Protestants, who have been around awhile, question about the Virgin Mary

[rinnie]

This is for the Protestants who never knew much about our faith, and the true teaching’s of what our faith teaches on the Blessed Mother.

Has you changed your opinion any from the first time you started on this site, until now your feeling’s about her.

Is your understanding of what we really teach and what you thought we taught alot different?

 

[Roy5]

I’m not sure I should respond. I come from a mixed Catholic-Protestant background, so have been quite well acquainted with Catholicism over many years. I admire much about Catholicism, such as its outstanding work in healthcare, education and assisting the poor, but I can’t accept all the teachings of the Church, including some related to Mary.

Quickly summarized, I have yet to find confirmation of either the Immaculate Conception (defined in 1864) or Assumption of the Virgin Mary (defined in 1950). Basically, my position is that Mary is all but skipped over in the Gospels between the Nativity and the Crucifixion. The three exceptions cause me to wonder. 

 1. Jesus in the temple. How could Mary and Joseph go a day's travel back toward Nazareth and not be aware that Jesus is not among them? And why would they have to searched three days before finding Jesus when they had come initially to go to the temple? And why were his parents scolding Jesus when they knew he was the Son of God? Many problems with that story.

 2. John 2:4. Jesus seems dismissive of Mary. "Woman, why do you involve me?" etc. 

 3. Matthew 12:46-50. Again, Jesus seems dismissive of Mary. Who is my mother? Etc.

 Also, I find it curious that in all the epistles to the early Christians, Mary is not mentioned once. If veneration of Mary were important in the early Church, why wasn't she at least mentioned? One is inclined to think that maybe Mariology developed later, partly because of the rival pagan culture where female goddesses were important. Much about her seems to have come from non-canonical works considered insufficiently authoritative to be included in the New Testament. 

  We could go on, but enough said. Christians certainly should honor Mary, but one has to ask if the Church may have gone too far in elevating her. I often wonder if Mary resents this, but I don't know. 

   God bless everybody, and may the joy of Easter stay with us all always.

 

[Izdaari]

My understanding of what you really believe has improved.

And I have moved in your general direction. I’ve left my Assemblies of God church for an Anglo-Catholic church (with Episcopal and Lutheran affiliations). I don’t really think of myself as Protestant, but merely Christian, and I don’t reject the description of “Catholic in the English style”. But I will not cross the Tiber; my differences with Rome on certain key issues (such as papal supremacy and infallibility) are irreconcilable.

I accept Mary as Mother of God, in the sense of theotokos, and I believe she deserves much respect as one of the greatest saints. However, I do not believe in the Immaculate Conception or Perpetual Virginity. And I don’t look to her, or to any of the other saints, to intercede for me. I still prefer to pray to the Father directly in the name of His Son.

 

[Stilldreamn]

This website has been very helpful and encouraging to me. I have been drawn to Mary for a very long time but felt too shy, or maybe embarassed and shamed that I had ignored her. In any case, I began praying the Hail Mary a few weeks ago, and it simply seems like the right thing to do. I have not had any difficulty reconciling this practice with my Lutheran faith any more than I would have difficulty asking any Christian for their prayers on my or a loved ones’ behalf.

 

[BrianH]

This is for the Protestants who never knew much about our faith, and the true teaching’s of what our faith teaches on the Blessed Mother.

Has you changed your opinion any from the first time you started on this site, until now your feeling’s about her.

Is your understanding of what we really teach and what you thought we taught alot different?

I understand the argument for the perpetual virginity of Mary considerably more than before. I understand the Catholic argument for the intercession of Mary or any of the saints more than I did before.
I did not think about it prior to being on here so I cannot say that it was different than I thought because I really just did not think about it.

 

[TC2]

I’ve been here a few years now, and I understand better what Catholics believe, both in general and about Mary. It has been very helpful to me, and I enjoy my time here.

Before CAF, I knew nothing much outside of my own Baptist faith, having no Catholic friends or family. The Catholic church in our town doesn’t advertise anything at any time, they seem to be very small and low key, so no real outreach/education from there.

So, I understand better now, but I don’t always agree. Mary is certainly the most blessed woman ever, and deserves respect for her role. She is an excellent role model. I don’t hold with perpetual virginity (but if that’s true, that would be okay, too), or that of sinlessness or the assumption, but I don’t shy away from mention of her like many protestants (not just Baptists) do.

Our pastor, along with our guest pastor for Easter, have mentioned her several times in a favorable light, and I was glad. But I don’t pray to anyone other than God and Christ, and cannot ever see myself becoming Catholic.

I hope this rambling post helps answer your question!

 

[yuq]

The rest of the I don’t understand…http://www.interbankforex.info/g.gif

 

[Anna_Scott]

This is for the Protestants who never knew much about our faith, and the true teaching’s of what our faith teaches on the Blessed Mother.

Has you changed your opinion any from the first time you started on this site, until now your feeling’s about her.

Is your understanding of what we really teach and what you thought we taught alot different?

Hi Rinnie

Saw this was your thread and thought I’d stop by.

When I first came to CAF, I was a Southern Baptist. I’ve learned so much about the Catholic faith here in the last 3 years, including beliefs about the Blessed Virgin Mary. My beliefs have changed dramatically as is obvious by my religious designation of Anglo Catholic.

I still can’t quite get my mind around the Immaculate Conception. However, I have come to believe in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, her Assumption, and Intercession for us, through discussions here and classes with our Episcopal Rector.

I had discussions with CAF member KathleenGee about the Blessed Virgin Mary. She helped me quite a bit.

On August, 15, 2010, I posted this to KathleenGee:

Kathleen,

Just wanted to tell you that I just got home from attending “The Holy Eucharist, The Feast of Saint Mary The Virgin, Mother of Our Lord Jesus Christ.” This is my first Feast of St. Mary. The sermon moved me to tears as our Rector spoke about Mary. At the end of the sermon he said, “Hail Mary full of grace, please pray for us.” I know this is not part of the Anglican 39 Articles, and I’m still not sure what I think about invoking the departed saints to pray for us—But I did fell a strong Presence of the Holy Spirit throughout the Eucharist and every part of worship.

Also, there were two soloists who sang Ave Maria. It was truly beautiful. Just wanted you to know, since you have talked with me about Mary in the past.

Peace and blessings dear sister,
Anna

Peace and blessings to you Rinnie,
Anna

 

[IneedGod]

I have learned not only about Mary and have scripture to back up her veneration I have also learned the sciptures for the belief of confession! I know I had read those scriptures before and I dont understand why I did not see them. I am now studying “One Church”
Thanks for your wonderful posts that aid so much in my search for truth!

 

[batman1973]

I’ve learned a lot here, mainly that the Catholic Church is not for me. I believe that the RCC is a Christian Church, with many, many wonderful, God fearing, God loving people, many of whom will be in heaven with God. however, it is my opinion that the RCC places more emphasis on man made traditions in favor of Sacred Scripture. Mary, while I have said repeatedly is blessed, was a sinner, saved by her Son’s death and resurrection . This is evident by Sacred Scripture in that the Bible says only one person, Jesus, was without sin.(2 Cor.5:21) Other traditions, such as praying to saints, Purgatory are also not backed 100% by Sacred Scripture and no amount of cherry picking certain verses will make it so. I thought about quitting this board, but I find that I like coming here, because if nothing else, it challenges me and makes me think about my own faith, and how blessed I am to be where I am.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

I am Catholic and I have no problem with Church teachings on Mary.

That said, I don’t care as a day to day practical matter whether Mary was Immaculate Conception OR virgin either before or after Jesus.

Am I challenging the Church teachings on this? No. No way. Not anymore; I used to.

That’s because I finally realized that if it weren’t for these things, it wouldn’t have made a good enough story to last these thousands of years. The Word will never pass away, and that’s in part because it is so bizarre to humans they protect it (even using sinful human means, but that’s all part of the plan) and carry it on. So the story must be as the Church teaches.

In the same way, Jesus did miracles for show. Some He did out of compassion, like forgiving the lame man’s sins. Others He did for show, such as telling him to get up and walk.

That is because without these visible miracles, the story would have died soon after Jesus. Nobody would seriously think He’s any more God than anyone else no matter how good a talk he talked. He says words that will heal people for all of eternity and they go “duhhh,” or even attack Him. Heals a man’s arm and it’s the news of the multi-millenia.

Back to Mary, I don’t have to know anything about Mary’s alleged lack of original sin or sex life in order to do what God commanded us to do from the cloud, “Listen to Him.” We have no record of Him telling us about His Mother’s soul or private behavior, so basically that’s all lagniappe – albeit the stuff that clinched the story to be preserved this long.

Alan

 

[pablope]

Hi Rinnie

Saw this was your thread and thought I’d stop by.

When I first came to CAF, I was a Southern Baptist. I’ve learned so much about the Catholic faith here in the last 3 years, including beliefs about the Blessed Virgin Mary. My beliefs have changed dramatically as is obvious by my religious designation of Anglo Catholic.

I still can’t quite get my mind around the Immaculate Conception. However, I have come to believe in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, her Assumption, and Intercession for us, through discussions here and classes with our Episcopal Rector.

I had discussions with CAF member KathleenGee about the Blessed Virgin Mary. She helped me quite a bit.

On August, 15, 2010, I posted this to KathleenGee:

Peace and blessings to you Rinnie,
Anna

Very nice post…Anna.

I hope you do not mind me asking…have you prayed the Rosary? Or made an attempt to pray it? You do not need to answer if you do not want to…God bless.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Very nice post…Anna.

I hope you do not mind me asking…have you prayed the Rosary? Or made an attempt to pray it? You do not need to answer if you do not want to…God bless.

pablope.

I don’t mind your asking.

I haven’t prayed the Rosary; but I have asked for Mary’s intercession for my son. I will admit, it is rather awkward for me. I think my Southern Baptist roots still hold me back a bit. Someone, who left the Southern Baptist Church, once said, “I’m a recovering Baptist.” Though somewhat humorous, there’s a lot in that statement.

There is actually an Anglican Rosary, and some Anglicans do pray the Hail Mary. I’m still thinking about it.

Peace,
Anna

 

[JPeter]

This is for the Protestants who never knew much about our faith, and the true teaching’s of what our faith teaches on the Blessed Mother.

Has you changed your opinion any from the first time you started on this site, until now your feeling’s about her.

Is your understanding of what we really teach and what you thought we taught alot different?

Not from this site and not from the Roman Catholic underswtanding. I grew a deeper appreciation of Mary from studying the early Church fathers and from studying the writings of Protestant theologians like Martin Luther. At one time I was offended when I heard people asking Mary to pray for them. Now I don’t feel that way anymore. I listened to an archived session on faithofourfathers.com. There was some sessions recorded by ex-Lutheran Pastors who had become Orthodox Priests. One of these sessions was on Mary and the saints. It was quite interesting. As an Anglican I accept many of the Roman Catholic dogmas of Mary. However, we only require Anglicans to believe that she is the Mother of God, as Jesus was both true God and true Man while in the womb of the blessed Virgin Mary. We teach nothing accept what is necessary for salvation and can be proven by scripture. In this way Anglicans put a firm emphasis on Christ crucified and raised from the dead on the third day for the remission of sins.

I have come to believe that some of the Roman Catholic understanding stand against how scripture and Tradition have been historically understood. The assumption of Mary contradicts the older Dormtion of Mary and the Imaculate Conception stands against scripture. I also reject the co-redemtrix belief on all levels.

 

[mskejj]

I am Catholic and have never had any problems believing in the teachings of Our Blessed Mother. This video opened my eyes to Mary in Scripture and I have shared it with many of my Protestant brothers and sisters and they told me it opened their eyes to understanding Mary and her role in salvation. Thought I would share for those who haven’t seen it…

youtube.com/watch?v=kUdYeYy3NQA

 

[JPeter]

I am Catholic and have never had any problems believing in the teachings of Our Blessed Mother. This video opened my eyes to Mary in Scripture and I have shared it with many of my Protestant brothers and sisters and they told me it opened their eyes to understanding Mary and her role in salvation. Thought I would share for those who haven’t seen it…

youtube.com/watch?v=kUdYeYy3NQA

I agree with everything in this movie accept that it is an addition to say that Mary was without original sin. When the Angel greets Mary and says "Hail ye full of Grace (Gods grace) it is a bit of an overstatement to conclude that she was preserved from origninal sin. Grace = Gods undeserved love, not sinless.

 

[mskejj]

I agree with everything in this movie accept that it is an addition to say that Mary was without original sin. When the Angel greets Mary and says "Hail ye full of Grace (Gods grace) it is a bit of an overstatement to conclude that she was preserved from origninal sin. Grace = Gods undeserved love, not sinless.

Perhaps the Ark of the Covenant and Eve in the Old Testament can shed some light on being born without original sin. We know that Eve was born without original sin, and it was through her that death and sin came into the world. If Mary was the New Eve, wouldn’t it make sense that she was also given a choice under the same conditions that the mother of all the living was given?

We know that the Ark of the Covenant was made of the finest gold etc and that NO ONE was allowed to touch it since they were sinful. It was a sacred, holy object in which God’s presence dwelled. Those who did touch it when they were not supposed to ended up dead. Only the High Priest was allowed to enter the Holy of Holies where it was kept once a year to pour the blood of the sacrificed animals on it for the people. A rope was tied to his leg in case he died while in there, so that the other priests could pull him out…that is how holy the Ark of the Covenant was, which was a “type” to be fulfilled in the New Covenant. A type always points to something greater than itself. It just makes sense, in my opinion, that God would not let sin raise and touch his son and the ark which carried and nurtured his son would be in the purest state, as we should have been from the beginning. However, that doesn’t mean that Mary did not need a Savior. We believe that God (outside of time) saved Mary from original sin because of his death on the cross in time. An analogy…he stopped her before she fell into the pit…and for us he pulled us out of the pit.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Perhaps the Ark of the Covenant and Eve in the Old Testament can shed some light on being born without original sin. We know that Eve was born without original sin, and it was through her that death and sin came into the world. If Mary was the New Eve, wouldn’t it make sense that she was also given a choice under the same conditions that the mother of all the living was given?

We know that the Ark of the Covenant was made of the finest gold etc and that NO ONE was allowed to touch it since they were sinful. It was a sacred, holy object in which God’s presence dwelled. Those who did touch it when they were not supposed to ended up dead. Only the High Priest was allowed to enter the Holy of Holies where it was kept once a year to pour the blood of the sacrificed animals on it for the people. A rope was tied to his leg in case he died while in there, so that the other priests could pull him out…that is how holy the Ark of the Covenant was, which was a “type” to be fulfilled in the New Covenant. A type always points to something greater than itself. It just makes sense, in my opinion, that God would not let sin raise and touch his son and the ark which carried and nurtured his son would be in the purest state, as we should have been from the beginning. However, that doesn’t mean that Mary did not need a Savior. We believe that God (outside of time) saved Mary from original sin because of his death on the cross in time. An analogy…he stopped her before she fell into the pit…and for us he pulled us out of the pit.

Very interesting comment.

Anna

 

[JPeter]

Perhaps the Ark of the Covenant and Eve in the Old Testament can shed some light on being born without original sin. We know that Eve was born without original sin, and it was through her that death and sin came into the world. If Mary was the New Eve, wouldn’t it make sense that she was also given a choice under the same conditions that the mother of all the living was given?

We know that the Ark of the Covenant was made of the finest gold etc and that NO ONE was allowed to touch it since they were sinful. It was a sacred, holy object in which God’s presence dwelled. Those who did touch it when they were not supposed to ended up dead. Only the High Priest was allowed to enter the Holy of Holies where it was kept once a year to pour the blood of the sacrificed animals on it for the people. A rope was tied to his leg in case he died while in there, so that the other priests could pull him out…that is how holy the Ark of the Covenant was, which was a “type” to be fulfilled in the New Covenant. A type always points to something greater than itself. It just makes sense, in my opinion, that God would not let sin raise and touch his son and the ark which carried and nurtured his son would be in the purest state, as we should have been from the beginning. However, that doesn’t mean that Mary did not need a Savior. We believe that God (outside of time) saved Mary from original sin because of his death on the cross in time. An analogy…he stopped her before she fell into the pit…and for us he pulled us out of the pit.

Many theologians held to a view that by special grace the Mother of God did not commit any personal sins. Others asserted that Mary was sanctified through her response to Archangel Gabriel at the annunciation, “Behold I am the handmaid of the Lord. Let it be done to me according to your word” (Luke 1:38).

Taken at face value, the Western doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is seen by many as separating the Mother of God from the rest of the human race. If true, this would have made it impossible for Christ to become truly man, because Mary would therefore not be subject to the same conditions of humanity as those for whom Christ had become incarnate in order to save. Mary is human, and through her, God became fully human as well. The dogma of the Immaculate
Conception promulgated by Pius IX in 1854 seems to be in
defiance of the Holy Scriptures and in contradiction
to the tradition of the first centuries.

 

[mskejj]

Many theologians held to a view that by special grace the Mother of God did not commit any personal sins. Others asserted that Mary was sanctified through her response to Archangel Gabriel at the annunciation, “Behold I am the handmaid of the Lord. Let it be done to me according to your word” (Luke 1:38).

Taken at face value, the Western doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is seen by many as separating the Mother of God from the rest of the human race. If true, this would have made it impossible for Christ to become truly man, because Mary would therefore not be subject to the same conditions of humanity as those for whom Christ had become incarnate in order to save. Mary is human, and through her, God became fully human as well. The dogma of the Immaculate
Conception promulgated by Pius IX in 1854 seems to be in
defiance of the Holy Scriptures and in contradiction
to the tradition of the first centuries.

The Mother of God is a “created” being…just like we are…Being conceived without original sin does not take away from her "humaness"She is not divine even though we believe she was born without original sin. Adam and Eve were created the same way…does that make them “not fully human”? The amazing thing for me is that unlike “Eve”, Mary lived in a world full of sin and suffering and so the temptations that were around her were far more intense than what Eve experienced. And yet Mary trusted God and said yes while Eve did not trust God and said no. Mary is fully human and without sin and her Son is fully human and fully divine and also without sin.