Protestants and Mary

[Dokimas]

So what you are saying is that we should check everything with the Old Testament?

Retorical question I’m sure. As you know for 21st century Christians the Scriptures include the NT as well as the OT.

 

[Dokimas]

It is good that you are here at CAF,then. There are a great many things of which you are not aware concerning the Christian faith.

Apostle means “one who is sent”.

Acts 15:24-27
25 it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord, to choose men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 men who have risked their lives for the sake of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth.

Barnabas, Paul, Judas and Silas are all recorded as having been chosen and sent by God, through the Church.

We read that Barnabas is considered an Apostle,though not one of the 12:

Acts 14:14-16
14 But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of it, they tore their garments and rushed out among the multitude, crying, 15 "Men, why are you doing this? We also are men, of like nature with you, and bring you good news, that you should turn from these vain things to a living God who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all that is in them.

Andronicus and Junias are also referred to as Apostles:

Rom 16:6-7
7 Greet Androni’cus and Ju’nias, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners; they are men of note among the apostles, and they were in Christ before me.

Peter encourages believers through his encyclical to cling to the faith delivered to them by their Apostles:

2 Peter 3:2-3
2 that you should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles.

I am sure it seems that way to you. It seems that you have never recieved the Apostolic Teaching from the authority to which Jesus committed it, so it stands to reason that you would not recognize it when you look into the Scriptures. However, the Bereans had only the OT scriptures, and the Apostles taught them to understand the OT with Catholic faith. Later, the Church committed some of the Teachings of the Apostles to writing, and they became our NT. The NT was never intended to be a complete compendium of the faith, or the source of doctrine. Jesus gave authority to teach to persons, not books. The Holy Writings are profitable in the task of teaching, but do not replace sound teaching.

Good work. There remains one question, however. While the root of the noun apostolos is from the verb apostello, are you saying that everyone that is called and sent are apostles? When a Christian is obedient, they are sent with a message. That would make any obedient Christian an apostle, would it not? (I guess there was more than one question. )

 

[Vimy_Ridge]

A few statues of Mary would look nice in some of the more stripped down and barren Protestant churches.

 

[CWBetts]

Retorical question I’m sure. As you know for 21st century Christians the Scriptures include the NT as well as the OT.

But not for the community you were referring to. The simple fact is that the Scriptures don’t tell us everything. It is only part of the Word of God. It is the Written Word of God, but divine relevation also includes oral tradition.

 

[Radical]

No, the first historical record is found in the liturgies, which contain hymns and prayers to Mary, …

Ok, so please provide one of these liturgies and establish (based on historical evidence) that it existed in that form prior to 300 AD

After those, the NT itself is the first written reference.

It is a reference for that Marian doctrine only if one reads into the passages that which is not there…it would at least be better for you if some ECFs read between the lines in that fashion to verify that doctrine, but again we have to wait hunderds of years for that development.

Your figure of 300 years, even if it were accurate, does not indicate that the doctrine is “false” any more than the promulgation of the canon in 382 is false. It is a bogus criteria for truth.

It is a strong indication that the doctrine is manufactured b/c it can’t be traced back to the start. I agree that in 100 AD a NT canon had not been discussed and that is why we won’t find such a discussion in the records of that date.

It is true that dogmatic statements of the faith are not made until they are needed to combat heresy.

If you are saying that the facts upon which the doctrines are formed were only discussed or proclaimed to combat heresy, then you are simply incorrect. The resurrection was taught not to battle heresy, but to proclaim the good news. The Didache, the Espistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas were written to (among other things) give more knowledge of the faith, contrast the two ways of living and provide commandments for Christians. Considerable doctrine is discussed in the process, but mention of Mary is missing. Likewise the books of the NT were written mainly to encourage believers in the faith, to correct errors and to inform about matters of faith (not so much to battle heresy). Much doctrine is discussed in the process (I would say all) but mention of Mary (apart from her virginity at conception to birth) is missing…it is not that these things about her are discussed or mentioned w/o a dogmatic doctrine being specified. Rather, she is simply not discussed until much later.

This was also true about the dogmatic statements found in the Apostles’ creed. The fact that the word Trinity does not appear for a couple hundred years in no way diminishes that it was believed and taught by the Apostles.

apples and oranges…I can show that the apostles taught that the Father was God, that the Son was God and that the Holy Spirit was God and that yet, God was still one. It then becomes a question of what best explains what was taught by the apostles (in the NT). Is it Modalism, Trinitarianism or Arianism? The term of “trinity” is just a term used to designate that view of God that most consider to best align with scripture. In contrast, you can’t demonstrate that the apostles even considered the Immaculate Conception, let alone taught it. Same for the beliefs of her perpetual virginity, status as mediatrix, status as coredemptrix, her bodily assumption and her sinlessness. The only way one can find a trace of any those doctrines in the NT is by drawing wild and grand inferences.

What is meant by the term “spurious” here?

falsely attributed to James

The fact that a document was not included in the canon does not necessarily mean it is “spurious”.

the author is fairly ignorant of Jewish customs so attributing it to James is done either falsely or ignorantly…neither is a good thing for credibility

It seems clear that the nature and extent of Jesus revelation about His mother was not immediately clear. Just like it took a while for the Apostles to “get” that the Gentiles were to be included in the Church, the role of Mary as mother of the Church became more evident over a period of time.

again apples and oranges…the apostles rather quickly got the idea that the gentiles were to be included in the church…it is recorded as early as Acts 10 and God acted rather decisively to make the point. Again, wrt Mary, it is not recorded in the NT that they “got” any of those extra beliefs that only started to be recorded many, many decades later.

Then you will have some trouble with some of the other very basic doctrines of the Christian faith.

Nope, I don’t.

The development of these doctrines was parallel with the response to the Gnostics.

yep…all those other doctrines, ideas and beliefs somehow managed to get mentioned…but Mary, who is supposedly more important and more involved in our salvation than every one but Christ, somehow never got even a passing mention. Go figure.

What was under discussion was the nature and description of sin, both original and personal.

No what was under discussion was whether Jesus came and suffered in the flesh. Mary’s immaculate conception and her perpetual virginity and her bodily assumption would be all presented to validate her contact with the actual flesh of God…just as it is done by Catholics here. But again, somehow these important things were just not mentioned until much later.

This is a false conclusion. It is like saying “if the Apostles believed that God was three persons in One, they surely would have used the word Trinity to describe this.”.

No, it is like saying that “if the Apostles believed that Jesus, the Father and the Holy Spirit were all God, then they would have surely mentioned those beliefs before Arius came along and made a big issue out of it”…and guess what. We can find those beliefs stated nicely in the NT…no need to wait 300 years…

There are many truths of Christian doctrine that are not directly referenced in the NT, the assignment of Sunday as the Lord’s Day, for example. I have had Sabbatarians on CAF argue that Saturday is the Lord’s Day, and that it is unscriptural for the Church to “change the Sabbath to Sunday”. There is nothing specific in Scripture written on this point, since it was a later development. Does that mean that the Apostles did not celebrate Sunday as the Lord’s Day?

what it means is that it wasn’t all that important…Paul says as much in Romans 14. Nevertheless meeting on the “Lord’s own day” as opposed to a Sabbath is mentioned in the Didache. Even something that isn’t all that important gets early mention, but second-only-to-God Mary just doesn’t get that early mention.

Of course it would to someone who is looking for an excuse to deny this aspect of the Apostolic Teaching.

apostolic? Just show me where an apostle expressly taught those Marian doctrines…that teaching should be so simple to find given their importance to her venerators (and according to you, the apostles would have been first class venerators, right?).

 

[doughnut]

My previous statement was intended to point out the logical fallacy that Catholics tend to argue in favor of. It was never about me knowing more, etc. rather; it was an attempt to get others to realize the circle Catholics argue from. My point is that we all have to use the very same principle of private judgment to determine if in fact Rome is the “true church”. This very same principle leads some toward Rome and leads others away from Rome. So, all I ask if for Catholics to put their thinking caps on and stop speaking so dogmatically when it comes to the basic tenants of the Catholic religion…for you (Catholics) used the very same private judgment as people like myself to determine Rome as being the “true church”. In fact, it also should be obvious that many (perhaps most) Catholics haven’t a clue about what their church teaches let alone why. These cradle Catholics are still in a dilemma, for no one escapes the views they hold at Judgment. Everyone has the opportunity to examine their beliefs in light of Scripture to see if they are correct…just as the Bereans did.

As for Mary - I hold her in high regard being so honored by God; enough to choose her to bring the God-man into the world. But Scripture simply does not attribute the role to her that the RCC has given to her. Mary was the mother of Christ’s humanity; NOT His deity. This is an important distinction to make. Read the Magnificat in Luke 1:47 when she calls the Lord her “Savior” Who needs a Savior but sinners? This is where the idea of the immaculate conception fails miserably. In Luke 2;22-24 Mary offers an offering to the Jewish priest arising from her state of sin; not simply as a formality. Not to mention, Catholics need to ignore Paul’s words that “there are NONE righteous; not even one.” or “ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” There was no provision made for Mary; sorry to break this to you.

thats’ humbleness, to which most people seem lacking.

makes alot of sense to me why we should accept the church teachings~because we should have faith in them. =)

 

[elvisman]

QUOTE=elvisman;5733314]I don’t think highly of any of my abilities and am not prideful about anything.
I do think rather highly of the truths of the Catholic Church, though.
That’s where I get my answers - not from my own head - but from the Body of Christ that is led by the Holy Spirit.

:stretcher::choocho:: I’ve heard it all now.

Again with the "well-though-out" responses, eh, Justy?

Please - I am more than willing to have a charitable and intellectual debate with you. But this is just so sophomoric. You have nothing to respond with and nothing to add to the conversation but opinions and arrogance.

Read the posts, sit back and think for a while - maybe take some notes. Do a little research - THEN post an answer.
Really - it’s getting embarassing . . .

 

[Stephen3970]

To my fellow Cristians who don’t have the same teahings as the RCC as regards the Blessed Mother. We all know that Christ is the Savior, The “Lord of Lords” and “King of Kings”, but have you ever thought of Mary in the context that Her body is part of Christ’s physical body? And that is one of the reasons why she holds such a high status in the Church? Evan Islam pays her due homage!

I have to admit that even though I grew up in a very fundamentalist I never doubted Mary’s perpetual viriginity, even if I never gave her much thought beyond ntaivity scenes we put up at Christmas time. However, it wasn’t until I made the acquaintence of some Eastern Orthodox and through them became familiar with the term “Theotokos” that I really began to appreciate the part Mary played in God’s plan to redeem mankind.

The more I meditate on this, the more I am struck with a deep awe that a young woman, a virgin, literally carried Immanuel in her womb, that she held him in her arms, nursed him, and nurtured him to manhood towards his purpose for being here. When I think of this, I can’t help but say “hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you! Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb, Jesus.”

 

[lil_flower_luv]

:yawn: Looks like the protestants have thrown all they got…
And now we’re back to the beginning. Who said something about a circular argument?

 

[Sword_Brethren]

This thread is about the CC’s teaching about Mary vs what the Bible says about her. .

This thread is about the Catholic Church’s teaching about The Virgin Mary vs protestant’s teaching about The Virgin Mary.
.

 

[lil_flower_luv]

This thread is about the Catholic Church’s teaching about The Virgin Mary vs protestant’s teaching about The Virgin Mary.
.

AMEN!

 

[Radical]

guanophore:

This is good. I hope you will consider the approach of the Bereans, who received the Apostolic Teaching from the Church with eagerness.

yes, like the Bereans, I favour something other than an unquestioning acceptance

When you study the scriptures in the light of the beliefs of those who wrote them, they are understood differently.

exactly, we should aim to study the scriptures in the light of the beliefs of those who wrote them and not in light of the beliefs of those that lived 300 years later

I agree. However,what did not exist was the ability to meet together with others doing similar thinking and writing, until Christianity was de-criminalized in 325. This was when Christians from all over the world could gather, and compare notes, without being annhiliated by the Empire.

the persecutions were nasty pieces of work, but they tended to be localized and sporadic….for the most part Christians could move around the empire in a fashion similar to Paul’s ability

The Church has always believed and taught that the fullness of public revelation of God was closed with the death of the last Apostle. It is contrary to the faith to “add novelties”.

saying and doing are two different things…of course there is a desire to claim the teaching was original, but that desire doesn’t make the claim true.

Are you suggesting that the HS inspired writers who documented this event are doing so to illustrate an error, but fail to note that?

no…I just couldn’t remember who said what

News flash, Radical. The whole of the NT is an addition Scripture of that which was taught by the early Church. It was written by, for, and about Catholics. there is nothing in it that is not Catholic.

yes I know that you have a desire to label the apostles “Catholic”, but your desire doesn’t make the label valid…and I am not saying (so much) that the ECFs took away from the NT…instead they have added to it

 

[CWBetts]

Protestants have teahings about Mary? I thought they just kept her in a box until Christmas, said, “Oh by the way, Mary was Jesus’s mom, but other than that she was just some girl God chose ant random” and then put her back away until the next Christmas.

 

[gcnuss]

Protestants have teahings about Mary? I thought they just kept her in a box until Christmas, said, “Oh by the way, Mary was Jesus’s mom, but other than that she was just some girl God chose ant random” and then put her back away until the next Christmas.

Carl,

We sometimes bring her back out for Good Friday!! Maybe not the creche figure but we do meditate on the words “Mother, behold your son. Son, behold your mother.”

 

[lil_flower_luv]

Protestants have teahings about Mary? I thought they just kept her in a box until Christmas, said, “Oh by the way, Mary was Jesus’s mom, but other than that she was just some girl God chose ant random” and then put her back away until the next Christmas.

So true! I don’t understand how they do it…even if I were agnostic, I would find her more important than that!

gcnuss:

We sometimes bring her back out for Good Friday!! Maybe not the creche figure but we do meditate on the words “Mother, behold your son. Son, behold your mother.”

And these words make or break a relationship with Mary. You can say Jesus was addressing John…or us.

 

[CWBetts]

Carl,

We sometimes bring her back out for Good Friday!! Maybe not the creche figure but we do meditate on the words “Mother, behold your son. Son, behold your mother.”

I do realize that Marian teachings vary form community to community. I know Lutherans and Anglicans give her more than say Baptists. I was speaking form my own background in Fundamental Evangelicalism.

 

[jpaul1953]

First point well taken, poor statement on my part. As for the second, I have talked to many Christians - among them Fundamentalists, Baptists, and Pentecostals, who view the Blessed Mother in the context of her being only a “vessel” that would allow the Savior to be born. She is held in no higher esteem than that!

Thirdly, I did not mean to suggest that no other Marian doctrines than the CC would not be considered as holding the Blessed Mother in high regard, I just meant the thread for those that have little regard for her as no more than the “vessel”, to think about the subject a little more deeply. I believe your church teachings do not fall into the aformentioned catagory, right?

Dear Adonia,

Call their mother just a vessel and they want to knock your head in. These comments furher validate the anti-Catholicism out there.

One of the funny things is protestants always speak of Jesus’ brothers and sisters. Like when Jesus said:“My mother and brothers and sisters are in here with me…”. Why do they accept a figurative term for mother, brothers,and sisters…". I guess when it fits their agenda they’ll accept some non-literal understandings.

Like when Paul calls Timothy ‘my dear child’ and Titus "‘my true child. Now if Jesus says ‘my true child’ many protestants will be saying that Jesus had children. How about Jude when he says a slave of Jwesus and brother of James. Many say that since he is James brother then he is Jesus’ brother too.

Sorry to go off the topic,

Have a blessed day.

jpaul1953

 

[prochrist1]

I see mary as a very inspiring woman, the first person really to accept the word of God and accept Jesus, however for me to worship her as a Saint I cannot its not founded in the Bible its a fabrication of the RCC

 

[Dokimas]

This thread is about the Catholic Church’s teaching about The Virgin Mary vs protestant’s teaching about The Virgin Mary.
.

I don’t know what your referring to when you say protestant teaching. I have studied what the Bible says about Mary and the CC is incorrect.

 

[elvisman]

I see mary as a very inspiring woman, the first person really to accept the word of God and accept Jesus, however for me to worship her as a Saint I cannot its not founded in the Bible its a fabrication of the RCC

Uhhh . . . no, you’re wrong.**
The very charge that we worship her is a fabrication of Anti-Cathollic Protestants.

Do your homework before making ridiculous accusations like this.
Latria is reserved for God alone.