Protestant View of Mariology

[Porknpie]

By following Acts 17:11 and ** “examining the Scriptures to see if these things were so.”**

Arizona,

The scriptures that they were examining and arguing with the Jews was the Old Testament…Paul was very familiar with…the Catholic Church did not have a New Testament canonized Written Word of God yet…but we did have Tradition! This includes worshipping the Lord on Sunday (a Tradition brought to you by the Catholic Church ).

Go back to Acts 17:1
After Paul and Silas[a] had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. 2 And Paul went in, as was his custom, and on three sabbath days argued with them from the scriptures,

 

[GaryTaylor]

Gary,

PR’s visual of the used bottle of oil made more impact on me…

There seems to be a restriction on God allowing to create a mother, a queen, fit to bear His Son. With God, all things are possible, as Gabriel declared.

Ha, I know, I see everyone would like to suggest what didn’t happen, yet there is no getting around what did, and which basic Christianity agrees on, the 4th Council. One may well not agree with us past that, then they are left to explain the mystery accordingly as we do.

 

[joe371]

Arizona Samson;10902637]Yes, He has, as I’ve answered previously.

Let’s stay within the context of the conversation, shall we?

PRMerger asked the following questions:

*How do you know there aren’t many gods?

That god isn’t 4 persons in one?

That Mary was not a virgin?

That Jesus stayed dead?*

I responded that I know the above to be false because God has declared them false.

If I’m not mistaken the CC also teaches that the above four questions are false.

In your opinion does the holy spirit guide the Catholic church into all truth in the same way the holy Spirit guides you into all truth via the examination of “the Scriptures to see if these things were so?” Acts 17:11

 

[KathleenGee]

Fiat, Gary!..

From the book of Revelations, ‘There appeared a great sign…a woman clothed with the sun with 12 stars around her head…’

Jesus Christ is oftentimes represented in the symbol of the sun. Pope Benedict mused about the altars to face east, to await the rising of the sun, and the coming of Jesus…Mary as intercessor…clothed with light of Jesus.

The next step in our theological reflections is the realm of mystery of which no human words can fully explain.

God is all powerful and great Who chose and prepared a most singular and unique woman to carry His Son in her sacred womb, and likewise, the Church has the most beautiful altars and tabernacles, pure, clean, resplendent — the tabernacle where Christ’s Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity takes the place of Mary’s womb

 

[ConstantineTG]

Do we at least agree that what was conceived in Mary was from the holy Spirit? Since you keep bring up the word spouse then I will too, Surley you could entertain the possibility that the Holy Spirit could be Mary’s mystical spouse, as opposed to carnal spouse?

“But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.”

I’ve never denied this. It is part of the Creed, why would the Orthodox not believe that Jesus Christ was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit?

And no, again, Mary by any stretch of the imagination cannot be the spouse of the Holy Spirit. I’ve already laid out the reasons why.

 

[ConstantineTG]

It is? I don’t think so. It is the union of God with mankind. The union of God with man is the entire purpose of Christ’s coming. And this union is realized in Mary’s conception as well as in the Person of Jesus Christ.

Wait a minute. You began by insisting that the term “spousal” had to mean “sexual”. When I proved that it did not (Bride of Christ, etc.) you then claim that because it involves a child that it must mean sexual in that context. But no one has ever said that except you. So, one more time. We do not believe that God had a sexual relationship with Mary. I hope that is clear. I don’t know how God can say “let there be light” and there is light. And I don’t know how being overshadowed by the Holy Spirit produced the same result as human intercourse. Well, all except it was the Son of God that was born, there’s that little thing. But there has never been a more intimate relationship with a human being than God has with Mary. It was not through sex that she became pregnant. It was through a divine union. Yet still a spousal union resulting in a child.

At no point did I say that any and all metaphorical use of “spouse” is related to sex. But when that metaphor is used on someone who’s act consists of conceiving a baby, it is sexual.

I’m not sure that I have ever read something as offensive as this. I’m done here.

It is offensive, that is why we should stop saying that Mary is the spouse of the Holy Spirit.

 

[joe371]

I’ve never denied this. It is part of the Creed, why would the Orthodox not believe that Jesus Christ was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit?

And no, again, Mary by any stretch of the imagination cannot be the spouse of the Holy Spirit. I’ve already laid out the reasons why.

Agree to disagree…

 

[joe371]

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.

That’s some crazy thinking……I tried to work with you but to no avail. You keep bringing carnal stuff into the relationship between Mary and the Trinity, as opposed to seeing it as a mystical union. Too weird for me…Take care…

 

[PRmerger]

The early church did not “select” 27 writings, they received what God declared to be θεόπνευστος.

You have to answer this question though, Samson: did the Church do this infallibly, or did they err? If you believe that they were not infallible, then where in the canon of the NT is the error? Do you believe, perhaps, that they should have excluded 3 John? And perhaps included the Epistle of Barnabas?

Or do you believe that these men, Catholic bishops to be exact, were assisted by the Holy Spirit and were able to discern the canon of Scripture without error–that is, INFALLIBLY?

There is only an either/or here. Not a both/and.

Either you believe the Church erred in this canon of 27 books, and there’s something missing that should be in the canon, or there’s something admitted that you believe needs to be omitted…

OR

You believe these Catholic bishops discerned the 27 canon NT without error. That is, they were utilizing the charism of INFALLIBILITY.

Which is it, Arizona Samson?

 

[SteveVH]

At no point did I say that any and all metaphorical use of “spouse” is related to sex. But when that metaphor is used on someone who’s act consists of conceiving a baby, it is sexual.

It is offensive, that is why we should stop saying that Mary is the spouse of the Holy Spirit.

Jesus not only refers to the Church as his spouse, but compares heaven to a wedding feast. We all know what happens at a wedding. A marriage. And we all know that a marriage must be consummated or it is no marriage at all. If sexual implications must be construed when speaking of Mary as the spouse of the Holy Spirit, then certainly, the same must apply with Christ and his Church.

But this conversation has long since become ridiculous. We are speaking of things divine, in both cases and to be arguing over whether or not Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit had sex with Mary is a pointless exercise. We don’t. Period.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, He has, as I’ve answered previously.

Let’s stay within the context of the conversation, shall we?

PRMerger asked the following questions:

*How do you know there aren’t many gods?

That god isn’t 4 persons in one?

That Mary was not a virgin?

That Jesus stayed dead?*

I responded that I know the above to be false because God has declared them false.

Indeed. And you know these things ONLY because the Catholic Church discerned these truths for you.

And, again to return to the point I was making with Monergistic, you and he “are not permitted to believe” that God isn’t 4 persons in one.

I am using the “not permitted to believe” in the same way as he used it with us regarding Mary.

It’s true that all of us who are subject to truth can never be “permitted” to believe a falsehood.

Heck, even 1st graders are “not permitted to believe” that this is a square:

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/...5wyCgoyvrNtwsfW1e6lrLUS0klRL24Bo22uPJxlh6Z-zk

 

[ConstantineTG]

That’s some crazy thinking……I tried to work with you but to no avail. You keep bringing carnal stuff into the relationship between Mary and the Trinity, as opposed to seeing it as a mystical union. Too weird for me…Take care…

Try to work with me to what? To accept a potentially heretic concept? I don’t think there is an explanation out there that can force me (and those I learned this from) to accept the Holy Spirit as spouse of Mary.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Jesus not only refers to the Church as his spouse, but compares heaven to a wedding feast. We all know what happens at a wedding. A marriage. And we all know that a marriage must be consummated or it is no marriage at all. If sexual implications must be construed when speaking of Mary as the spouse of the Holy Spirit, then certainly, the same must apply with Christ and his Church.

At what point did Christ and the Church conceive a child? I don’t think you are reading my posts at all. I have laid it out quite clearly what I am trying to say.

But this conversation has long since become ridiculous. We are speaking of things divine, in both cases and to be arguing over whether or not Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit had sex with Mary is a pointless exercise. We don’t. Period.

Well, if you want to lay it out this way, then anything and everything is acceptable. After all they are divine so thus anything and everything must be interpreted in a way that conforms to what other idea we want to convey Symbolism is just thrown out the window

 

[ConstantineTG]

Agree to disagree…

I’m not trying to force you to accept what I believe. I’m trying to explain why we believe what we believe. If you do not want to accept what we believe, that is okay. I only ask that you understand why we believe what we believe.

 

[PRmerger]

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.

That is like a Christian saying, “I believe that Jesus is Lord but I absolutely do not accept the authority and infallibility of the Bible in determining that Jesus is Lord.”

Is there some *other way that this Christian knows Jesus is Lord except through the authority of the Bible?

Answer: Nope. Even if he denies that the Bible is the source for his knowledge that Jesus is Lord, that’s the only way he can know this.

Similarly, even if you deny that the Church discerned the 27 book canon of the NT, that’s the ONLY way you can know that Hebrews is inspired and the Epistle of Clement is not.

• (Some would answer, it is through the Catholic Church–and they would be right–but that is fodder for another thread. )

 

[PRmerger]

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.

True, dat.

And the way you know that God spoke is through the Catholic Church.

There is no other way for you to know this, Samson.

 

[PRmerger]

God did not let humanity suffer,

LOL!

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.

Very Catholic, this!

You have the exact answer that Catholics give to atheists as to why God had to suffer and die to save humanity, rather than simply just wiping away all of our offenses.

So, again, your objection with regard to the IC is getting more bizarre.

 

[PRmerger]

This statement is wrong on so many levels.

#1 - they were not conceived. They were not born of anyone.

You are taking too literal an understanding of “conceived”.

It does not have to mean: the joining of sperm and egg.

It can simply mean: the beginning or inception.

And, A & E were indeed conceived immaculately.

#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.

Ok. Non-sequitur, but ok.

 

[PRmerger]

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

Suddenly folks are so literal around here.

Do you believe that in this statement, “A political movement was conceived in the ferment of the 1960’s” that there was a literal ovum and a literal sperm that united to conceive this specific political movement?



I’m sure you don’t.

So apply this to Adam and Eve, who were, indeed, conceived at some point. They didn’t exist. Then they did exist. That means: CONCEPTION.

That a sperm and egg did not unite for their conception is irrelevant.

 

[ConstantineTG]

LOL!

LOL as well, I laid it out quite too plainly that what I intended to say. I wanted to say God did not make humanity suffer, that is, the after effects of sin is not from God himself.

Very Catholic, this!

You have the exact answer that Catholics give to atheists as to why God had to suffer and die to save humanity, rather than simply just wiping away all of our offenses.

So, again, your objection with regard to the IC is getting more bizarre.

But God simply wiped away Mary’s sin.