Protestants and Mary

[Dokimas]

Acts 8: 26-31 “And behold a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch, of great authority under Candace the queen of the Ethiopians, who had charge over all her treasures, had come to Jerusalem to adore. And he was returning, sitting in his chariot, and reading Isaias the prophet. And the Spirit said to Philip: Go near, and join thyself to this chariot. And Philip running thither, heard him reading the prophet Isaias. **And he said: Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest? ** Who said: And how can I, unless some man shew me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.”

Thanks for an easy one: John was writing to Christians, filled with the Holy Spirit. The Ethiopian wasn’t a Christian yet so he didn’t understand. A non-Christian does not have the Holy Spirit.

 

[AwGusTeen]

No, there are ten. The others are extensions of these ten.

Jesus did not say that the greatest command ment was an extension of anything – he said it was simply the greatest commandment.

 

[CWBetts]

Jesus did not say that the greatest command ment was an extension of anything – he said it was simply the greatest commandment.

The greatest commandment is actually on what the others are based. In Deuteronomy, the Greatest commandment is rendered thus: (Deut 6:4-5)

*"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD; and you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might.
*

This is the basis for the first three Commandments, and therefore not a true commandment unto itself. Why not just accept that there are 10 commandments. The other two are the foundation upon which the ten are built. If you worship other gods, you break the greatest by default. If you break any of the commandments against persons, you are not loving them as yourself. Here endeth the lesson.

 

[CWBetts]

Thanks for an easy one: John was writing to Christians, filled with the Holy Spirit. The Ethiopian wasn’t a Christian yet so he didn’t understand. A non-Christian does not have the Holy Spirit.

Umm wrong again. Not all are granted the chrism of teaching. Not all are called into the ministerial priesthood. Just ask Korah about that one.

 

[guanophore]

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. )

Every Christian has an apostolate (ministry) consistent with their calling in life. However, people no longer can meet the criteria to become an Apostle. We see these criteria identified in the choosing of a replacement for Judas.

 

[prochrist1]

I think what I’m starting to realize is that in order for me to grasp the fact that mary is in heaven right now watching us and is in fact a saint I will have to believe what the catholic books teach, and I think there are a lot of them correct? does anyone know of a link where I can find them

coming from a protestant background this is really fascinating stuff and my GF is RC so I’d like to discuss things with her
also I must say the CC has so much history! and tradition and its kind of mystic to read on sometimes lol

 

[guanophore]

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.

I can see why it would seem like “reading into” for you. This is a consequence of being separated from the Apostolic faith. Catholics, however, have no need to “read into” scripture. The NT was produced by, for, and about Catholics. Everything in it is Catholic. when we read it, we interpret it according to the faith by which it was written (Catholic). That is why we understand it differently from those who have departed from the faith of the Apostles.

We do not have to “read between the lines for doctrine”, because our doctrine does not come out of the Scripture. None of the Catholic faith is based upon scripture. On the contrary, it is the Catholic faith that produced the NT. Our doctrines are based upon Jesus, who founded our Church, and the Apostles and Prophets who are the foundation. The doctrines were committed to them,and they committed them once for all to the Church.

As far as “waiting for development”, yes, we had to wait hundreds of years for the creeds, the definition of the hypostatic union, the Trinity, and even longer for the canon of Scripture. If you accept your NT, then you have no reason to reject the Marian doctrines, which were defined by the same Church prior to the canon. If their faith was “off”, then your canon has no validity.

It is a strong indication that the doctrine is manufactured b/c it can't be traced back to the start.

I suppose you could say the same for Trinity, and the canon of scripture. Or worshipping on Sunday? The truth is that a great many of the doctrinal foundations of Christianity have even less “evidence” in history.

 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.

Yet, you accept the books that were included, written prior to that date. Why?

 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.

I did not say that, or did not mean to imply that. I said that dogma is proclaimed as a result of heresy.

The resurrection was taught not to battle heresy, but to proclaim the good news.

Yes, but the nature of His death and resurrection was further defined due to heresies that arose decades and even centuries later.

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).

Well, errors in the faith is the foundation of 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.

It seems clear that the nature and extent of her ministry to the Church was not clear for some time.

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.

Yes, of course. However the same scripture was used by the Arians and Gnostics to “prove” their points. Trinity is “just a term”. It was a term developed to express the Apostolic teaching, just like Theotokos was. Just like the Trinity, the term Theotokos did not add anything new.

In contrast, you can't demonstrate that the apostles even considered the Immaculate Conception, let alone taught it.

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

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.

I will agree on the point of inferences. These teachings we have from the Apostles are not always explicit in scripture, and sometimes when it seems to us as they are, others who are separated from Apostolic Succession don’t “see” them. We see these reflected in scripture because we have first accepted the faith that was handed down (paradosis) and when we read, we understand what is written in the light of what was taught.

 

[guanophore]

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

No, prochrist, Catholics do not worship Mary. Worship is due only to God. Anything else is a violation of the the first commandment.

Veneration of Mary is not a “ffabrication ofthe RCC” either. the Catholic Church is not “Roman”, and the Eastern Church was venerating Mary for centuries before the Latin Rite developed.

It is good you are at CAF, since you appear to have been given misinformation about the catholic church.

 

[guanophore]

 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

I agree. However, it is useful as an historical record of beliefs and practices of the day.

....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.

This event at the house of Cornelius may have occurred as much as 20 years after the resurrection. I would not say that was “rather quickly”. However, I do agree that God acted decisively. If you believe He can do this, why do you think He could not correct the Church about His own mother, if they were getting off track?

  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.

Well, again, we read it differently. It seems like John, who spent more time with her than any of the Apostles, “got” it best.

Luke, who stayed in Ephesus with Paul where Mary resided with John the disciple clearly spent much time with her, which is why he has the most detailed record of the infancy narratives. He clearly parallels her life with that of the Ark of the Covenant. Are you saying this happened without Luke’s knowledge?

Nope, I don't.

This is very curious. You seem to be able to accept other doctrines from the same source, some of them later than the Marian doctrines, and yet you think the Church was unable to preserve the truth. On what basis can you trust anything they did?

 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.

Well, we read it differently, don’t we? I am aware that anti-Catholic lenses change the perception. I wore them myself for a long time.

  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.

And these are exactly the circumstances under which they are mentioned. All of the Marian doctrines come out as corollaries about what is true of Christ.

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..

You find them “nicely stated” because you approach the text with these beliefs in mind. Arians and Gnostics approach the text with opposing beliefs, and come out in a different place. Mormons and JW’s do the same today. They use Scripture to “prove” their heretical positions, because when they read it, the interpret it according to what they believe.

  second-only-to-God Mary just doesn't get that early mention.

We read it differently. Sometime you might consider reading it from a Catholic point of view, just for the exercise. It is like being on a high school debate team, and defending a position opposite of what you believe. It is an excellent way to develop critical thinking.

 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?).

Yes,the Apostles knew that Mary had no other children, and held great reverence for her as the Mother of their Lord.

I don’t think it is “simple” to show you Apostolic Teaching, though. I think you are hindered by your belief that it does not exist outside of Scripture, and even more, outside of your own perception of Scripture.

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

No one is suggesting that you avoid questioning. The problem is that you are not eager to accept the Apostolic Teaching from the Church. You have made up your mind it does not exist!

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

What you are saying is that Jesus was too weak to preserve what He had given to the Church, even for a very short period of time.

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

Anyone who reads the book of Acts, or any accounts of the early history of Christianity (including the secular) will be able to see that persecutions were not localized or sporadic. They extended to the entire boundaries of the empire, and prevented the open dialogue of the bishops on matters of doctrine. Moving around the empire is one thing. Being able to have open dialogue and practice of one’s faith is another. The Christians had to gather in private homes, catacombs, cemitaries and deserted areas to prevent themselves from being killed, or at the very least, imprisoned and tortured. Such a situation is not conducive to theological speculation.

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

You are correct. What makes the Apostles CAtholic is the faith they espoused. I am not sure what you mean by “adding” to the NT. The NT was not formed until after all the ECF’s were dead and gone. How could they “add” to it?

 

[guanophore]

The Catholic Church has elevated Mary to the level of mediator, advocate and co-redeemer of man in clear and direct contradiction of the Scriptures. In 1854, Pope Pius IX declared Mary ‘immaculate’, and in 1951, Pope Pius XII defined and enforced the doctrine of the Bodily Assumption of Mary, thus placing Mary in a position to act as mediator and supporting the long list of claims made by Catholic saints over time.

It seems that you have misunderstood, prochrist. the Catholic Church did not elevate Mary, God did. We recognize His actions and embrace His Revelation about His mother.

There is no mediator between God and man except the man, Jesus Christ.

Everyone will be assumed bodily. This is the teaching of the Apostles. Some have already been assumed bodily. Most of us will wait until the second coming.

sorry try again.. show me in the bible where it "clearly" says that mary is a saint, and where it clearly states that we should pray to saints ?

I think it is pretty clear in Scripture that all believers are considered saints. A better question would be, “show me where in the bible there are any believers who are not considered saints”.

You seem to be laboring under a misconception that everything about the faith is ‘clearly stated’ in the bible. This is an error.

there is only one true mediator in Jesus no one else

There are many that Jesus has drawn into His role as mediator. He is generous, and shares His gifts with mankind.

 

[prochrist1]

It seems that you have misunderstood, prochrist. the Catholic Church did not elevate Mary, God did.

The assumption of Mary was passed on through oral tradition.

so is it oral tradition or god? or both or a pope declared this?

 

[TLM08]

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.

 

[CWBetts]

so is it oral tradition or god? or both or a pope declared this?

Revelation does not come exclusively through the written Scriptures, an idea suggested by the Scriptures, which in turn, came from Tradition.

 

[Radical]

I can see why it would seem like “reading into” for you.

well that’s a start

This is a consequence of being separated from the Apostolic faith… That is why we understand it differently from those who have departed from the faith of the Apostles.

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. I note that Irenaeus (heresies 1.10) described the core deposit of faith as:

*[She believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father "to gather all things in one,"and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, “every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess” to Him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all; that He may send “spiritual wickednesses,” and the angels who transgressed and became apostates, together with the ungodly, and unrighteous, and wicked, and profane among men, into everlasting fire; but may, in the exercise of His grace, confer immortality on the righteous, and holy, and those who have kept His commandments, and have persevered in His love, some from the beginning [of their Christian course], and others from [the date of] their repentance, and may surround them with everlasting glory. *

Tertullian described the core rule of faith as:

Now, with regard to this rule of faith-that we may from this point acknowledge what it is which we defend-it is, you must know, that which prescribes the belief that there is one only God, and that He is none other than the Creator of the world, who produced all things out of nothing through His own Word, first of all sent forth; that this Word is called His Son, and, under the name of God, was seen “in diverse manners” by the patriarchs, heard at all times in the prophets, at last brought down by the Spirit and Power of the Father into the Virgin Mary, was made flesh in her womb, and, being born of her, went forth as Jesus Christ; thenceforth He preached the new law and the new promise of the kingdom of heaven, worked miracles; having been crucified, He rose again the third day; (then) having ascended into the heavens, He sat at the right hand of the Father; sent instead of Himself the Power of the Holy Ghost to lead such as believe; will come with glory to take the saints to the enjoyment of everlasting life and of the heavenly promises, and to condemn the wicked to everlasting fire, after the resurrection of both these classes shall have happened, together with the restoration of their flesh. This rule, as it will be proved, was taught by Christ, and raises amongst ourselves no other questions than those which heresies introduce, and which make men heretics.

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.

None of the Catholic faith is based upon scripture.

really?

On the contrary, it is the Catholic faith that produced the NT.

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

If you accept your NT, then you have no reason to reject the Marian doctrines, which were defined by the same Church prior to the canon. If their faith was “off”, then your canon has no validity.

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…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).

I suppose you could say the same for Trinity, and the canon of scripture. Or worshipping on Sunday? The truth is that a great many of the doctrinal foundations of Christianity have even less “evidence” in history.

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

Yet, you accept the books that were included, written prior to that date. Why?

b/c there is good evidence that those books are reliable records of the teaching of the apostles…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. What is important is whether there is evidence to establish that the books of the NT are reliable records of Apostolic teaching. 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.

It seems clear that the nature and extent of her ministry to the Church was not clear for some time.

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.

Yes, of course. However the same scripture was used by the Arians and Gnostics to “prove” their points.

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

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

true that

We see these reflected in scripture because we have first accepted the faith that was handed down (paradosis) and when we read, we understand what is written in the light of what was taught.

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

 

[CWBetts]

Radical, since you like quoting the Church Fathers, I found some more for you:

St Augustine:
One cannot have salvation except in the Catholic Church. Outside of the Catholic Church one can have everything except salvation. One can have honor, one can have sacraments, one can sing the alleluia, one can answer Amen, one can have the Gospel, one can have faith in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit and preach, but never can one find salvation except in the Catholic Church.

St. Fulgentius:
Most firmly hold and never doubt that not only all Pagans also all Jews, all heretics and schismatics who finish this life outside of the Catholic Church, will go into eternal fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.

 

[Dokimas]

Umm wrong again. Not all are granted the chrism of teaching. Not all are called into the ministerial priesthood. Just ask Korah about that one.

Always wrong when I don’t agree with you. Interest.

 

[Dokimas]

Every Christian has an apostolate (ministry) consistent with their calling in life. However, people no longer can meet the criteria to become an Apostle. We see these criteria identified in the choosing of a replacement for Judas.

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.

 

[Radical]

I agree. However, it is useful as an historical record of beliefs and practices of the day.

well the gospel of James is a good indication of the beliefs of the author…just as Gnostic gosples were good for determining gnostic beliefs. The gospel of James is not necessarily a good indication of orthodox belief at the time…didn’t a pope “ban” the work?

If you believe He can do this, why do you think He could not correct the Church about His own mother, if they were getting off track?

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

Luke, who stayed in Ephesus with Paul where Mary resided with John the disciple clearly spent much time with her, which is why he has the most detailed record of the infancy narratives. He clearly parallels her life with that of the Ark of the Covenant. Are you saying this happened without Luke’s knowledge?

I am saying that it ain’t much of a parallel…I have addressed the alleged parallel at post 243 of this thread.

This is very curious. You seem to be able to accept other doctrines from the same source, some of them later than the Marian doctrines, and yet you think the Church was unable to preserve the truth. On what basis can you trust anything they did?

historical evidence

You find them “nicely stated” because you approach the text with these beliefs in mind. Arians and Gnostics approach the text with opposing beliefs, and come out in a different place.

again, the Arians gave greater weight to other texts and lesser weight to the ones favoured by the Trinitarians. 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. Regarding the Gnostics, they didn’t approach the same texts. Instead, the Gnostics had their own gospels.

Mormons and JW’s do the same today. They use Scripture to “prove” their heretical positions, because when they read it, the interpret it according to what they believe.

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.

We read it differently. Sometime you might consider reading it from a Catholic point of view, just for the exercise. It is like being on a high school debate team, and defending a position opposite of what you believe. It is an excellent way to develop critical thinking.

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

Yes,the Apostles knew that Mary had no other children, and held great reverence for her as the Mother of their Lord.

a claim w/o any evidence in support

No one is suggesting that you avoid questioning. The problem is that you are not eager to accept the Apostolic Teaching from the Church. You have made up your mind it does not exist!

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

What you are saying is that Jesus was too weak to preserve what He had given to the Church, even for a very short period of time.

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.

Anyone who reads the book of Acts, or any accounts of the early history of Christianity (including the secular) will be able to see that persecutions were not localized or sporadic. They extended to the entire boundaries of the empire, and prevented the open dialogue of the bishops on matters of doctrine.

you need to brush up on your history

The NT was not formed until after all the ECF’s were dead and gone. How could they “add” to it?

did you mean the ante-nicene fathers? It is not as if God’s Word was not God’s Word until the canon was formalized by men.

 

[CWBetts]

Always wrong when I don’t agree with you. Interest.

Did you read about Korah’s rebellion? Did you realize that in Exodus 19, Israel was referred to as “a Royal Priesthood”? Same language as Hebrews, yet a ministerial priesthood was still required…interesting.

 

[Radical]

Did you read about Korah’s rebellion? Did you realize that in Exodus 19, Israel was referred to as “a Royal Priesthood”? Same language as Hebrews, yet a ministerial priesthood was still required.

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?