have been made John’s Mother, too.

]

I think you need to check on that. I was understood to believe we are free to believe she died, or fell asleep in Christ. But just because she suffered death in this life, does not mean you have to have original or actual sins,

I mean Jesus died and had none. So you may want to check on that one.

But again I was told we can believe she died to this world or fell asleep in Christ, But had nothing to do with human sin.

Now the reason we know she had no human sin, is because her body never was buried, or decayed, maybe thats where you are getting confused. That why she was the only one besides Jesus of course that was assumed into heaven BODY and SOUL.

[/QUOTE]

 

[ConstantineTG]

Mariology is unique to Catholicism. Even ancient Churches like the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox do not have a Mariology.

 

[PRmerger]

Well, anyway PR I remember this “most fitting” conversation from a couple years ago. And I’ll be forever grateful for your re-direct. Came to mind immediately here. No desert pebbles.

I think the light went on around the St. Ann and St. Joachim aspect.

Haha! I thought of that, too!

 

[PRmerger]

It is the Catholic teaching from Catholic Dogma on how the Immaculate Conception of, Jesus took place, that is, how it was actually done, happened, took place, occured; became reality, as in “The Word became Flesh” it makes the Immaculate Conception of Mary necessary and very very fitting, in fact perfectly fitting. The Immaculate Conception of Jesus is absolutely necessary, correct or no? Even if only for own necessity for salvation it needs be true. If this is correct Mary must also necessarily be, herself, conceived without any sin by necessity and nothing less. And the other scriptures, and the dogmas not only suggest, but establish Immaculate Mary as Holy and true Mother of God. That is not in case those are concerns, deification of Mary, it is only the full acceptance on our part of the gift of our Blessed Virgin Mary.

Now, where does this doctrine of fittingness originate from? It’s not part of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is it? Who made this doctrine? This doctrine that says it was not necessary that Mary be sinless but that it was fitting and so that is why it is so, where did they get that? Why is that more favorable, and for some unknown reasons ought to be assented to? You know what I’m really asking here with all due respect, is why would we possibly want to propose anything about the Immaculate Conception that could in anyway, by anyone be looked at as open to dissent?

Of course, of course i’m happy we agree on that.

No it really settles questions before they issue, fitting opens up a all kinds of boxes and creates confusion. Because it was not necessary to them, it was necessary to their daughter, Mary. It is a new individual that is conceived from and in the parents.

Again we agree, as from the last post, but out of necessity she does not have other flesh offspring which otherwise if not necessary would be good and wonderful to have as God would have given. Also, she would not be able to be our Mother too, otherwise she could not have been made John’s Mother, too.

Then I’ll be happy to admit that I don’t know what we’re arguing about.

Respective speculation produces debates, oh well; the teaching is that she was assumed, that is by necessity, body and soul into heaven. If Mary had died her soul would have vacated her body like all the rest of the human race and her body would have remained like ours will, because we have original and actual sins, she does not. That she entered into death is impossible, that possibility is not from the Roman Catholic Church it’s from the Eastern Catholic Church, I belong to the Roman Catholic Church,

I mean no disrespect when I say this, brumano: but is English your first language? You seem to have a lexicon which is not that to which I am familiar, and it makes it difficult for me to understand your posts.

Again, I mean no disrespect. If English is not your first language I guarantee you speak it better than I speak my second language (Spanish).

 

[PRmerger]

That’s only part of the arguement of necessity, that Mary conceived in her heart by the Holy Spirit,

I am not following you here. What do you mean by Mary “conceived in her heart by the Holy Spirit”?

It is the Catholic teaching from Catholic Dogma on how the Immaculate Conception of, Jesus took place, that is, how it was actually done, happened, took place, occured; became reality, as in “The Word became Flesh” it makes the Immaculate Conception of Mary necessary and very very fitting,

I am not understanding. Could you please explain what you mean by “Mary conceived in her heart by the Holy Spirit”? What exactly is Mary conceving in her heart? Or is somethng being conceived in her heart?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Mariology is unique to Catholicism. Even ancient Churches like the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox do not have a Mariology.

Some of the Blessed Virgin Mary theology from Orthodoxy is naturally different, as you don’t see Adam’s sin as being inherited in the same way we do. Correct? In Orthodox Theology, Mary would not have had to be Immaculately Conceived because you don’t believe we are stained and culpable for Adam’s sin. Correct? But still, if I remember correctly, Orthodoxy still believes that Mary was free of personal sin. Correct?

Also, isn’t this hymn sang in Orthodox Churches as well:

“Thou art the preaching of the Prophets, O virgin Theotokos, the glory of the Apostles and pride of the Martyrs, the renewal of the whole race of earthly ones. For through thee we are reconciled to God.”

 

[GaryTaylor]

Some of the Blessed Virgin Mary theology from Orthodoxy is naturally different, as you don’t see Adam’s sin as being inherited in the same way we do. Correct? In Orthodox Theology, Mary would not have had to be Immaculately Conceived because you don’t believe we are stained and culpable for Adam’s sin. Correct? But still, if I remember correctly, Orthodoxy still believes that Mary was free of personal sin. Correct?

Also, isn’t this hymn sang in Orthodox Churches as well:

“Thou art the preaching of the Prophets, O virgin Theotokos, the glory of the Apostles and pride of the Martyrs, the renewal of the whole race of earthly ones. For through thee we are reconciled to God.”

You know this is another one of those past conversations I seem to re-call.

“Queen of the Heavenly Host, Defender of our souls, we thy servants offer to thee songs of victory and thanksgiving, for thou, O Mother of God, hast delivered us from dangers. But as thou has invincible power, free us from conflicts of all kinds that we may cry to thee”

Queen of Heaven, Ever-Virgin, no birth pain, St. Ann and St. Joachim, oh ya its coming into total re-call now. Nope no Marion devotion there.

 

[Monergistic]

Mariology is unique to Catholicism. Even ancient Churches like the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox do not have a Mariology.

It’s good to see a comment from an EO Christian in the past 24 hours. If I may try to clarify- by Mariology, I’m thinking you mean a theological study of Mary which methodically produces doctrines and dogmas about her, which of course does not preclude Marian devotion in general or various titles used in Orthodox liturgy, whether Eastern or Oriental.

Did I do ok?

 

[Nicea325]

It’s good to see a comment from an EO Christian in the past 24 hours. If I may try to clarify- by Mariology, I’m thinking you mean a theological study of Mary which methodically produces doctrines and dogmas about her, which of course does not preclude Marian devotion in general or various titles used in Orthodox liturgy, whether Eastern or Oriental.

Did I do ok?

Blessings Monergistic! Quick question for you? Is it okay, if I ask what Christian community you belong to? And no…I am not going to attack your Christian community,only a simple question.

Thanks

 

[GaryTaylor]

It’s good to see a comment from an EO Christian in the past 24 hours. If I may try to clarify- by Mariology, I’m thinking you mean a theological study of Mary which methodically produces doctrines and dogmas about her, which of course does not preclude Marian devotion in general or various titles used in Orthodox liturgy, whether Eastern or Oriental.

Did I do ok?

Like a light.

I’m thinking regardless if the theology produced a dogma or not it is still the theology. You do not recite this because you don’t believe this theology, and the liturgy is not written as not to be believed. Which of course if one doesn’t believe it should be dogma, tis another question.

 

[PRmerger]

Hmmm… to Monergistic’s credit, he/she did concede to some historical facts and did provide one of the most coherent responses about the canon I’ve read from our separated brethren in a long time.

Yes…I agree.

Me, too!

 

[aidanbradypop]

Mariology is unique to Catholicism. Even ancient Churches like the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox do not have a Mariology.

Does that make it wrong?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Does that make it wrong?

The Marion devotions separate from the East?

 

[aidanbradypop]

The Marion devotions separate from the East?

He stated that the Eastern Church does not have it and said that it was a Catholic thing. I am wondering if he feels it is wrong since the Eastern Churches do not have such.

 

[GaryTaylor]

He stated that the Eastern Church does not have it and said that it was a Catholic thing. I am wondering if he feels it is wrong since the Eastern Churches do not have such.

My thinking also.

 

[aidanbradypop]

My thinking also.

Many non Catholics do not believe in the RP in the Eucharist like he does so does that make it wrong?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Some of the Blessed Virgin Mary theology from Orthodoxy is naturally different, as you don’t see Adam’s sin as being inherited in the same way we do. Correct? In Orthodox Theology, Mary would not have had to be Immaculately Conceived because you don’t believe we are stained and culpable for Adam’s sin. Correct? But still, if I remember correctly, Orthodoxy still believes that Mary was free of personal sin. Correct?

Also, isn’t this hymn sang in Orthodox Churches as well:

“Thou art the preaching of the Prophets, O virgin Theotokos, the glory of the Apostles and pride of the Martyrs, the renewal of the whole race of earthly ones. For through thee we are reconciled to God.”

Mariology points to dogmatics on Mary. We do not have that. Everything about Mary and all the Saints in Orthodoxy is part of our Christology. They are who they are because of Christ and what we believe in Christ. Even when Mary was declared the “Theotokos” is a Christological statement, not a Mariological. It affirms the belief that Jesus the human being is one with God the Word at all times, that the fetus in the womb is already both Jesus the man and God the Word.

That was my point, we do not have dogmas about Mary. All our dogmas are about Christ that is then applied to Mary and all the saints and the rest of the Church.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Does that make it wrong?

Yes.