Protestant View of Mariology

[ConstantineTG]

In no way, openly or otherwise does the Catholic Church teach that Mary should be worshipped in the latria sense. And, I know of no Catholic who believes that to be the case. Catholics praying to and petitioning a saint is not worshipping…and what saint would God hear the petitions from and respond to them more than than Mary?

Many Catholics sadly cross that line. Just look around you. Jesus sadly has been relegated to the background while everyone only goes to Mary for help. Look at the messages of the apparitions, Mary is the star. And it paints a pretty grim picture of Jesus. Don’t you find it odd that God the Word who took it upon himself to become flesh and suffer and die for us to save us now wants to destroy us sinners? And Mary is the only one holding him back?

Constantine, back to my earlier post, why do Orthodox kiss a picture of Mary? If Catholics did this, protestants would accuse us of worship and idolatry…not that I think there is anything wrong with it.

Again, the problem I’m pointing out has nothing to do with the proper and due veneration we both show to icons of the Theotokos. It goes to the very belief of what her role is in the Church. You are arguing the external when the problem is the internal. I’ve never raised the kissing of icons or statues as the problem, so I don’t know why you keep bringing that up. That is not the problem. The problem is the theology taught by the Catholic Church about Mary, known as Mariology (the thread topic, what a surprise!).

Constantine, below is the catechism on the Assumption. Reading the Catechism itself and not your opinions above, how does that Catholic view of the Assumption differ from the Orthodox?

The first line says it all. The Assumption is a result of the Immaculate Conception? Then what hope is there for us because we are not immaculately conceived?

Again with the “had to”.

No one is positing God “had to” do anything.

At any rate, the Orthodox response to the atheist who asks, "Why did God let all of humanity suffer instead of saving us? " is the same as the Catholic one, so your objection is a bit** odd.**

Of course God had to do something. If God did not do anything, we would have “devolved” into nothingness.

God did not let humanity suffer, from the moment of Adam’s sin God set His plan in motion to save mankind. We believe the time it took for the plan to unravel was necessary, not not an arbitrary decision by God. Pain and suffering did not come from God.

So do you believe that Mary was not the spouse of St. Joseph? Remember, the Orthodox believe that she did not engage in marital relations with him.

You are comparing apples and oranges here. The whole point that the Holy Spirit is being referred to as the spouse of Mary is precisely because of His action in conceiving Jesus in the womb of Mary. Was the Holy Spirit betrothed to Mary like Joseph? No. So what else makes Him the spouse if not for conceiving Jesus?

Then you would have to claim that Adam and Eve were also not human, since they, too, were conceived without original sin.

This statement is wrong on so many levels.

#1 - they were not conceived. They were not born of anyone.
#2 - they were the first humans, they did not take their humanity from anyone else. All other humans out there were like them (because the two of them were it) and they are not a break in humanity separate from anyone else.

Coming to this page, Constantine, and with your past comments, I am questioning just how much Orthodox think like you.

Every argument I bring forth is not something I made up. They came from other Orthodox priests, monks, bishops and lay theologians I have read or listened to along my journey.

Last year I served a Greek Orthodox widow in her home. It was filled with icons of Mary Theotokos. I revealed to them I was Catholic and greatly enjoyed their presence. They told me it gives them such a sense of motherly protection, especially with father now deceased.

The next day worker came in and I asked her what she thought of the icons. She responded that she was a Christian. I asked why that?..and she said she goes to her Christian church and they do not worship Mary. I told her I was Catholic and that we do not worship Mary, and that I am a Christian and implied these Greek Orthodox were as well.

That was it, but I sometimes want to let such Protestants know they should look for another ecclesial community.

Nothing wrong with that, those are not the issues I’m raising. If the Catholic Church were to keep Mariology to these things, then we wouldn’t have an issue.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Are you kidding me? Is not the Church the spouse of Christ? Do you think that in any way has a sexual connotation?

Again, the image of the Holy Spirit conceiving Christ in Mary is the reason why He is referred to as the Spouse of Mary. That is sexual. Christ’s relationship to the Church has nothing to do with conceiving a child, so it is not sexual. Huge difference.

Who is the Father of Jesus?

God the Father, which also is a further complication of this understanding. If the Father is the father of Jesus, and Mary is the mother and the Holy Spirit is the Spouse of Mary, then either you believe in modalism (that the Persons of God are only modes of the same person, which is a condemned heresy), or there is something sick and perverted going on here. In both instances, it is a blaspheme against God.

Who is the mother of Jesus? Of course God did not have sexual relations with Mary and I have just shown you that a spousal relationship does not have to mean a sexual relationship. But when you are the father, I guarantee you that you have a spousal relationship with the mother.

But God the Father is the Father, and yet the Holy Spirit who conceived Christ is the spouse? It does not make sense. Unless again you believe in one of the two things I noted above. But then that is heresy.

A relationship between the divine and the human is not at all analogous to human sexual relations. You are doing nothing but building a straw man here. No Catholic believes that God had sexual relations with Mary so to imply that we do is just not being honest. You have debunked nothing.

Yet your theology is inconsistent. I just debunked this idea as inconsistent and in grave violation of so many things in the Christian faith.

 

[SteveVH]

Steve, is this not a Mormon theological thought? uch:

Yes, absolutely.

 

[joe371]

How about you…are you the one to declare what is in error and what is not?

Is it possible you are the one in error? Do you claim to be perfect?

And are you infallible to make a declaration of what is erronious and what is not?

I suppose the only alternative, if he is right, is: there is no way to discern truth. Infallible bible with no way to infallibly interpret it. :shrug:Some people are just more comfortable with this idea. Only question remains: how did we end up with an infallible bible to begin with if their his claim is correct…

 

[ConstantineTG]

Really, it is her being Theotokos that makes her different than the rest. Bishop Dimitri, the last OCA Bishop of the South basically said that if you don;t get that, you don’t get the mystery of the incarnation.

Her being the Theotokos does not make her a different human being from the rest of us. Remains the same human like us which is why Christ came to share in the same human nature that we have.

Can you post the entire context of Bishop Dimitri’s speech or writing or whatever it is? I feel you are taking him out of context here.

 

[Arizona_Samson]

Then you would have to claim that Adam and Eve were also not human, since they, too, were conceived without original sin.

Adam and Eve were not* conceived*, they were created.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Again, OK forget the word spouse. What other person is the daughter of the Father, impregnated by God via the Holy Spirit via supernatural means, and the mother of the Son? What other person had that kind of relationship with the holy Trinity? You find nothing unique about that relationship?

Why forget the word? The problem I am raising here is the use of that word. If we take that which is the problem out of the discussion, then there is no problem.

 

[joe371]

Many Catholics sadly cross that line. Just look around you. Jesus sadly has been relegated to the background while everyone only goes to Mary for help. Look at the messages of the apparitions, Mary is the star. And it paints a pretty grim picture of Jesus. Don’t you find it odd that God the Word who took it upon himself to become flesh and suffer and die for us to save us now wants to destroy us sinners? And Mary is the only one holding him back?

You sound like my sister. So what if many cross the line and disobey the teachings of the CC. The CC cannot make people obey. People will either obey or do their own thing. The important thing to remember is that the CC agrees with you and that, like you, the CC teaches that we should never cross the line. Agreed?

Approved apparitions painting a grim picture of Jesus? OK, Example?

 

[joe371]

Why forget the word? The problem I am raising here is the use of that word. If we take that which is the problem out of the discussion, then there is no problem.

I am trying to work with you but you are not making it easy. My goal is to show you how unique Mary’s relationship is with the source of life - the holy Trinity, as compared with every other person’s relationship with the holy Trinity. There is a difference. So, I will ask one more time if you do not mind: forget the word spouse for the moment. What other person is the daughter of the Father, impregnated by God via the Holy Spirit via supernatural means, and the mother of the Son? What other person had that kind of relationship with the holy Trinity? You find nothing unique about that relationship?

 

[Porknpie]

This “dilemma” is only present in the minds of some of our Catholic friends in these threads that have grown fond of perpetrating this false dilemma.

Since one must assume A to be true to posit B, this is an error of false presumption.

I do not accept the authority and infallibility of the Catholic Church in determining Canon. Fact is I categorically reject any claim to authority and infallibility that the Catholic Church makes for itself.

And yes, I do believe the Catholic Church errors on faith and morals - which is one of many reasons I am not Catholic.

Arizona,

So if you could, you would go back to the Synods of Hippo and Carthage and tell them they were not members of the Catholic Church ? If so, which church was it that held these councils?

“Besides the canonical Scriptures, nothing shall be read, in the church under the title of divine writings.’. The canonical books are:—Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings, the two books of Paraleipomena (Chronicles), Job, the Psalms of David, the five books of Solomon, the twelve books of the (Minor) Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees. The books of the New Testament are:—the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistles of S. Paul, one Epistle of S. Paul to the Hebrews, two Epistles of S. Peter, three Epistles of S. John, the Epistle of S. James, the Epistle of S. Jude, the Revelation of S. John. Concerning the confirmation of this canon, the transmarine Church shall be consulted.” Council of Hippo, Canon 36 (A.D. 393).

I would like to have heard that conversation.

What would you say to St Augustine in response to his words below? I would like to hear that conversation too!

“Inasmuch, I repeat, as this is the case, we believe also in the Holy Church, [intending thereby] assuredly the Catholic. For both heretics and schismatics style their congregations churches. But heretics, in holding false opinions regarding God, do injury to the faith itself; while schismatics, on the other hand, in wicked separations break off from brotherly charity, although they may believe just what we believe. Wherefore neither do the heretics belong to the Church catholic, which loves God; nor do the schismatics form a part of the same.” Augustine, On Faith and Creed, 10:21 (A.D. 393).

You DO have a dilemma here…either the Catholic Church is infallible or it is not. If the latter, you have no assurance that the books in your bible are inerrant and inspired and you most certainly don’t have the right books. So where you going to go to find out which ones are? There were nearly 300 writings of which the Catholic Church selected 27.

 

[joe371]

The error of your analogy lies in the fact that I’m not free to believe the above to be true because the voice of* The Most High God* has proclaimed them false.

Huge difference!

The voice of* The Most High God* has proclaimed them false to you personally?

 

[ConstantineTG]

You sound like my sister. So what if many cross the line and disobey the teachings of the CC. The CC cannot make people obey. People will either obey or do their own thing. The important thing to remember is that the CC agrees with you and that, like you, the CC teaches that we should never cross the line. Agreed?

Approved apparitions painting a grim picture of Jesus? OK, Example?

The problem is the theology itself is dangerous. It is easy to say you are trying to go on a diet, whilst sprinkling your salad with salt and using a lot of dressing that has a ton of fat. Many elements of the Roman Catholic Mariology leads to Marian Worship. Again, I’m not talking about simply prayer or venerating images, I’m talking about the contents of the apparitions which the Vatican herself has approved. I’m talking about the dogmas which are inconsistent with Patristic teaching and tends to focus on Mary alone instead of having a holistic view of the Theotokos as part of the life of the Church.

 

[joe371]

The problem is the theology itself is dangerous. It is easy to say you are trying to go on a diet, whilst sprinkling your salad with salt and using a lot of dressing that has a ton of fat. Many elements of the Roman Catholic Mariology leads to Marian Worship. Again, I’m not talking about simply prayer or venerating images, I’m talking about the contents of the apparitions which the Vatican herself has approved. I’m talking about the dogmas which are inconsistent with Patristic teaching and tends to focus on Mary alone instead of having a holistic view of the Theotokos as part of the life of the Church.

Examples of apparitions painting a grim picture of Jesus? Do you agree with the following:

So what if many cross the line and disobey the teachings of the CC. The CC cannot make people obey. People will either obey or do their own thing. The important thing to remember is that the CC agrees with you and that, like you, the CC teaches that we should never cross the line. Agreed?

Or, do you stand by your position and continue to believe that the CC teaches Marian Worship. If the latter then there is nothing more to say.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I am trying to work with you but you are not making it easy. My goal is to show you how unique Mary’s relationship is with the source of life - the holy Trinity, as compared with every other person’s relationship with the holy Trinity. There is a difference. So, I will ask one more time if you do not mind: forget the word spouse for the moment. What other person is the daughter of the Father, impregnated by God via the Holy Spirit via supernatural means, and the mother of the Son? What other person had that kind of relationship with the holy Trinity? You find nothing unique about that relationship?

Joe, the problem with that statement is precisely the word “spouse” in reference to the Holy Spirit. If we are to take the word “spouse” out, then it may become more appropriate. It really is as simple as that. “Spouse” has a lot of connotations especially if you consider that it is the Holy Spirit who conceived Jesus in the womb of Mary. Also the fact that The Father is the father of Jesus and yet the spouse of Mary his mother is someone else? It is just so complicated and such a loaded term.

Now, if we are talking about relationships, sure. Relationships can be unique. Moses’ relationship with God is unique. Again, most prominent men and women of Scripture has a unique relationship with God. John the Baptist, was there anyone else who announced Christ’s coming? Was there anyone else who baptized Him who will baptize us with fire? The issue about the IC isn’t a uniqueness of relationship, but a uniqueness of nature and a uniqueness of salvation.

 

[dvdjs]

Her being the Theotokos does not make her a different human being from the rest of us. Remains the same human like us which is why Christ came to share in the same human nature that we have.

Can you post the entire context of Bishop Dimitri’s speech or writing or whatever it is? I feel you are taking him out of context here.

Remains human, of course, but not like us. Greater than us and greater than all creation and that is Orthodox.

These overeactions are very sad. I was reading this morning an article by Erickson, Dean at SVS, on the separation of the EO and OO churches. And it was clear that, aiming to be different and desiring separation, theology was developed to attack the views and practices of the other. I see this backlash against the Theotokos as sad and disturbing. Orthodox Christians, certainly since Ephesus, have championed their Champion Leader, in the most effusive way. Now there is a modern effort - at least in Protestant West - to withdraw from the characteristic effusive love. Even Bishop Dimitri does this. Even so, the light shines through

The consequences of denying the Theotokos a part in the life of Christians are more serious than one may think in view of all its implications. Orthodox theology insists upon the two perfect natures of our Lord Jesus Christ; He was perfect God and perfect Man. The Virgin Mary communicated the humanity of the Incarnate God. The redemption of the human race was possible through the union of God and man in Christ. De-emphasis of the sinlessness of Christ’s Mother, insistence upon her having other children by Joseph (which cannot be demonstrated by the New Testament), and failure to remember *her part in the history of the salvation of mankind *have contributed to a general misunderstanding in some churches of the Incarnation in all its fullness and power.

(italics added)

 

[joe371]

Arizona,

So if you could, you would go back to the Synods of Hippo and Carthage and tell them they were not members of the Catholic Church ? If so, which church was it that held these councils?
“Besides the canonical Scriptures, nothing shall be read, in the church under the title of divine writings.’. The canonical books are:—Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings, the two books of Paraleipomena (Chronicles), Job, the Psalms of David, the five books of Solomon, the twelve books of the (Minor) Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees. The books of the New Testament are:—the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistles of S. Paul, one Epistle of S. Paul to the Hebrews, two Epistles of S. Peter, three Epistles of S. John, the Epistle of S. James, the Epistle of S. Jude, the Revelation of S. John. Concerning the confirmation of this canon, the transmarine Church shall be consulted.” Council of Hippo, Canon 36 (A.D. 393).I would like to have heard that conversation.

What would you say to St Augustine in response to his words below? I would like to hear that conversation too!
“Inasmuch, I repeat, as this is the case, we believe also in the Holy Church, [intending thereby] assuredly the Catholic. For both heretics and schismatics style their congregations churches. But heretics, in holding false opinions regarding God, do injury to the faith itself; while schismatics, on the other hand, in wicked separations break off from brotherly charity, although they may believe just what we believe. Wherefore neither do the heretics belong to the Church catholic, which loves God; nor do the schismatics form a part of the same.” Augustine, On Faith and Creed, 10:21 (A.D. 393).You DO have a dilemma here…either the Catholic Church is infallible or it is not. If the latter, you have no assurance that the books in your bible are inerrant and inspired and you most certainly don’t have the right books. So where you going to go to find out which ones are? There were nearly 300 writings of which the Catholic Church selected 27.

One of the Protestant Churches held those councils. LOL. Just being a little silly. You are right on everything else you said. :thumbsup:If the CC cannot teach infallibly then the Protestant churches cannot either. If that is the case then truth is unknowable. If that is the case then why trust the bible…

 

[dvdjs]

The issue about the IC isn’t a uniqueness of relationship, but a uniqueness of nature and a uniqueness of salvation.

It’s OK. Άξιον εστίν ως αληθώς

 

[joe371]

Joe, the problem with that statement is precisely the word “spouse” in reference to the Holy Spirit. If we are to take the word “spouse” out, then it may become more appropriate. It really is as simple as that. “Spouse” has a lot of connotations especially if you consider that it is the Holy Spirit who conceived Jesus in the womb of Mary. Also the fact that The Father is the father of Jesus and yet the spouse of Mary his mother is someone else? It is just so complicated and such a loaded term.

Now, if we are talking about relationships, sure. Relationships can be unique. Moses’ relationship with God is unique. Again, most prominent men and women of Scripture has a unique relationship with God. John the Baptist, was there anyone else who announced Christ’s coming? Was there anyone else who baptized Him who will baptize us with fire? The issue about the IC isn’t a uniqueness of relationship, but a uniqueness of nature and a uniqueness of salvation.

Forget the word spouse for just a minute. Do you at least agree that no other person on earth had such an intimate relationship with the holy Trinity, including Moses and John the Baptist?

 

[joe371]

The issue about the IC isn’t a uniqueness of relationship, but a uniqueness of nature and a uniqueness of salvation.

Could you flesh that out a little? I am kind of with you…

 

[Porknpie]

Again, the image of the Holy Spirit conceiving Christ in Mary is the reason why He is referred to as the Spouse of Mary. That is sexual. Christ’s relationship to the Church has nothing to do with conceiving a child, so it is not sexual. Huge difference.

Constantine,

I believe your syllogism is:

• All conception is sexual
• The Holy Spirit’s relationship with Mary was to conceive

Therefore:

The Holy Spirit’s relationship with Mary is (was) sexual.

However, the major premise that “all conception is sexual” is false.

Not that it is morally right, but human beings are conceived in test tubes outside of the womb. There is nothing sexual about it. This proves that not all conception is sexual and that your conclusion can be false.