Protestants and Mary

[Benn]

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!

Hello Adonia,
I respect your beliefs but do I hear you say that Mary is co-redemptive? As far as what Islam believes has no clout or bearing on what is true or what I believe.

Benn

 

[fbl9]

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.

READ what is written and you will find God choose who was to be Judas’s replacement…Acts of the Apostles 1 verse 24…" And they prayed and said " Thou Lord who knowest the heart’s of all,show which of these two thou hast chosen, contiuned in verse 25.

 

[CWBetts]

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?

OT (Exodus 19: 3-6): And Moses went up to God, and the LORD called to him out of the mountain, saying, “Thus you shall say to the house of Jacob, and tell the people of Israel: You have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself. Now therefore, if you will obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my own possession among all peoples; for all the earth is mine, and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words which you shall speak to the children of Israel.”

NT (1 Peter 2:9): But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people, that you may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.

God used the same language for Israel, and for Christians, which were grafted in. So what you are telling me is that a “kingdom of priests, a holy nation” in the Old Testament does not eliminate the need for a ministerial priesthood, but the same language in the New Testament does? Korah even used the same argument as Protestants (Numbers 16: 1-3):
Now Korah the son of Izhar, son of Kohath, son of Levi, and Dathan and Abi’ram the sons of Eli’ab, and On the son of Peleth, sons of Reuben, took men; and they rose up before Moses, with a number of the people of Israel, two hundred and fifty leaders of the congregation, chosen from the assembly, well-known men; and they assembled themselves together against Moses and against Aaron, and said to them, “You have gone too far! For all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the LORD is among them; why then do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the LORD?”
There truly is nothing new under the sun. Explain to me the difference. Why are you right, while Korah was wrong? Same argument: “We are all priests!” There is a very clear priesthood in the New Testament. Only the Apostles were given the authority to absolve sins. Only the Apostles were given the Words of Consecration at the Last Supper. There is no justification for the mistaken belief that there is no ministerial priesthood. What has happened is you take two words out of context and just run with them, without seeing how they applied to Israel. The coming of Christ did not eliminate the need for the Old Testament. You can’t just ignore the 46 books that prepared Israel for the coming of the Saviour.

 

[awantz]

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.

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?

 

[CWBetts]

The Catholic Church does believe this way. If you don’t believe so then you misunderstand Ecumenism. Ecumenism is not a warm and fuzzy “i’m OK, you’re OK” kind of thing. The purpose of Ecumenism is to restore unity. Anyone who is baptized in the Trinitarian formula has an union with the Church, although it may be imperfect. To receive all the graces for salvation, one must be Catholic. I chose not to ignore the Fathers.

 

[prochrist1]

This topic is futile for us protestants for you belive in holy tradition or local tradition whatever its the only way us christians will ever accept the mary from the RC

Holy tradition has never been proven

 

[elvisman]

This topic is futile for us protestants for you belive in holy tradition or local tradition whatever its the only way us christians will ever accept the mary from the RC

Holy tradition has never been proven

Wanna bet? You hold to a Catholic Tradition called The Bible.
Here’s the proof, my anti-Catholic friend:

2 Thess 2:15
***“Stand firm and hold fast to the Traditions you were taught, whether by an oral ***statement or by a letter from us.”

1 Cor. 11:2
"I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions (oral and written) even as I have delivered them to you."

---

Never again make the FALSE claim that Holy or Apostolic Traditions can’t be proven.

 

[CWBetts]

This topic is futile for us protestants for you belive in holy tradition or local tradition whatever its the only way us christians will ever accept the mary from the RC

Holy tradition has never been proven

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

 

[Luna_Lovegood]

Hi, I’m brand new here!

I was raised Protestant (Baptist, then Assembly of God as a younger adult), and have just newly begun to learn the Catholic perspective on Mary. I find that it is filling a yearning in me that I never knew I had, and I’m just bowled over by the concept that since God became human through Mary, this means Mary’s DNA is now woven into God’s DNA – and she is also the feminine face of God.

I’ve just started reading G. Scott Sparrow’s book Blessed Among Women: Encounters with Mary and Her Message and it is fascinating and mind-blowing.

At this time we are exploring the Episcopal Church – because there are some Catholic doctrines that we can’t in all honesty align ourselves with, and I like it that the Episcopal communion embraces a “via media” (a middle way between Catholicism and Protestantism), which allows a lot of room for personal interpretation and growth into an understanding of and relationship with Mary, as well as of other doctrines.

Not all Episcopalians pray to Mary – but some do. And from my understanding there’s a lot of room in the Episcopal rosary for choosing the prayers you feel led to pray. I currently like praying it the Roman Catholic way, though I’m not on-track doing it every day yet, but I want to be.

I am basically subscribing to this thread right now, because I don’t want to forget to come back, and I want to read all the comments though I haven’t been able to do that yet.

 

[lil_flower_luv]

Welcome, Luna_Lovegood!

I’m glad you’re looking further into Mary ~ everyone should do that! I’m praying you will find a place of peace and comfort in God’s church.

May Mary intercede for you!

Blessings,
Therese

 

[small_town_ric]

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,
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. 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.”
Protestants would consider Mary to be included in the “all have sinned” and “there is none righteous” category. 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. 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). I personally feel that Protestants often fail to give proper adoration to Mary. 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.

 

[Dokimas]

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.

I’m not getting your point. Sorry.

 

[Dokimas]

READ what is written and you will find God choose who was to be Judas’s replacement…Acts of the Apostles 1 verse 24…" And they prayed and said " Thou Lord who knowest the heart’s of all,show which of these two thou hast chosen, contiuned in verse 25.

You have more faith than I do. I’ve read that portion many times and I still can see that the two the disciples chose were not who God wanted. True God knows the hearts of both men. What if God had rejected both men as apostles? What were the ‘lots’ supposed to do? Stay in mid air?

 

[Radical]

So what you are telling me is that a “kingdom of priests, a holy nation” in the Old Testament does not eliminate the need for a ministerial priesthood, but the same language in the New Testament does?

No, what I am telling you is that in the OT God specifically appointed priests and that in the NT he didn’t.

Korah even used the same argument as Protestants … Explain to me the difference. Why are you right, while Korah was wrong?

Well for one, your Pope isn’t Moses and for two, your bishops aren’t Aaron. Moses and Aaron had a claim to their positions of authority b/c they had been appointed by God himself…no such appointment for the CC’s hierarchy exists.

There is a very clear priesthood in the New Testament.

no there is not…offices of the church are discussed and listed and “priest” didn’t make the list

Only the Apostles were given the authority to absolve sins. Only the Apostles were given the Words of Consecration at the Last Supper.

do you think Jesus’s promise (that he will be where two or three are gathered in his name) only applied to the apostles? Did Jesus’s instructions to forgive one’s brother more than seven times only apply to Peter?

What has happened is you take two words out of context and just run with them, without seeing how they applied to Israel.

I would suggest that it is a case of you creating a priesthood where the NT refuses to do so.

The coming of Christ did not eliminate the need for the Old Testament.

who has claimed this?

You can’t just ignore the 46 books that prepared Israel for the coming of the Saviour.

Instead you should worry about that log in your eye that has you ignoring the fact that in the NT no priesthood is appointed. Christ is our priest who can go into the holy of holies on his own merit.

 

[Agripa]

I still think the subject of Mary is facinating. From an outsider’s perspective, it could appear Catholics are in fact “worshiping” her as at least a demi-goddess. That may not be too far off the mark, historically speaking, since in the ancient Roman and Mediteranean traditions, there were examples of female gods and demi gods, some who had given magical births to sons who were gods. Remember, the Catholic church rose up from a dying Roman empire and you can clearly see the strong impression ancient Rome had on the Church - its art, architecture, its authoritarian nature, its preservation of Latin. Would it be so strange to assert Mary, and by extention, prayers to the saints, is really a reflection of the older Roman traditions of praying to a host of household gods and godesses?

 

[prochrist1]

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.
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 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…

 

[lil_flower_luv]

I still think the subject of Mary is facinating. From an outsider’s perspective, it could appear Catholics are in fact “worshiping” her as at least a demi-goddess. That may not be too far off the mark, historically speaking, since in the ancient Roman and Mediteranean traditions, there were examples of female gods and demi gods, some who had given magical births to sons who were gods. Remember, the Catholic church rose up from a dying Roman empire and you can clearly see the strong impression ancient Rome had on the Church - its art, architecture, its authoritarian nature, its preservation of Latin. Would it be so strange to assert Mary, and by extention, prayers to the saints, is really a reflection of the older Roman traditions of praying to a host of household gods and godesses?

Obviously you haven’t read this thread. If you truly care and want to state an opinion, please read the whole thread, and then state your opinion.

 

[Justy90]

Wanna bet? You hold to a Catholic Tradition called The Bible.
Here’s the proof, my anti-Catholic friend:

2 Thess 2:15
***“Stand firm and hold fast to the Traditions you were taught, whether by an oral ***statement or by a letter from us.”

1 Cor. 11:2
"I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions (oral and written) even as I have delivered them to you."

---

Never again make the FALSE claim that Holy or Apostolic Traditions can’t be proven.

But that is Tradition from The Early Church, not the Roman Catholic church that split away forming its own agenda including elevating the seat of Peter.

 

[elvisman]

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.
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 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…

I already proved you wrong in Post 524. The passages I gave you show that if you accept Scripture as your teacher, then you must accept oral as well as written tradition.

You are right about one thing, though: This all boils down to authority. (Matt. 16:15-18, 18:15-18, John 16:12-15, 20:21-23) We can argue all day long but unless you’re willing to accept the fact the Jesus left ALL authority on earth to His church - there’s no reason to go on.**

**The only problem with that view however, is that it renders our Lord and Savior a liar. **I’m not willing to call him that - are YOU?

 

[elvisman]

But that is Tradition from The Early Church, not the Roman Catholic church that split away forming its own agenda including elevating the seat of Peter.

Can you please give me a date when the Catholic church split away from the Early Christian Church (which IS the Catholic Church)??
Talk is cheap - show me proof.