Protestant View of Mariology

[KathleenGee]

Because St. Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles, and to bring them the Good News and new life in Jesus Christ, is not saying he did not believe in the virgin birth either.

The Immaculate Conception of Mary was not defined until 1954 AD.

But Mary was most highly venerated going back to ancient times, exalted, perpetual virgin and sinless.

 

[ConstantineTG]

No, CTG. It does not. That the entirety of the Catholic understanding is summed up in 57 paragraphs, when tomes and tomes have been written on the Incarnation is, frankly, the most absurd thing I’ve read on this thread.

Suit yourself. Whatever floats your boat.

Sure.

And the CC calls St. Paul an Evangelist.

He doesn’t mention the virgin birth. At all.

So I ask you, CTG, do you reject the virgin birth because he never mentions it? Not even once.

I’d like a yes or no answer. Not an equivocation.

Why? So you can make a conclusion that is not my own so you can put words into my mouth?

Because I am sure you will see my point. You want us to say that since St. A did not mention the IC, even though it is part of Catholic teaching, the IC ought not be believed…

and I want to show you that you will need to also say, “Since St. P did not mention the VB, even though it is part of the gospel, the VB ought not be believed”.

Yes?

Your whole line of questioning misses the point and is faulty. First you have to ask if St. Paul even did discuss the conception and birth of Christ, which he did not. Did St. Athanasius discuss the entirety of Christian teaching with “On the incarnation”? No. He only talked about the incarnation of Christ, which of course included the conception and birth. Now, by your reasoning, because St. Athanasius didn’t mention iconography, therefore we should be iconoclasts? You don’t make a lot of sense with your questioning. I never claimed that a Saint needed to write everything about the faith. But if we wrote about a specific topic on the faith, if his teaching is accepted by the Church, then it should contain the wholeness of truth of what he wrote about.

This sets you up to reject another major dogma of Christianity: the VB.

Remember, St. Paul doesn’t mention it at all.

And we are both agreed, are we not, that St. P has a position of primacy over St. A, regarding inspired truths, yes?

2 words: Virgin Birth.

Two words, LOGICAL FALLACY.

 

[ConstantineTG]

sinless.

But Scripture says that only Christ is sinless.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Except that when someone comes to your town and asks, “Where is the nearest Catholic Church?”, everyone would point to, well, a Catholic church. Not an EO one.

Truth isn’t a democracy

 

[ConstantineTG]

:yup:

Eastern Orthodox churches do not identify their churches as Catholic Churches, which makes me wonder why they don’t stick with the name on their building, like the CC does. It would be odd if the CC referred to itself as the EOC as well as the CC.

Of course we do. There is more to what a Church is than the signboard outside. And anyone can call themselves “Catholic” without being one. Again, Sedevacantists call themselves “Roman Catholics”, should I just agree with them?

 

[joe371]

Of course we do. There is more to what a Church is than the signboard outside. And anyone can call themselves “Catholic” without being one. Again, Sedevacantists call themselves “Roman Catholics”, should I just agree with them?

Just in case I must say: I meant no disrespect. When I think of Orthodoxy I think of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Why didn’t your church simply keep the name, Catholic Church? Why even refer to the church as the Eastern Orthodox Church?

 

[joe371]

Truth isn’t a democracy

PR was not suggesting that…You know that…

 

[joe371]

Truth isn’t a democracy

In your opinion, is the Catholic Church in communion with the office of Peter, rightfully called the Catholic Church?

 

[joe371]

But Scripture says that only Christ is sinless.

Where does scripture say that only Christ was sinless? Are you referring to Romans 3:23?

 

[joe371]

But Scripture says that only Christ is sinless.

I was told by an EO friend of mine that, as per the Orthodox Church, Mary, as a human being, could indeed have sinned, but chose not to? I understand the part about original sin, and the fact that it is rejected by the EOC.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Yes a human being who could have sinned. How does that stack up with church Tradition? I never read that philosophy in the Church. Now that’s an “elaboration” if I ever heard one. Mary who is spotless, stainless, ever Virgin, mediatrix, Queen of Heaven, above the Angels and Saints in the order of Grace. Full of Grace, Hail Mary, all Grace was bestowed? That Mary

How does any of “that” sound consistant with “Just a human who could have sinned”

or any of the below?

socrates58.blogspot.com/2008/07/church-fathers-on-sinlessness-of-mary.html

greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=009mK5

Yes that’s from our oh so different theology of the Assumption, but look at what the Fathers and Saints say about Mary and her state of being.

ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=125320

How we arrive at Scripture only is something, where is all that in scripture, without “elaboration” as suggested? Can’t miss that subtle twist, “without elaboration” which is a “non-fact” as we see in Apostolic Tradition. St Athanasius? …

. . . pure and unstained Virgin . . . (On the Incarnation of the Word, 8; Gambero, 102)

O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides. (Homily of the Papyrus of Turin, 71, 216; Gambero, 106)

How in the world does that stack up to “a human being who could have sinned” and no elaboration? Who’s doing this elaboration about a human who could have sinned? Where is that in the Bible “without elaboration”?

Oh wait he didn’t “specifically” mention IC, yet, he did “elaborate” out of Tradition? This all ended with this Saint, or where the EO states it ended? Or the EO ended elaboration and persecutes Rome because they haven’t? So what do we say about St Gregory? Where did he receive permission to continue to elaborate?

“We must work quickly and seriously” Coptic Pope Is “that” what we are doing in this repetitive chaos of polemics?

Augustine was right, we have to grudge others this information while being persecuted. “City of God” and… in charity and love.

Your reduced to the argument the IC wasn’t necessary, but as we see with “a human being who could have sinned” its systematic degradation and denial surrounded by ignorance and polemics, it was “most fitting” as we see and I would argue. Taking the low road in elaboration of Gods Perfection, this is what arrives on that path [human who could have sinned]. On the high road taken by the Church the perspective of Gods Perfection remains intact, always and always. We don’t arrive at the point which we cannot speak on what you recite in your liturgy “Queen of Heaven and so forth” you arrive there on the low road which is “a human being who could have sinned” Then become reduced to defending this with “silence” while all the above sentiments of the Fathers of this Faith glare out against the thinking. Our path does not lead to that path, yours does, and its a distinct contrast to “all” the Saints and the Church in these debates. It doesn’t go un-noticed. The human who could have sinned path becomes “slim and none” in truth. And “slim” is where we are at here.

We are not specifically speaking Christ as we see above, so when these debates arrive, how in the world does one suggest, “we have a different theology” ours is Christ centered. You know I’m still mad about that ingenuous comment. I would hope through this continued thread others outside reading would see through such a false charge.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Where does scripture say that only Christ was sinless? Are you referring to Romans 3:23?

Wonderful lacking argument designed to align the EO with Protestants, by the EO/CTG taking a page straight out of protestant polemics, and a bad one, if I may be so bold to suggest also

While aligning themselves here, yet the oh so never ending chant that Catholics and Protestants are out of the same cut of fabric never ends, which they believe somehow raises there status above both, and finds them with “the fullness of faith” which erroneously they claim only is in their church? Wow, is all I can say. I’m going to Church and pray just as the Coptic Pope suggested.

Peace all, much love, talk soon, and all that good-good stuff.

 

[PRmerger]

But Scripture says that only Christ is sinless.

Where? Book, chapter and verse that says “only Christ is sinless”. Emphasis on the “only” part.

 

[godisgood77]

Even if God has chosen that all of his graces will flow through Mary?

This would be your opinion… The Catholic Church does not teach that all graces will low through Mary. Obviously, Christ was carried by Mary, but beyond that event, this is not an official teaching that proclaims this.

 

[KathleenGee]

Constantine…

In regards to your remark that only Jesus is sinless, that is indeed Scripture which is the Word of God.

Likewise Christ says to Peter that what is bound on earth in the Church will be bound in heaven.

Consider context of the times. Jesus is the new beginning and the new life. Christology as a science did not take off as a scientific discipline until after the 300’s. And likewise, the nature of Christ Himself was not defined in Scripture but more completely so through the Church at the Council of Nicea, True God and True Man.

Likewise, Mary began to make her presence and work known beginning as early as 200 AD. And she did not want to detract from the foundation and understanding of authentic Christology.

So to imply that the Church is not thorough, which further implies something of Pelagiasism, making pronouncements on whimsy, cannot be applied to the understanding of the Immaculate Conception.

St. Thomas Aquinas shared your sentiments of not wanting to declare Mary immaculately conceived because he considered it a detraction against Christ. Likewise he had a very domineering mother who had him locked up to study, and he wrote in the ‘Our Father’ that women had defective genes compared to men.

It was Franciscan Scot Duns who successfully argued against the Dominicans in the 1500’s that Mary was conceived without sin.

We need to find the original and beginning documents of Scot Duns to read his arguments in asserting the immaculate conception of Mary. This debate continued among Catholic theologians well into the 1800’s, and it was being discussed again when Mary appeared to Bernadette in Lourdes in the 1850’s.

I saw the photos of Bernadette before she saw Mary, and then afterwards, and how she evolved in her recalling this event. She asked the Lady’s name, who replied, ‘I am the Immaculate Conception’. When she returned to her parish priest, he asked who she was, and Bernadette replied what Mary said, a girl with little education and sickly, and from a very poor family that lived in the basement of a former police station, in a jail.

Mary, conceived without sin, appeared to Bernadette on top of a garbage dump.

Such is the contradictions of life…and sacred mysteries.

St. Louis De Montfort said the knowledge of Mary was reserved for the latter days and the final struggles between the woman and her seed and Satan.

Likewise, can we not say that as Mary is our greatest advocate before God in heaven, that she stands over the dump of our sins to help redeem us and restore us before the Lord???

 

[GaryTaylor]

This would be your opinion… The Catholic Church does not teach that all graces will low through Mary. Obviously, Christ was carried by Mary, but beyond that event, this is not an official teaching that proclaims this.

V-II “This motherhood of Mary in the economy of grace lasts without interruption, from the consent which she gave in faith at the annunciation, and which she unhesitatingly bore with under the cross, even to the perpetual consummation of all the elect. For after being assumed into heaven, she has not put aside this saving function, but by her manifold intercession, she continues to win the gifts of eternal salvation for us. By her motherly love, she takes care of the brothers of her Son who are still in pilgrimage and in dangers and difficulties, until they be led through to the happy fatherland”

Mediatrix of Grace is what you mean that’s not dogma?

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Much debate. Lutherans leave the matter of Mary’s immaculate conception, perpetual virginity & assumption to the individual. If we disagree, that’s OK. :hug3:

 

[Richca]

QUOTE=KathleenGee;10873946]St. Thomas Aquinas shared your sentiments of not wanting to declare Mary immaculately conceived because he considered it a detraction against Christ. Likewise he had a very domineering mother who had him locked up to study, and he wrote in the ‘Our Father’ that women had defective genes compared to men.

It was Franciscan Scot Duns who successfully argued against the Dominicans in the 1500’s that Mary was conceived without sin.

Just a couple of points about Aquinas’ teaching on the sanctification of our Blessed Lady.
Firstly, the Immaculate Conception of Mary was not an article of faith in Aquinas’ time.
Secondly, St Thomas did not hold to the Immaculate Conception of Mary because he had something against women or Mary.
Thirdly, even though there was a movement, principally in England, in Aquinas’ time concerning the Immaculate Conception of Mary, it is not likely that Aquinas had any reliable information concerning it and it is likely that the promotors of the Immaculate Conception of Mary would have weighed less with him than the great masters of theology in the schools. The popular theology in the schools was that Mary was sanctified after the infusion of her soul with her body but before her birth. St Bernard, Peter Lombard, Alexander of Hales, St Albert the Great (Aquinas’ own teacher), and St Bonaventure were of this opinion.
Aquinas insisted on two points: (1) that Mary was redeemed since Christ is the Savior of all mankind. (2) The grace of Mary’s sanctification was a grace of preservation. Mary was preserved from being born with original sin in view of the merits of Christ’s passion and death. It should be remarked that redemption and preservation are at the very basis of the dogma of Mary’s Immaculate Conception.

Concerning Mary’s sanctification, the argument put forward by Aquinas and the other theologians I mentioned above was whether Mary was sanctified before or after the infusion of her soul with her body. For some reason or another, they didn’t make the distinction whether she could have been sanctified at the very instant of the infusion of her soul with her body.
Duns Scotus, of course, made the distinction that Mary was sanctified at the very instant of the infusion of her soul with her body and not before or after. And thus Duns Scotus argued for the Immaculate Conception of Mary. It should be remarked that Duns Scotus lived in the same century of Aquinas and not in the 1500’s.

 

[PRmerger]

Constantine…

In regards to your remark that only Jesus is sinless, that is indeed Scripture which is the Word of God.

No, Kathleen. Scripture NOWHERE says that ONLY Jesus is sinless.

What you are proposing above is in conflict with Catholic teaching. The Word of God does indeed say that others were sinless: namely, the Blessed Mother.

 

[KathleenGee]

Well, I finally got around to John Duns Scotus.

It turns out that many here who cannot understand the Immaculate Conception, join the ranks of SS Augustine, Bernard, Anselm, Thomas Aquinas, and Bonaventure.

John Duns Scotus only had a BA, but did very well debating Ph.D.'s. By the way on the side here, it was one of the fruits of Catholic faith in education that not only erected universities for the common people, but also its ranking of education.

There were two obstacles that prevent us from understanding Mary’s immaculate conception, which he tackled and overcame, same questions people ask here all the time, and something we who do know about Duns Scotus and his teachings on the Immaculate Conception, should have studied better ourselves.

First obstacle is Mary having been conceived in the womb of St. Ann, was she in need of redemption – if she had indeed been conceived without stain of original sin?

Second obstacle: When in the course of her conception, was Mary preserved from the stain and effects of Original Sin?

In the meantime, I did not know this directly – there was already popular belief in Mary’s immaculate conception, instituted in many parts of Europe — but that it was already celebrated since the 7th Century in the East!!!

So going back to first, did Mary need to be redeemed? As Constantine drew on St. Paul… here in this article, St. Paul, Romans 5:12, 'It was through on man (Adam) that sin came into the world, and through sin death, and thus death has spread through the whole human race because everyone has sinned."

Yes, we all inherit Original Sin and its effects and consequences. So Yes, Mary needed to be redeemed. But Christ had not yet accomplished redemption at Mary’s conception.

Duns Scotus went farther on this…and 'that instead of being excluded from the redemption of the Savior, Mary obtained the greatest of redemptions through the mystery of her preservation from all sin. This was a was a more perfect redemption and attributes to Christ a more exalted role as Redeemer, because redeeming grace, which preserves from original sin, is greater than that which purifies from sin already incurred.*

Consequently, Christ was Mary’s Redeemer more perfectly by preservative redemption in shielding her from original sin through anticipating and foreseeing the merits of his passion and death. This I]preredemption* indicates a much greater grace and more perfect salvation." – Brother John Samaha, SM.

I will start a new post for next response to 2nd dilemma of understanding Mary’s immaculate conception.**