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

[Ubenedictus]

There were baptisms of sorts in OT Are you saying no one in OT was reconciled ?

those baptism of sorts werent effective for sins hence a need of the new covenant.

Is Eve in the tormenting hell ?

those old testament saint were redeemed when christ died, he desended into hades for them.

Did you see Jesus spill His blood for you ? No. I did not either . Yet ,we believe it by faith ! Did Eve see God spill His own blood .NO. She saw it by faith . The lambs blood was a foreshadow of the Lamb to come .Eve was not dumb to it all.

yeah the lamb blood was a shadow thus ineffective and couldnt guarantee the reconcilation of the bond they had broken. In view of the sacrifice of christ God didnt impute their repented sins. The reconcilation was done when christ died on the christ and the was of partition broken and adam was reconciled by the second adam, the disobedience of eve was now reversed and she was reconciled with God when christ offered himself as priest, victim and sacrifice, infact as God he accepted his own sacrifice.
Ubenedictus

 

[Cinette]

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.

*I have just come on board and so have not read much of this thread. You have to take into account the times and the culture. In those days Jesus called his Mother “Woman” - today we say Mom!

I do not have my Bible at hand but I am sure it can be found in Luke where Mary visited her cousin Elizabeth and when Elizabeth greeted her the child within her womb leapt and she said to Mary “How is it that the Mother of my Lord should come to me?” What do you think is the significance of her statement?

Cinette*

 

[Cinette]

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.

*I always get a shiver down my spine when Protestants (good friends) say “I don’t believe in praying to the dead”. Hmm… They have overlooked the resurrection which has earned us eternal life. In a prayer during Mass we used to pray “Dying you destroyed our death, rising you restored our life”. When we die we transit (eventually) to eternal life!

 

[rinnie]

Your speculating on what I said from your own paradigms, not mine.

okay then you explain it to me. Are we orphans or not? You said we are not,

Now from the beginning of time we had a earthly Father. In the O.T. we had Father Abaham to teach and preach to us the truth given to him by God.

In the N.T. we had the Son of God made flesh preach and teach us the truth of God.

And when Jesus left he left us the Apostles to preach and teach the word of God, our Once again Earthly Spiritual Fathers.

Now if we are now without a Father would that not mean God did not kept his word and did leave us Orphans?

But you reject the Earthly Fathers and say no, we don’t have them, So then without our Earthly Spiritual Fathers are we not Orphans?

And please do not turn this around and say Jesus is our Father, we know that he is always God the Father and with us in our hearts forever.

But when a Child is without a earthly Father is he not called a Orphan?

 

[rinnie]

No,apostolic authority tells us of its authority.Sacred tradition tells us of its authority.The bible tells us of its authority (as well as the role of the church ,and of oral tradition)

Then for the love of Peter daivd what more do you want. The bible tells you, Sacred Trad. tells you and Oral Tradition tells you what more is there?

 

[rinnie]

There were baptisms of sorts in OT Are you saying no one in OT was reconciled ? Is Eve in the tormenting hell ? Did you see Jesus spill His blood for you ? No. I did not either . Yet ,we believe it by faith ! Did Eve see God spill His own blood .NO. She saw it by faith . The lambs blood was a foreshadow of the Lamb to come .Eve was not dumb to it all.

Who ever said Eve was dumb? Well that’s actually a matter of opinion She let the devil fool her and obeyed him instead of God. I think thats real dumb actually

But lets go back to the lambs blood, did the lambs blood take away the sins of the world? When? If so how and when did Eve’s faith save her? Did she enter heaven before the death of our Lord Jesus?

If so and If what you are saying is what I think you are saying Eve’s faith wiped out Original Sin

Then tell me this, why did Jesus have to die on the Cross and why was it Jesus who was the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world, and not Eve’s faith?

And why did Jesus have to enter hades after his death and release the souls of the righteous and open heaven then? Why was it closed? Why were they awaiting in hades?

I means its all about faith and Eve’s faith at that right?

david honestly what in the world are you talking about? And where are you getting this teaching? Is the Protestant bible really that different?

Where in the protestant bible does it say Eves faiths took away the sins of the world? That Eves faith saved her? That the blood of the lamb was the PERFECT sacrafice.

And yes david I am saying no one in the O.T. was reconciled with God, until his Son died on the cross and reconciled us all to him by paying for our sin. Come on david, this was elementary school teaching. You claim you were raised Catholic, rather or not you deny the teaching, at least admit to what you were taught.

 

[rinnie]

I am starting to think I am being played here by david!

Does anyone else get that feeling?

As my aunt used to say, I am too old of a Cat to be screwed by a Kitten

Anyone who had been Catholic or to a Catholic Church know the quote:

Lord by your cross and resurrection you have SET US FREE you are the SAVIOR of the World!

Now david was RAISED CATHOLIC and does not know how Christ reconciled us to him by his death on the cross???

I smell a rat!!

 

[GaryTaylor]

I can’t comprehend, when without a doubt the greatest Mystery is the Incarnation. All others in relation to Jesus flowed from the Incarnation. How one overlooks this Mystery is in fact a mystery to me.

 

[Cinette]

Thank-you for calmly looking at objections. May I humbly add an overall objection to the special “dispensation” of her Immaculateness- that it renders existing dispensations mute or useless. For example, say we are are in O.T. Jewish shoes today ,awaiting the messiah. She would be born to a Catholic maiden. One would presume she would be a devout, good practicing Catholic, having been baptized, confirmed, confessed, etc . etc.,. Yet ,she would not be “clean”, washed by faith in the Blood and the sacraments. She would need a special dispensation, to be pure enough to receive the Lord in her womb. Catholicism would not be enough , the Catholicism that brought us Mother Theresa, St. Francis , etc., etc., … The old testament provided a way to be perfect before the Lord .For Enoch was perfect enough to be taken, and Job was perfect, yet both born of fallen flesh. Regeneration /born again, being made a new creature, this new inner man overrides the old, the corrupted flesh and any original sin- both in the old and the new testament. This is the crux of the matter.

 

[kellerk]

I can’t comprehend, when without a doubt the greatest Mystery is the Incarnation. All others in relation to Jesus flowed from the Incarnation. How one overlooks this Mystery is in fact a mystery to me.

I’m with you on this! I am way out of my league here. Why is this particular subject so hard for some to believe? There are many other subjects that have no actual scriptural reference ie…the Trinity, and btw is much harder to explain, yet it is widely accepted as an article of faith. I would like to just point out a verse to try to bring everyone back down a notch and then I will go back to just listening and learning.

Mark 10:15 “Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it.”

For me, being a mother of four young ones, I can say: the simplicity of a child-like faith is one of the most beautiful things in this world to witness. Why is it so easy for a child to accept these ideals? I tell you, they know more about his stuff then the most intellectual mind.

 

[BrunoMaria]

well, it’s so easy to believe. That’s not what I say, but that’s what Pope Benedict XVI. said, and he is true. Our kids do believe - until - until hey meet our disbelieve. Then thesy ponder who is true? Where lays the real truth? And then it was us who blows their believe away in all directions, like the dandelion’s many little oarachutes that land where so ever, on rocks, on ot roads, on the sea - in the nowhere.
"Why is it so easy for a child to accept these ideals?"
simply because THESE IDEAS are the very truth. The one and only truth. And this divive truth has an affection to us. But hells powers work to inforce the untruth. Oh, they do a great job. And you know - we even help them, by relativizing things. Relativizing of course on our very own relativism, which is focused on earthly experiences only. With no referrence to God what so ever.
So, how can we ask:
“Why is it so easy for a child to accept these ideals?”
It actually is sooo easy for us all the same to accept, but we simply refuse, because we stupidly enough relativize with our earthly conditions.
That’s as if an ant would relativize the world out of her anthill.

Yours
Bruno

 

[kellerk]

well, it’s so easy to believe. That’s not what I say, but that’s what Pope Benedict XVI. said, and he is true. Our kids do believe - until - until hey meet our disbelieve. Then thesy ponder who is true? Where lays the real truth? And then it was us who blows their believe away in all directions, like the dandelion’s many little oarachutes that land where so ever, on rocks, on ot roads, on the sea - in the nowhere.
"Why is it so easy for a child to accept these ideals?"
simply because THESE IDEAS are the very truth. The one and only truth. And this divive truth has an affection to us. But hells powers work to inforce the untruth. Oh, they do a great job. And you know - we even help them, by relativizing things. Relativizing of course on our very own relativism, which is focused on earthly experiences only. With no referrence to God what so ever.
So, how can we ask:
“Why is it so easy for a child to accept these ideals?”
It actually is sooo easy for us all the same to accept, but we simply refuse, because we stupidly enough relativize with our earthly conditions.
That’s as if an ant would relativize the world out of her anthill.

Yours
Bruno

Beautifully stated! Thank you Bruno!!! It is apparent that “evidence” will only get you so far. The Truth is written in our hearts…

 

[brumano]

Well at least you agree that scriptures in John there can apply to you ,howbeit not directly except via the church.I agree that the body ,the church is evangelical a spreader of seeds,planters waterers pruners etc etc.yet each has the indwelling and receiver of the promises of the Comforter .It is not just for clergy.That is OT. Again ,you do not addresss Pope

We’ve already known for 2 thousand and some years that they apply to us, in the church. The church that the Lord founded, formed and established is one; it has structure and spirit. It has His own being in it; anything that we have anything that we receive comes from this true church, which is Holy and Apostolic, JNc14 and the entirety of the scriptures show this. The church is more than it’s mission to evangelize, and even within that is it’s order to sacramentalize, baptising and consecrating by the laying on of hands to His Priesthood, and doing all, not some, of all that He has commanded to do. Make a list sometime while reading the gospels of everything He told them to do, and after your head stops spinning like mine does find the church in the world today that does and trys to do everyone of those entries on your list, then you’ve found the true church.

The church is not just a clergy, and the Pope is not all the magisterium and all Catholics rolled into one man, he is among many things as was Peter, the servant of the servants of Christ’s Holy Church. This title is scriptural, as Peter was crucified as he served.

 

[david_ruiz]

David,

I don’t know if you have noticed, but you are the one reading quotes from the Early Church supporting the doctrines of Mary,

 

[david_ruiz]

i saw this one coming, you will simply cut out anything that is beyond 100AD, which leave a little that you can certainly explain away. At the end tradition isnt a unified whole since you will keep slashing them unless they are from 100AD. Funny enough even the name ‘catholic church’ cant be found in writting before 100AD same goes for the word trinity, and consubtantiality the list goes on. That period didnt have any marian heresy to contend so the church fathers of that period will only mention mary in a larger discussion. When tradition cant be treated as a whole then i would have a problem calling it tradition.
Ubenedictus

We are all slashers(discerners ).Some writings become sacred scripture some do not .Some are regarded as sacred writings of a father , others are not .Some are regarded as spurious ,some as genuine. This is part of our our “catholic tradition” ,this slashing ( discernment). Actually “catholic” can be found around 100 AD ,I think. I understand that silence proves nothing .Actually we can not prove anything , but we have evidences,an integral part of the definition of faith. Not sure what you mean by unified tradion.is that like unified scripture or doctrine >Seems to me scripture is scripture ,tradition is tradition ,doctrine is doctrine.Hopefully the three agree,but by themselves, they are either proper or flawed.nothing to do with unity .Not sure what you mean .thanks.

 

[tqualey]

Hi Rinnie,

I have been doing a little lurking … and this is a very good post!

From what I have seen, Daivd is having a hard time staying consistent. The key here is that Mary received a most special Grace from God - because God chose her to be part of His Plan for our salvation. Mary did nothing to ‘earn’ this special Grace - that of her being sinless from the moment of her conception.

From my understanding of some Protestant arguments, the Catholic position is totally misunderstood and then incorrectly presented. Considering how most people have a special love for their own Mothers - is it so difficult to think that Christ does not have a Special Love for His Mother?

God bless

It is apparent? How, Show us, Some kind of Proof please. Something from the bible would be great.

Now you say for sure when she reached the age of reasoning and heard the word and believed…Where david do you get this information?

Explain this to me david, In the book of Rev. and the sign of Isaiah are the same.

A virgin will give brith to the leader of Israel.

St John was given by Jesus on the cross to Mary as her Son. This means John knes Mary better then anyone except of course Jesus.

He is try to tell us about her status in heaven. Read Rev 11:19 He says the ark of the Cov. is a woman clothed with the Sun. Which ONLY means IMMACULATELY conceived Virgin.

The rest of the scripture speaks how God puts enmity between the devil and the virgin. Now that means the devil CANNOT get to her.

Now you say the devil did get to her. You said she indeed had sin.

Now if the devil did get to her and she was not immaculately conceived, which of course means saved from all sin at the moment of her conception, this only means one thing.

The Blessed Mother cannot be the virgin predicted in the O.T. and Jesus cannot be the savior of Israel.

Now either the Church is correct and the bible is correct and it is indeed Jesus Christ and the Virgin Mother is indeed the one predicted to be the Woman clothed with the Sun as St John speaks of. Or she has not come yet, and neither did Jesus.

Whats it going to be david? As I said you cannot have it both ways.

 

[david_ruiz]

when i give those quote you will simply say it was after 100AD. So why waste my time?
Ubenedictus

Tell me ,have you read ALL the church fathers ? Can you properly ,correctly ponder them without reading them ? Of course we can share them and just read quotes and ponder them ,but it is best to read the whole letter ,chapter for correctness. You know as well as I that I can quote a scripture, a father and have a conclusion , only to find that a further reading sheds a different light on the original quote. I have only read all the father writings up to 130 AD .I feel comfortable discussing them accurately ,more than Iraneus or tertullian ,whom I have not totally read yet .Please, i acknowledge later writings and consent to what they seem to be saying.I amsure some mean eaxactly what they say .Others might have some qualifications to better understand them more fully .Remember ,there are people who studied one .ONE, father there whole lives to glean from its riches ,so please understand my conviction of proper reading,commenting etc.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, David,

I think what is being said is that one can not simply set an arbitrary standard that all must fit into - God certainly did not set up His Chruch in this way. If you use 100AD as your cut off point - then you really can not accept your own abridged Bible! The New Testament in both Catholic and Protestant Bibles agree - but that is only because Luther and those in the beginning of the Protestant revolt were not able to remove them - as they did with the seven books in the OT that they did remove. As you know, it was the Catholic Church who gave us the Canon of Sacred Scripture in about 390AD. Prior to this, there was no established for either the OT or the NT (recall that the Saducees only accepted the first 5 books, while the Pharisees accepted all of hte OT).

Personally, I think you do everyone a disservice by calling this ‘slashing’. You hold to the Bible because you think it is the Inspired Word of God - I do, too. And, we both get this because it was the Catholic Church that made this determination.

So, logically, one can not accept Bible as being without error, if they believe the Catholic Church just guessing and being in error at what should be included. If one believes that the Catholic Church was not inspired by the Holy Spirit to identify which Books were God breathed and which weren’t then want happens to Christianity for those first 16 Centuries in the history of those wishing to follow the teachings of Christ?

Finally, if we have a Bible because of the Catholic Church we must have a way of actually understanding what is God’s Word - and this is were the Magesterium teaches us the truth about the truths of Christianity - and Mary’s role in Salvation History. This is really a three-legged stool, all focused to add strength and stability to our Faith. Chose to disregard the Word of God, then we fall victim to the Devil’s snares because we have stopped listening to Christ (Luke 10:16). “He who hears you hears me…”

God bless

We are all slashers(discerners ).Some writings become sacred scripture some do not .Some are regarded as sacred writings of a father , others are not .Some are regarded as spurious ,some as genuine. This is part of our our “catholic tradition” ,this slashing ( discernment). Actually “catholic” can be found around 100 AD ,I think. I understand that silence proves nothing .Actually we can not prove anything , but we have evidences,an integral part of the definition of faith. Not sure what you mean by unified tradion.is that like unified scripture or doctrine >Seems to me scripture is scripture ,tradition is tradition ,doctrine is doctrine.Hopefully the three agree,but by themselves, they are either proper or flawed.nothing to do with unity .Not sure what you mean .thanks.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Kellerk,

I think the fact that Luther and Calvin both held a special reverance for the Mother of God speaks volumes for how Protestantism has spun out of control when it comes to creating new doctrine from what had been discarded doctrine! Mary’s sinlessness and perpetual virginity were never in doubt to either of these two men. But their current followers have apparentl left this position to find every newer doctrine!

God bless

I thank you for making your position more clear, albeit in a round about way. I’ll admit you threw me for a loop there for a minute. Now may I turn the conversation for a minute and ask you, what are your views on the perpetual virginity of our mother? Would that be something you think is a rather modern phenomenon also? I ask this because I think it ties into the whole teaching of Mary, prophecised and created and made pure for the sole purpose of being the God bearer. I also think you will have to acknowledge her perpetual virginity was acceptable to the early church fathers all the way to Luther and Calvin and others who would condemn these more modern day rejections of the Marian doctrines as heretical! I found it suprising when studying Martin Luther what a great defender he was of our mother and how far off today’s Protestant is now even from his alternate views.

 

[david_ruiz]

Yes, and even if we could find any supporting sources. David could easily change the parameters to before 50 AD.