Protestants and Mary

[guanophore]

The whole “Mary” arguement can be summed up like this:
A lot of Catholic practice surrounding the mother of Jesus as well as many other beliefs and practices come from Roman Catholic tradition, not necessarily from scripture.

Some practices have a basis in scripture though… The Hail Mary prayer actually comes from lines of scripture assembled to make up the prayer.

The Catholic Sacred Tradition is not “Roman” TLM. You are correct that our faith has come down to us from the Apostles, and that not all of what they taught was committed to Sacred Scripture.

However, the Marian teachings have come from the Church combating heresies about Christ. one cannot really understand any of the Marian doctrines unless one first understands the nature of Christ, and the early attacks about his identity and nature. The term “Theotokos”, for example, was a response to the Arian heresy, that denied the divinity of Christ.

 

[RickHolland]

Not straw man arguments at all. Your anger is very telling.
You can’t come back with anything but ad hominem attacks.

PROVE me wrong about the Greek vs. the Aramaic. PROVE me wrong about the Septuagint use of the words Adelphos and Adelphoi.
You can’t - and that frustrates you.

As for Matt. 16:18-19 - if you want to go through the humiliation of being proven wrong there - start *another *thread and I’ll gladly educate you on the Aramaic vs. the Greek.
This thread is about Protestans and Mary.

I don’t need to prove you wrong; God already has through His word. How quickly you forget the day of Pentecost and the many languages that were spokne. How quickly you forget the creator of all languages. How quickly for overlook the work of the holy Spirit in giving us the Bible written in Hebrew, greek and a smattering of Aramic. Why? As all with an agenda outside of God’s providence to push an agenda to fit their own agenda; there is nothing new under the sun Elvis.

 

[RickHolland]

rickholland:

Originally Posted by RickHolland
Is there apoint you are making here? Denying the word of God that Mary had other children? You highlighted “saved by a virgin”? Do you believe that the Bible teaches Mary as a savior or type of savior?

I hate to repeat myself so often, so if you wish, read my articles They Have No Wine and Behold the Handmaid of the Lord at my site: www.justinangel.st.blogs.com for the answers to your questions regarding Mary’s free and active involvement in God’s plan of salvation. And you may want to read How Shall This Be? with regard to the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.

It’s about time you become more familiar with God’s revelations by focussing on his deeds made manifest in the Sacred Tradition of the Church.

PAX :harp:

How about answering the simple questions rather than sending me to a link. The questions are not difficult nor time consuming. Do you deny the Bible teaches Mary had other children? Do you believe the Bible teaches Mary as a savior ot type of savior?

Not difficult to answer; so please answer this simple questions. thank you,

rick

 

[RickHolland]

I hate to repeat myself so often, so if you wish, read my articles They Have No Wine and Behold the Handmaid of the Lord at my site: www.justinangel.st.blogs.com for the answers to your questions regarding Mary’s free and active involvement in God’s plan of salvation. And you may want to read How Shall This Be? with regard to the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.

It’s about time you become more familiar with God’s revelations by focussing on his deeds made manifest in the Sacred Tradition of the Church.

PAX :harp:

ps the link doesn’t work.

 

[RickHolland]

Dokimas;5777347:

The Church’s teaching is consistent with Scripture. Simply because you do not see the congruity does not make the Church wrong. To suggest the Church, who is guided by the Holy Spirit into the fullness of truth (John 16:13, 1 Timothy 3:15) is wrong because you, as an individual, have not yet been given the graces to see the Truth is nothing short of self-worship. The Holy Scriptures are gift from God, and though the basic pillars of the faith are simple to understand, the deeper meaning of Scriptures is fully revealed only to the Church, who then teaches the faithful. This is why the Church is given teaching authority. You have denied said authority, and are attempting to make the Scriptures say what you wish them to say. You are doing more than making yourself your own Pope. You are trying to make yourself into God. What else would you say about one who attempts to take away authority given by God, who tires to take away from the holiest human being whoever has, and whoever will, walk the face of the earth, denies two of the three categories of divine revelation, and of the one category he does accept, tries to change it?

John 16:13, 1 Timothy 3:15 relates to the members of God’s household, not an imagined magesterium, no where found in Scripture, which in turn, nullifies you entire comment. Stand on the rock bed foundation, which is Jesus Christ and you will not be moved.

 

[guanophore]

 Regarding the Arians they did indeed point to scripture to prove their point and we can see express statements in scripture that could support their view.  It becomes a question of which view best handles all the relevant passages.

No, Radical, it does not. The reason for that is that “best views” are as common as belly buttons. Of course the Arians will think that their view best explains them, where the Catholics will think it is theirs. This is why an infallible teaching authority was appointed by Christ. We do not rely upon our own human reason, but the revelation of God to establish the Truth.

Regarding the Marian doctrines no express statemnts in scripture exist. Quite a difference.

Well, we read it differently, don’t we?

Catholics understand Scripture in the light of what the Apostles believed and taught. The Children of the Reformation were separated from this light.

Regarding the Gnostics, they did not appeal to the same scriptures. They often tossed out all of the OT and most of the NT books, had their own gosples and relied on secret revelations.

This is a good debate that it outside the scope of this thread. Suffice to say that some of the Marian doctrines were developed to combat Gnostic heresy.

it seems that you have added much to the “rule of faith” handed down to us by Tertullian and Ireneaus.

No, I just understand that the credal statements, though they reflect the infallible teaching of the Church, just as scripture does, are not intended to encompass the whole faith.

Catholics receive the faith from the Apostolic Succession. we don’t try to reconstruct it from the extant writings in isolation from the teaching authority appointed by Christ.

I know where the disciples chose Judas’ replacement, but how do you come up with your ‘criteria’ idea from Act 1? BTW, how do we know they chose the correct one? Looks to me that God’s choice could have been Paul.

This is a good question. I suggest it be moved to one of the threads on Apostolic Succession.

 

[guanophore]

well that's a start

We agree that the NT reflects the faith of the Apostles, but we won’t agree that the CC hasn’t added to the apostolic faith.

It is not possible to “add” to the Apostolic faith. It was whole and entire when it was deposited. Additions to it were, as you have corredclty noted, considered heresies.

You have cited the early creed found in the writings of Irenaeus, but that is not the sum total of the Apostolic faith. It is a summary, used during Divine Liturgy, baptism, and other times to separate truth from heresy. The Faith of the Apostles is all that accompanies those credal statements. It seems that you are interested in paring this down to a readers digest version, not sure why.

You think that those who don't accept the CC's sacred tradition have departed from the Apostle's faith and I think that they have returned to it.

The two examples that you gave, which you claim to believe is Apostolic teaching ARE Catholic Sacred Tradition! I can only imagine that you don’t understand the term you are using.

really?

Really.

Christianity is not a “religion of the book”, contrary to popular belief.

 Hmmm, I thought it was the Holy Spirit (using fallible men) that produced the books and then ensured their preservation and selection...

Absolutely! This ability of the HS to create infallibly through fallen men is indeed a great mystery of God. He used Catholic men, inspired them to write, preserve, canonize and promulgate and preach from the Scriptures. It is the HS that makes all this infallible.

my faith in the canon is as a result of my faith in God’s ability to use fallible men to get the job done…

This is interesting. That is where our faith in the canon comes also. However, what is curious is that you reject the work of the HS done with those same fallible men prior to the creation of the canon.

Was the HS down with the flu for a few hundrend years?

How come you can perceive the HS in the creeds of the fathers, but not during the time between them, and the formation of the canon? Did Jesus go back on His word, and orphan them?

I reject the Marian doctrines b/c I don't see that God had a hand in them....they are the product of fallible men (acting w/o the Holy Spirit's guidance).

Your post has made clear that you really don’t understand the origins of Sacred Tradition, Scripture,a nd how infallibility works, therefore, your rejection is an expression of ignorance.

Name any that I would accept with less evidence prior to 200 AD.

Less evidence than what? Do you think you get your practice of Church on Sunday from Scripture? Do you get the notion of the hypostatic union from scripture?

Jesus trained the Apostles, authorized them to teach, and acted supernaturally to preserve His Truth in the Church. If you dont’ believe this, then you have no basis to believe the creeds you cited, or the canon of scripture. If you accept these elements of Divine Truth, then you have no basis upon which to reject the others, which came from the same Source.

 b/c there is good evidence that those books are reliable records of the teaching of the apostles....

The fact that Jesus and the Apostles used them is sufficient evidence for us.

You, in error, keep focusing on formal recognition. It isn’t important whether the canon was formally recognized in 100 AD or in 400 AD or in 1600 AD.

The HS obviously felt differently, or He would not have lead the Church to do so. You do not seem to be able to recognize taht the councils that did this were acting under the inspiration of the HS.

there were 400+ books floating around in 380 AD, claiming to be scripture, some of them being read in the Churches that were later not included in the canon. The Gnostics and other heretics used the same scriptures we have to “prove” their beliefs, just as the JW’s and Mormons do today. This is why an infallible teaching authority is necessry.

What is important is whether there is evidence to establish that the books of the NT are reliable records of Apostolic teaching.

Luther thought the same thing, which is why he wanted to remove some of them. Whose authority is it that determines acceptable “evidence”?

It isn’t important when the word “Trinity” was first used or when it was formally approved. What is important is whether there is apostolic teaching that supports that understanding…and there is clear teaching in that regard in the NT.

I agree, just as it is not important when certain terms were used about Marian doctrines. what is important is taht they are consistent with apostolic teaching. Since there was no “NT” at the time, both of these issues were settled as Jesus designed, by the Church, the pillar and foundation of the Truth. That same pillar and foundation of the truth later closed the canon of the NT based upon the same criteria that were used to define Trinity and the Marian doctrines.

 It is much more than that....it is that the nature and extent of her ministry to the Church (as alleged by the modern CC) was not even mentioned for a long, long time.

I agree that it was not revealed… I think it was veiled because the world was not ready.
However, it has been celebrated by the Church since the early days. This is why Mary is portrayed so prominently in the writings of John, who was with her the longest, and by Luke, who had more time with her to hear her stories than any of the other gospel synoptic writers.

 

[guanophore]

He seems to like to allow the exercise of free will.

Indeed!

And the Magesterim exercised that free will just as the Apostles had done. They prayed, trusted the HS, and concluded what 'seemed right to the HS and to us". This is how God set things up. When we conform our will to His, He is able to act through us, to make His will manifest to the world. this is why, when there were disputes, Jesus told them to “take it to the Church”. It was His intention to lead them into “all Truth”. what you are suggeseting is that He was too weak or disinterested to keep His promises.

We can all see the two sets of texts and if we are honest we can admit how the "Arian texts", if read in isolation, would establish Arianism. In contrast, there ain't a set of "Mary" texts that expressly lead to the Marian doctrines.....there is no need to avoid reading such texts in isolation, b/c no such texts exist.

I will concede that you cannot “see” them. They dont’ exist to you. You seem to read scripture with anti-Catholic filters. I am sure you do this to keep your doctrine safe.

The JW situation can be answered in the same way as the Arian interpretation of scripture.  The Mormons, on the other hand, do what the CC does, and that is add further revelation to the OT and the NT so as to establish doctrine that is not clearly taught in them.

This is a false accursation, Radical. The Catholic Church teaches that public Revelation was closed with the death of the last Apostle. That means “further revelation from the OT and the NT” cannot be added. Furthermore, our doctrines do not originiate in the text, as do those of our separated brethren. All Catholic doctrine comes from Jesus Himself, through the Apostles. It was whole and entire before the NT was formed. We do not extract doctrine from Scripture. Rather, Scripture reflects the Teaching of Jesus committed to the Church.

thanks for the advice, but I aim for a much higher level than the high school debate team.

Good! Maybe once you get this fundamental building block mastered, you will be able to aspire to higher levels!

Consider trying to understand Catholicsim from a Catholics point of view, just for the sake of arguement. Don’t be afraid, it will not turn you into a Catholic.

a claim w/o any evidence in support

It is clear that you do not accept the evidence that exists. As long as you exclude part of the evidence, your undersatnding of the Truth will be limited.

You might also consider looking at the evidence just as an experimental exercise. it is very good for the development of critical thinking to be able to understand the other point of view.

to be clear, I have made up my mind, based on the evidence, that the Catholic Church is not the Church

Oh. well, belay what I just said about aspirations. It appears you will remain in elementary school! One cannot get very far only looking at a small portion of available evidence.

If you have made up your mind, why are you here?

No. What I am saying is that Jesus allowed men to exercise their free will and err, but that he ensured that his message would be accurately preserved in scripture so that the truth could be found by those who look.

Well, ok. Even the book that was preserved by His spirit does not say this about itself.

you need to brush up on your history

I am sure there is quite a bit about history that I do not know. One thing I do know, however, is that it was not possible to hold an ecumencial council until Constantine de-crimminalized Christianity.

did you mean the ante-nicene fathers?

Yes. You said the early fathers “added” to the NT. How could they do that when they were long deceased when the NT was formed?

Technically speaking the Catholic Church did ‘add’ to Scripture. they took the Septuagint, which was used by Jesus and His apostles, and added 27 books written by Catholics to form the NT, bound them together,a nd called it “bible”.

It is not as if God’s Word was not God’s Word until the canon was formalized by men.

I agree. However, the process of discerning which of the 400+ books in candidacy at the time belonged in the canon was a task undertaken by Catholic men. They were under the guidance of the HS, which is why their conclusion was infallible. This is the same way the Marian doctrines came about.

 

[guanophore]

yep…and there is no question that a priesthood was required b/c the requirement is repeatedly and clearly stated. Sure can’t say the same about a ministerial priesthood under the new covenant, now can we?

Yes, but that is also outside the scope of the Thread.

 

[guanophore]

H I respect your beliefs but do I hear you say that Mary is co-redemptive?
Benn

To the extent that she cooperated fully and completely with all of her being with His redemptive life, death, and resurrection, yes.

 

[adrift]

Where? Remember, at least a couple of these names were quite common.

Follow the link I provided.

 

[guanophore]

The Catholic Church doesn’t believe that way anymore and if you do, you are in error with the Catholic Church. Anyway, what does this have to do with the thread?

I agree it is outside the scope of the thread. There is another thread running on it, but you are also in error. The teaching that there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church is one of the Teachings of the Apsotles. Like the teachings on Mary, we are not at liberty to "not believe anymore’ and still be Catholic. If you have rejected this, then you have ceased to be Catholic without realizing it.

 

[guanophore]

 This topic is futile for us protestants for you belive in holy tradition or local tradition whatever its

If that is the case, why are you on this thread?

I suppose this is true, if you believe that the Scripture is the only source of the Eternal Word of God.

If you believe that God is too weak or disinterested to preseve Truth in His Church, as He promised, or that He is a liar, and actually did leave them orphaned after all. That is what has been asserted on this thread - that He wandered off and left them to the errors of their ways.

He failed to bring back to them all that He had taught…early alzheimers?

  the only way us christians will ever accept the mary from the RC

The Marian doctrines are not “Roman”. For that matter, neither is the Catholic Church.

If you cannot accept the Teaching of Christ through the Catholic Church, then you have no basis upon which to accept your Bible.

However, I agree. The only way that Protesants can accept the full Teaching of the Apostles is through the Catholic Church.

Holy tradition has never been proven

Certainly not! Sacred Tradition, as part of the Revelation of God about Himself, is supernatural in origin. It is not a creation of man, or of science, and is not in any way subjected to scientific proof. Although it is true that science has been able to authenticate the Revelation of God, it is not a matter of “proof”. That is why we call them “mysteries of faith”,a nd why they are expressed in articles of faith, such as the creed.

We do not call the creeds “articles of proof”. Wonder why that is?

Holy tradition has never been proven

 

[guanophore]

Funny thins that the Reformers believed in the Marian dogmas! Rejecting the Catholic teachings about Mary has been a much more recent development!

Indeed, very recent. The effects of continued and progressive separation from the Apostolic Succession.

Who really preaches “a different gospel”?

The Scriptures do not say that they should be used to extract doctrine.

 

[guanophore]

Many protestants have fallen short on their teaching and reverance to Mary. This comes mostly from the split with the Catholic Church, and the Protestant belief that they took their adoration of Mary to far,

I agree. Also this statement reflects a large part of the misunderstanding. Catholics do not “adore” Mary. This would be a violation of the first commandment. Adoration is reserved for God alone. To understand the Catholic position toward Mary, one must understand the difference between honoring the good God creates in His people, and adoration that is due only to Him.

There is really only one true sticking point that should be talked about, and that is the sinless nature of Mary. That is the only issue that I think really has any relevance, all other differences in teachings really just cloud that single issue.

I know there are a lot of Protestants that believe God is not able to prevent us from sinning. I have had many tell me that we cannot avoid sin in this life.

Three verses all Protestants will cling to are Rom 3:10 There is none righteous, no not one. Rom 3:23 All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. Mark 3:31-35 Then Jesus’ mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him “Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you”. “Who are my mother and brothers” he asked. Then he looked at those sitting around him in a circle and said “here are my mother and my brothers! Whosoever does my Father’s will is my mother, and brother and sister.”

Yes, I believe all these passages are misunderstood by modern day evangelicals with regard to Mary.

Protestants would consider Mary to be included in the “all have sinned” and “there is none righteous” category.

Especially if they never looked at the context of the psalm from which this quote is taken, and the context in which Paul uses it.

Also, Protestants believe that, according to Mark 3, Jesus regards all believers who do God’s will on equal terms as Mary, and that we should follow Jesus example in this way.

I wil agree with you to an extent. However, Jesus was not saying that she was not already highly favored because she was His mother. In addition to this high favor (blessing), seh was EVEN MORE blessed because she heard the word of God, and obeyed it. In this situation, He is holding up His Own Mother as our example of obedience and faith.

This is not to say she is not to be revered greatly, as she is an excellent example of doing God’s will. However, it is to say she has simply shared in God’s grace with us, and will be an equal part of the bride of Christ (the church).

Except that there is no “equal part” to the one that Mary has played in Salvation History.

I personally feel that Protestants often fail to give proper adoration to Mary.

Since none would be appropriate, this is good.

However, I do have trouble finding biblical evidence confirming some of the Catholic Church’s teachings concerning her.
I am only trying to point out where the Protestant stance comes from. Please remember we base all our faith solely on the Bible, so when a question arises we try to find the Biblical response. No offense is intended in any way.

I find your post to be quite charitable, thanks!

you are correct. The Apostolic faith was never intended to be extracted from the pages of a book, however Holy. That is the main reason for the misunderstandings. Christianity is not a 'religion of the book" as many erroneously believe.

 

[guanophore]

I’m not getting your point. Sorry.

Best to let it go. It is off topic here anyway.

 

[guanophore]

Holy tradition has never been proven or shown, the bible mentions tradition, surely tradition could come from the old testament right? lots of tradition there, ten commandments, torah laws I mean it does not take a rocket science to know that tradition is part of humanity.

Traditions of men (customs) are part of humanity, but Sacred Tradition is from God.

Do you honestly think that Revelation from God can be “proven”? Can you “prove” there was a burning bush?

What the RC want us to grasp however is the fact that holy tradition exists and passed through peter who was the first pope appointed by jesus so therefore traditions such as the believe in the ascension of mary

No, the Catholic Church is not "Roman, and neither are the Sacred Traditions.

Mary did not “ascend”. She is a creature, and could not take herself into heaven under her own power. She was assumed by Her Divine Son, who will one day assume all who look for His appearing!

You are resisting Teachings that you don’t even understand. You are creating nonsense, claiming it is Catholic, then rejecting it. Is lit ike some form of mental masturbation?

You say you don’t want to know what we really believe, so you must be doing this to entertain yourself.

was a tradition added by the CC LATER on because now the CC at this point has all authority.

So you see that basically gives the CC complete control on anything regarding jesus, the bible, rituals, the pope and on and on…

You are seriously misinformed, prochrist1. I guess it is most expedient for me to leave you in your chosen state of ignorance and self pleasuring.

 

[guanophore]

The comparison to the ark of the covenant, although plausible, has no scriptural support.

Then why does Luke so carefully lay out his infancy narratives so that they parallel those of the ark?

Why is it that all that was contained in the Ark symbolized Jesus, who was contained within His mother?

 

[RickHolland]

If you say that the Church cannot be 100% correct then it is you who are denying not only the Scriptures, but the power of the True and Living God. If the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit, which we know is the case, then how can it not be 100% correct? Can God lie? No, He cannot. To call the Church anything but infallible is to “turn the Truth of God into a lie” Why do I say this? There is the promise of the Holy Spirit in the aforementioned John 16:13. In Matthew 16:18, Jesus promises that “the gates of death shall not prevail against [the Church].” We are told that all things are possible with God (Matthew 19:26, Mark 9:23, Mark 10:27, Luke 1:27, Philippians 4:13). Are you denying the power of God, saying that He cannot preserve the Church that He started from error? From the fractious nature of Protestantism, it is easy to see that they enjoy no such protection. Think about it. In the roughly 2000 year history of the Catholic Church, it still stands united against all heresy. In the roughly 500 years since the Protestant reformation, there are 30,000+ denominations, some with as few as a single congregation. Is that conducive with the Scriptures? No. Where does it say in the Scriptures that anyone has the right to start their own Church? Nowhere. So much for only using the Scriptures to determine true doctrine.

How you reconcile that the visible church, which you speak, contains wheat and tares and more importantly fallible humans? Please enlighten all the dumb Protestants where in Scripture that the church is infallible? How do you account for all the various warning concerning false teaching? How do you account for the apostle peter being rebuked by Paul for another gospel? Please explain that and then tell us the one who really makes God a liar.

All of you that spew the lie of 30K denominations that are of Protestant origin should be ashamed for putting out lies that cannot be verified. Even if you define a Protestant denomination as anything that is not a Catholic denomination, then you still would be basing something that has no basis or merit. Shame on you for not telling the truth with the intention to; what is the point you are making?

 

[guanophore]

So you’re saying that Jesus is not enough? Wow, what a low regard you have for Jesus! Through Jesus’ death on the cross, God has given us direct access to Him. That is why when Jesus died, the veil separating the Holy of Holies was ripped from top to bottom. It is to symbolize God’s accessibility to us. We don’t need priests to be able to go to God, unlike in the OT.

This is a good subject of discussion, but off topic in this thread. Suffice to say that your conclusion is erroneous.

Protestants do not consider any document other than Sacred Scripture to be authoritative, infallible and inerrant. They may only have persuasive effect. They may be inspired, yes, but only to a limited degree, unlike the Bible.

If this were true, there would be no Protesatants. All of Protestantism is based upon extrabiblical sources, most especially the most flagrant heresy that Scripture alone should be the final authority. THis extrabiblical doctrine has spawned the countless separations that exist today. however, that is off topic too!

The CAtholic dogmas of immaculate conception, assumption, perpetual virginity, and Mother Mary being the Queen of heaven, are generally rejected by Protestants because they all have no CLEAR and EXPRESS biblical basis.

I agree. The Christian faith is not “bible based”, as most modern evangelicals believe. This misunderstanding has been the source of many errors.