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

[Roy5]

Gosh, this thread for Protestants seems to attract mostly Catholics.

 Now, I come a mixed background. On my paternal family tree we have the first Archbishop of Quebec. Mom's side goes back to the Puritans of early New England.

 Frankly, if people choose to venerate Mary and embrace such dogmas as the Immaculate Conception (defined in 1864) and the Assumption (1950) - fine. Freedom of conscience. Freedom of belief. 

 Obviously, Mary deserves honor as the mother of Jesus. However, in all honestly, I am fearful that some well-intentioned people place her on an equal level with God. Not meaning to, perhaps. But the focus of segments within Catholicism sometimes is so magnified that it can overshadow Christ.

 My own conclusions run along this line.

 Apart from the nativity and crucifixion scenes, Mary is only mentioned twice in the gospels, and in both situations she seems to be sidelined a bit. Consider again Matt. 12:46-50 and John 2:4. 

 Mary was present at Pentecost but barely mentioned. "the women, and mary, the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers." That surely would have been an opportunity for her to demonstrate her centrality among the early Christians.

 Paul and others wrote a number of epistles. Many of these advised early Christians about doctrine and practices. Mary is not mentioned once. 

 A whole theology has been woven out of the ark thesis, a verse in Genesis, a verse in Revelation, etc. I find all this insufficient to justify the position Mary has gained over the years within the Church. I certainly find no scriptural evidence of either the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption. The Bible doesn't mention the parents of Mary, and it is mum when it comes to her death. You would have thought that both would have been made plain somewhere in the Bible were they to become infallible doctrines. It seems that if they happened the writers of the gospels and the epistles would have paid considerable attention to them. 

 But, as I said, no problem for those who can believe. My main issue, I presume, is the lack of freedom within the church to take exception to any such teachings. I tend to respect well-informed conscience and am a bit skeptical when it comes to beliefs that arose in the Greco-Roman days and cannot be substantiated somewhere in scripture. I wish the church would permit a degree of tolerance for other views. 

  I know, I know. The Church cannot be wrong. And then I remember Galileo. And I recall Abelard's *Sic et Non*. Etc. Have I been corrupted by my education or the freedom Americans like me treasure? I studied early church history and the Church Fathers years ago - along with the scriptures - and these studies led to my skepticism. Simply too many contradictions, uncertainties and the likelihood of pagan influences as early Christianity was competing with cults that emphasized a goddess or two. Sorry.

 God bless people of every creed, color, country and culture. Religion should serve as a bridge and not a barrier.

 

[Patavium]

Gosh, this thread for Protestants seems to attract mostly Catholics.

 Now, I come a mixed background. On my paternal family tree we have the first Archbishop of Quebec. Mom's side goes back to the Puritans of early New England.

 Frankly, if people choose to venerate Mary and embrace such dogmas as the Immaculate Conception (defined in 1864) and the Assumption (1950) - fine. Freedom of conscience. Freedom of belief. 

 Obviously, Mary deserves honor as the mother of Jesus. However, in all honestly, I am fearful that some well-intentioned people place her on an equal level with God. Not meaning to, perhaps. But the focus of segments within Catholicism sometimes is so magnified that it can overshadow Christ.

 My own conclusions run along this line.

 Apart from the nativity and crucifixion scenes, Mary is only mentioned twice in the gospels, and in both situations she seems to be sidelined a bit. Consider again Matt. 12:46-50 and John 2:4. 

 Mary was present at Pentecost but barely mentioned. "the women, and mary, the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers." That surely would have been an opportunity for her to demonstrate her centrality among the early Christians.

 Paul and others wrote a number of epistles. Many of these advised early Christians about doctrine and practices. Mary is not mentioned once. 

 A whole theology has been woven out of the ark thesis, a verse in Genesis, a verse in Revelation, etc. I find all this insufficient to justify the position Mary has gained over the years within the Church. I certainly find no scriptural evidence of either the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption. The Bible doesn't mention the parents of Mary, and it is mum when it comes to her death. You would have thought that both would have been made plain somewhere in the Bible were they to become infallible doctrines. It seems that if they happened the writers of the gospels and the epistles would have paid considerable attention to them. 

 But, as I said, no problem for those who can believe. My main issue, I presume, is the lack of freedom within the church to take exception to any such teachings. I tend to respect well-informed conscience and am a bit skeptical when it comes to beliefs that arose in the Greco-Roman days and cannot be substantiated somewhere in scripture. I wish the church would permit a degree of tolerance for other views. 

  I know, I know. The Church cannot be wrong. And then I remember Galileo. And I recall Abelard's *Sic et Non*. Etc. Have I been corrupted by my education or the freedom Americans like me treasure? I studied early church history and the Church Fathers years ago - along with the scriptures - and these studies led to my skepticism. Simply too many contradictions, uncertainties and the likelihood of pagan influences as early Christianity was competing with cults that emphasized a goddess or two. Sorry.

 God bless people of every creed, color, country and culture. Religion should serve as a bridge and not a barrier.

This is the mistake. You are only looking in the bible. You ignore the Sacred tradition of the Early Church Fathers, that was passed to them from the apostles themselves. That is the problem of most detractors from Virgin Mary.

 

[Roy5]

Patavium

No offense, and I respect your views. However, I read many of the Church Fathers years ago and they did not increase my confidence. They promoted so many false ideas based on the inaccurate or inadequate knowledge at the time they wrote. They had only poor telescopes and no microscopes, which led them to believe in the three-tier universe and disease as a weapon of Satan, punishment for sin, or a test from God.

Besides, there were many Church Fathers who were tossed aside because the winning theologians cast them aside as heretics. As I recall (it’s been awhile), even Tertullian and Origen were accused of heresy. Most such ‘heretics’ are little known or erased from Church history altogether.
I find it enough that Mary was the mother of Christ. I have reservations about all the medieval pageantry that can accompany her, such as the May crowning, Queen of the Universe, dozens of other titles, often borrowed from days of the divine right of royalty - etc. Personally, I wonder if Mary approves of such adoration and adulation. I also have difficulty with the notion that we should pray to Mary because, as his mother, she has special influence with Christ, so our chances are improved! Sounds worldly and even primitive. I doubt if eternity works that way.

 

[wheels10]

Patavium

No offense, and I respect your views. However, I read many of the Church Fathers years ago and they did not increase my confidence. They promoted so many false ideas based on the inaccurate or inadequate knowledge at the time they wrote. They had only poor telescopes and no microscopes, which led them to believe in the three-tier universe and disease as a weapon of Satan, punishment for sin, or a test from God.

Besides, there were many Church Fathers who were tossed aside because the winning theologians cast them aside as heretics. As I recall (it’s been awhile), even Tertullian and Origen were accused of heresy. Most such ‘heretics’ are little known or erased from Church history altogether.

I find it enough that Mary was the mother of Christ. I have reservations about all the medieval pageantry that can accompany her, such as the May crowning, Queen of the Universe, dozens of other titles, often borrowed from days of the divine right of royalty - etc. Personally, I wonder if Mary approves of such adoration and adulation. I also have difficulty with the notion that we should pray to Mary because, as his mother, she has special influence with Christ, so our chances are improved! Sounds worldly and even primitive. I doubt if eternity works that way.

Do you believe God loves humility?
Which is more humble, to pray to God directly or to pray to God through Mary?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Roy5,

Well, some posts are more attractive then others…

Now, I certainly do not want you to be ‘fearful’ that anyone has placed Mary - a 100% creature - on the same level as God - 100% Creator. I think this can be seen in Luke 1:46-55 as Mary is praising God for His Goodness. Here’s a link: veritasbible.com/drb/compare/haydock/Luke_1 Hey, but, as you know - the Catholic Church is not limited to just what is written in Scripture!

Here is a site that references the Catechism of the Catholic Church as far as official teaching. I think it would be good to actually look at site from the source, rahter then the obviously biased sites of Protestants who simply want to attack the Cahtolic Church and its devotion to Our Blessed Mother: defendingthebride.com/ma3/only18.html

Here is a really interesting site - that provides some quotes from Early Church Fathers on Mary. This site also provides even more objections then you have about the Blessed Virgin Mary … but, answers them without difficulty maryimmaculate.tripod.com/marian12.html

Hopefully, these will help put aside your expressed ‘fears’…

God bless

Gosh, this thread for Protestants seems to attract mostly Catholics.

 Now, I come a mixed background. On my paternal family tree we have the first Archbishop of Quebec. Mom's side goes back to the Puritans of early New England.

 Frankly, if people choose to venerate Mary and embrace such dogmas as the Immaculate Conception (defined in 1864) and the Assumption (1950) - fine. Freedom of conscience. Freedom of belief. 

 Obviously, Mary deserves honor as the mother of Jesus. However, in all honestly, I am fearful that some well-intentioned people place her on an equal level with God. Not meaning to, perhaps. But the focus of segments within Catholicism sometimes is so magnified that it can overshadow Christ.

 My own conclusions run along this line.

 Apart from the nativity and crucifixion scenes, Mary is only mentioned twice in the gospels, and in both situations she seems to be sidelined a bit. Consider again Matt. 12:46-50 and John 2:4. 

 Mary was present at Pentecost but barely mentioned. "the women, and mary, the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers." That surely would have been an opportunity for her to demonstrate her centrality among the early Christians.

 Paul and others wrote a number of epistles. Many of these advised early Christians about doctrine and practices. Mary is not mentioned once. 

 A whole theology has been woven out of the ark thesis, a verse in Genesis, a verse in Revelation, etc. I find all this insufficient to justify the position Mary has gained over the years within the Church. I certainly find no scriptural evidence of either the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption. The Bible doesn't mention the parents of Mary, and it is mum when it comes to her death. You would have thought that both would have been made plain somewhere in the Bible were they to become infallible doctrines. It seems that if they happened the writers of the gospels and the epistles would have paid considerable attention to them. 

 But, as I said, no problem for those who can believe. My main issue, I presume, is the lack of freedom within the church to take exception to any such teachings. I tend to respect well-informed conscience and am a bit skeptical when it comes to beliefs that arose in the Greco-Roman days and cannot be substantiated somewhere in scripture. I wish the church would permit a degree of tolerance for other views. 

  I know, I know. The Church cannot be wrong. And then I remember Galileo. And I recall Abelard's *Sic et Non*. Etc. Have I been corrupted by my education or the freedom Americans like me treasure? I studied early church history and the Church Fathers years ago - along with the scriptures - and these studies led to my skepticism. Simply too many contradictions, uncertainties and the likelihood of pagan influences as early Christianity was competing with cults that emphasized a goddess or two. Sorry.

 God bless people of every creed, color, country and culture. Religion should serve as a bridge and not a barrier.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Roy5,

Oh, I think you have really had some unnecessary difficulties with the Early Church Fathers. And, honestly, these difficulties should be honestly presented so that they can be addressed and resolved.

But, let us be very clear about what is involved - what particular doctirnal material do you take objection to because of the presentation of an Early Church Father (now, that would be singular). Then take a look at where a number of eCF over hundreds of years referenced and reinforced earlier doctrinal statements. I think seeing how many ECFs viewed a topic would be helpful. Ah, when it comes to natural science you might as well give a similar dismissive evaluation of Aristotle with his 4 elements.

Here is a link that I think you will find especially helpful: therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/a5.html This site provides material from the ECF on the Real Presence - an area where Protestants have generally dismissed as an invention or misunderstanding of Catholics.

God bless

Patavium

No offense, and I respect your views. However, I read many of the Church Fathers years ago and they did not increase my confidence. They promoted so many false ideas based on the inaccurate or inadequate knowledge at the time they wrote. They had only poor telescopes and no microscopes, which led them to believe in the three-tier universe and disease as a weapon of Satan, punishment for sin, or a test from God.

Besides, there were many Church Fathers who were tossed aside because the winning theologians cast them aside as heretics. As I recall (it’s been awhile), even Tertullian and Origen were accused of heresy. Most such ‘heretics’ are little known or erased from Church history altogether.

I find it enough that Mary was the mother of Christ. I have reservations about all the medieval pageantry that can accompany her, such as the May crowning, Queen of the Universe, dozens of other titles, often borrowed from days of the divine right of royalty - etc. Personally, I wonder if Mary approves of such adoration and adulation. I also have difficulty with the notion that we should pray to Mary because, as his mother, she has special influence with Christ, so our chances are improved! Sounds worldly and even primitive. I doubt if eternity works that way.

 

[kellerk]

tq…love all the links!

Just to let you guys know, I wanted to change my user name to reflect something that has a more personal meaning to me. Unfortunately, I had to create a whole new profile. You’ll find me under the name DeSanto

 

[tqualey]

Hi, future ‘DeSanto’…

Glad you liked the links. You know, the Catholic Church is very bless by God to be able to spread His Word and His Truth to all. Having the internet has made a number of things much easier - but, the challenge is always out there: know your Faith.

Looking forward to seeing your posts under your new name.

God bless

tq…love all the links!

Just to let you guys know, I wanted to change my user name to reflect something that has a more personal meaning to me. Unfortunately, I had to create a whole new profile. You’ll find me under the name DeSanto

 

[jlhargus]

Now, I come a mixed background. On my paternal family tree we have the first Archbishop of Quebec. Mom’s side goes back to the Puritans of early New England. Frankly, if people choose to venerate Mary and embrace such dogmas as the Immaculate Conception (defined in 1864) and the Assumption (1950) - fine. Freedom of conscience. Freedom of belief.

Obviously, Mary deserves honor as the mother of Jesus. However, in all honestly, I am fearful that some well-intentioned people place her on an equal level with God. Not meaning to, perhaps. But the focus of segments within Catholicism sometimes is so magnified that it can overshadow Christ.

JL: In all honesty Roy I don’t know any Catholic who places Mary on an equal level with Jesus who is God. If so they are in GRAVE error. Don’t you believe as scripture says, in Lk1:48-49, For he that is mighty hath done to me GREAT THINGS. God has done great thingS to Mary, not just one great thing, mother of Jesus. Mother of God would be another. I Don’t think you really believe God didn’t actually BECOME FLESH, but only inhabited a body of flesh?

My own conclusions run along this line. Apart from the nativity and crucifixion scenes,

JL: I think the problem, with some Protestants, doctrine is their own personal conclusions. Look at the difference in view of good and learned men on almost any biblical topic. That’s why God gave His people ONE teaching AUTHORITY. That teaching authority Christ promised to be with TILL THE END, Mt28:16-20, and sent the Holy Spirit to lead them into ALL TRUTH, Jn16:13. The Church the pillar and ground OF TRUTH, 1Tm3:15.

Mary is only mentioned twice in the gospels, and in both situations she seems to be sidelined a bit. Consider again Matt. 12:46-50 and John 2:4.

Mary is only directly mentioned a few times but she is implied in the OT and NT. The Trinity is NEVER, directly, mentioned in scripture yet it is implied in OT and NT. It took three hundred years and much controversy, to develop the doctrine of the Trinity, which I assume you believe.

[Mt12:46 While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him. 47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. 48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, **Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? 49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! 50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.]

Didn’t Mary do the will of the Father? Wasn’t she a disciple of Jesus? Jesus actually used His mother to teach not to sideline or publically put her down. Jesus was teaching it is even more important to DO God’s will than to be His natural mother or relative. For publically disrespecting a parent one could have been stoned.

[Jn2:3 And when they wanted wine, **the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine. 4 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come. 5 His mother saith unto the servants, WHATSOEVER HE SAITH unto you, DO IT. 6 And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece. 7 Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim. 8 And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. And they bare it. 9 When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew the governor of the feast called the bridegroom, 10 And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now. 11 This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; AND HIS DISCIPTLES BELIEVED on him.]

I don’t see any sidelining or disrespect here quite the opposite. In fact, what happened thru Mary’s faith and trust in Jesus? A beginning of miracles, Christ manifested His glory, AND His disciples BELIEVED on him. Those things were brought about thru Mary’s intercession despite the fact Christ’s HOUR had not yet come. Yet Christ did what she requested. A foreshadowing of Mary’s intercession in heaven as gebirah (queen mother).

   Mary was present at Pentecost but barely mentioned. "the women, and mary, the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers." That surely would have been an opportunity for her to demonstrate her centrality among the early Christians.

JL: [Acts1:13 And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James. 14 These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, **AND MARY the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.]

I Think this demonstrates how highly Mary was esteemed. Notice only the apostles and Mary are mentioned by name. Mary was a woman, why not leave it, with the women and his brethren? Instead of AND MARY the mother of Jesus. They didn’t see Mary as just one of the women or brethren.

Mary never points to herself she always points to her divine Son. Mary is held in the highest esteem for what God has done for her. [Lk1:48 For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth ALL GENERATIONS shall call me blessed. 49 For he that is mighty hath done to me GREAT THINGS; and holy is his name.]

   Paul and others wrote a number of epistles. Many of these advised early Christians about doctrine and practices. Mary is not mentioned once.

JL: Neither is the Trinity which is central to being Christian. Paul’s epistles were written mostly to clarify and correct what had first been orally delivered.

   A whole theology has been woven out of the ark thesis, a verse in Genesis, a verse in Revelation, etc. I find all this insufficient to justify the position Mary has gained over the years within the Church.

JL: Yes indeed thru the pillar and ground of truth, that one teaching authority, Christ SENT to teach the whole world till the end, Mt28:16-20. Not just from random disconnected scripture but the Word of God. Divine Tradition whether by WORD (oral) or EPISTLE (bible), 2Thes2:15.

 

[brumano]

 Paul and others wrote a number of epistles. Many of these advised early Christians about doctrine and practices. Mary is not mentioned once. 

 

 God bless people of every creed, color, country and culture. Religion should serve as a bridge and not a barrier.

St.Paul does not mention Mary once by name but he does speak a great deal of Mariology and Marian Spirituality if the reader can but bear to read it. First of all his allegory in Gal.ch4v21-31 cannot possibly indicate anyone other than the Mother of Jesus, try as you wish you will never be able to extricate Mary from the meaning of this passage.

In Phil ch. 4 St Paul is addressing his beloved brothers, v1, but in vs.2 he urges two early Christian women to come to a mutual understanding in the Lord. The Lord has now been designated by St Paul as the person that they are to come to this mutual understanding in. V3. then is a very unique and mysterious verse even in Paulist eloquence: “Yes and I ask you also my true yokemate to help them for they have struggled at my side in promoting the gospel along with Clement and my other co-workers whose names are in the book of life”. The letter is written to the Christians in Phillipi not a single person, he can’t be making this prayer first to one of them; he is making it to his “true yokemate”, that must be a single very special person and it is a prayer for help in bringing these two women to reconciliation in the Lord. The Lord is not St. Paul’s yokemate He is St. Paul’s yoke. My point, that you will not be able to disprove is that Mary cannot be ruled out as the special person that St. Paul appeals to for help for two of his children.(Thes.c2v11).
Keeping in this same train of grace he exhorts and encourages all the Phillipians and all who read this epistle in v4 thru 8 especially in v8 in a description that fits Mary so perfectly that she herself is impossible to be excluded from the devotion that St. Paul may have already had himself. (Tm.C4.vs7-9).

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Brumano,

(I hit the Submit key in error… … here is what I wanted to post )

Excellent!

You know… one of the major barriers to learning anything is to think you already know it. Those who are so into ‘Solo Scriptura’ totally ignore:

John 21:25
And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen.

Phillippians 4:9

The things which you learned and received and heard and saw in me, these do, and the God of peace will be with you.

II Thessalonians 2:15

Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.

And of course no where in Scripture does Scripture say it is the only source of God’s Word.

Those who claim that things must exist in the Bible not only create a fase argument - they break from it the firrst chance they get! When you look at John 6 - we find many of the Solo Scriptura cheering section having lost their voice - because they can not take the Words of Christ saying, “If you do not eat my Flesh you have no life in you.” Like the early Jews that Christ was addressing - the Protestants in their own way say, “This is a hard saying” - and walk away from Christ! The Protestants simply dismiss what is written saying He did not mean what He said!

God bless

St.Paul does not mention Mary once by name but he does speak a great deal of Mariology and Marian Spirituality if the reader can but bear to read it. First of all his allegory in Gal.ch4v21-31 cannot possibly indicate anyone other than the Mother of Jesus, try as you wish you will never be able to extricate Mary from the meaning of this passage.

In Phil ch. 4 St Paul is addressing his beloved brothers, v1, but in vs.2 he urges two early Christian women to come to a mutual understanding in the Lord. The Lord has now been designated by St Paul as the person that they are to come to this mutual understanding in. V3. then is a very unique and mysterious verse even in Paulist eloquence: “Yes and I ask you also my true yokemate to help them for they have struggled at my side in promoting the gospel along with Clement and my other co-workers whose names are in the book of life”. The letter is written to the Christians in Phillipi not a single person, he can’t be making this prayer first to one of them; he is making it to his “true yokemate”, that must be a single very special person and it is a prayer for help in bringing these two women to reconciliation in the Lord. The Lord is not St. Paul’s yokemate He is St. Paul’s yoke. My point, that you will not be able to disprove is that Mary cannot be ruled out as the special person that St. Paul appeals to for help for two of his children.(Thes.c2v11).
Keeping in this same train of grace he exhorts and encourages all the Phillipians and all who read this epistle in v4 thru 8 especially in v8 in a description that fits Mary so perfectly that she herself is impossible to be excluded from the devotion that St. Paul may have already had himself. (Tm.C4.vs7-9).

 

[DeSanto]

You know… one of the major barriers to learning anything is to think you already know it.

Hi tq! I like that quote, I think I’ll pass that along to my teenage daughter

 

[DeSanto]

Brumano! Thanks for those references. That is the stuff I’m looking for, stuff to get people really thinking. Are there any more references you can think of beside the most common ones…ie (Genesis and Revelations)? This being one of the big stumbling blocks when talking with my Protestant friends, the fact the Mary is not mentioned in the bible but a few times must mean she was not that important. Yes, she was a very devout woman and yes she did the will of God and yes she’s in heaven walking around up there with Jesus but, nothing in the bible indicates that we must hold her to such a high esteem as say “Queen of Heaven”…these are the arguments I hear. With more references like yours it will get people to want to go back and read the scripture again in a different light that they may not have looked at it before. It may just get one to open their mind and, as tqualey pointed out, they might realize there is something they may have missed.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, DeSanto,

Too late!

All teenagers already know everything!!

Good luck … my two daughters (now aged 39 and 37) had memorable teenage years … and having grandchildren has truly convinced me that God is Just!

God bless

tqualey;9534470:

You know… one of the major barriers to learning anything is to think you already know it.

Hi tq! I like that quote, I think I’ll pass that along to my teenage daughter

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Roy5,

Are you still out there … ?

I would enjoy you responding to this previous post of mine.

God bless

Hi, Roy5,

Oh, I think you have really had some unnecessary difficulties with the Early Church Fathers. And, honestly, these difficulties should be honestly presented so that they can be addressed and resolved.

But, let us be very clear about what is involved - what particular doctirnal material do you take objection to because of the presentation of an Early Church Father (now, that would be singular). Then take a look at where a number of eCF over hundreds of years referenced and reinforced earlier doctrinal statements. I think seeing how many ECFs viewed a topic would be helpful. Ah, when it comes to natural science you might as well give a similar dismissive evaluation of Aristotle with his 4 elements.

Here is a link that I think you will find especially helpful: therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/a5.html This site provides material from the ECF on the Real Presence - an area where Protestants have generally dismissed as an invention or misunderstanding of Catholics.

God bless

 

[DeSanto]

Hi, DeSanto,

Too late!

All teenagers already know everything!!

Good luck … my two daughters (now aged 39 and 37) had memorable teenage years … and having grandchildren has truly convinced me that God is Just!

God bless
DeSanto;9537013:
Your so right!! I suppose I will patiently await that great day… “grandparenthood”

 

[DeSanto]

The Rosary…

In saying the rosary, Mary invites us to join her on a journey through the life of Jesus. In it, the Holy Spirit ask us to imitate the Faith and Love of the Mother of our Savior. Because we say the rosary with our body and our spirit, it should touch us from every level of our being. It is no monotonus ritual but, a deeply contemplative Christian prayer.

 

[jlhargus]

That is the stuff I’m looking for, stuff to get people really thinking. Are there any more references you can think of beside the most common ones…ie (Genesis and Revelations)? This being one of the big stumbling blocks when talking with my Protestant friends, the fact the Mary is not mentioned in the bible but a few times must mean she was not that important. Yes, she was a very devout woman and yes she did the will of God and yes she’s in heaven walking around up there with Jesus but, nothing in the bible indicates that we must hold her to such a high esteem as say “Queen of Heaven”…these are the arguments I hear.

1Kgs1:32 And king David said, Call me Zadok the priest, and Nathan the prophet, and Benaiah the son of Jehoiada. And they came before the king. 33 The king also said unto them, Take with you the servants of your lord, and cause Solomon my son to ride upon mine own mule, and bring him down to Gihon: 34 And let Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet anoint him there king over Israel: and blow ye with the trumpet, and say, God save king Solomon. 35 Then ye shall come up after him, that he may come and sit upon my throne; for he shall be king in my stead: and I have appointed him to be ruler over Israel and over Judah.

[Ps45:6 Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre. 7 Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. 8 All thy garments smell of myrrh, and aloes, and cassia, out of the ivory palaces, whereby they have made thee glad. 9 Kings’ daughters were among thy honourable women: upon thy right hand did stand the queen in gold of Ophir. 10 Hearken, O daughter, and consider, and incline thine ear; forget also thine own people, and thy father’s house; 11 So shall the king greatly desire thy beauty: for he is thy Lord; and worship thou him. 12 And the daughter of Tyre shall be there with a gift; even the rich among the people shall intreat thy favour. 13 The king’s daughter is all glorious within: her clothing is of wrought gold. 14 She shall be brought unto the king in raiment of needlework: the virgins her companions that follow her shall be brought unto thee. 15 With gladness and rejoicing shall they be brought: they shall enter into the king’s palace. 16 Instead of thy fathers shall be thy children, whom thou mayest make princes in all the earth. 17 I will make thy name to be remembered in all generations: therefore shall the people praise thee for ever and ever.]

David didn’t elevate his mother, who was dead, to a throne. It was THE SON OF DAVID, Solomon who did so. Solomon, the Son of David, instituted the office of queen mother. Solomon, the Son of David, who will build a HOUSE FOR THE LORD (Temple). As God’s anointed king Soloman had complete authority to institute any office he saw fit for the kingdom. Christ, is king the Son of David’s who is building a habitation for God (Temple of living stones)

If Mary’s son is the Son of David and King in David’s line. Then Mary is Gebirah=Queen Mother in the regenerated spiritual Kingdom of David, Israel. [Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. 7 Of the increase OF HIS GOVERNMENT and peace THERE SHALL BE NO END, UPON THE THRONE OF DAVID, and upon HIS KINGDOM, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even FOR EVER. The zeal of THE LORD of hosts WILL PERFORM THIS.]

[Lk 1:31 And, behold, THOU SHALT CONCEIVE in thy womb, AND BRING FORTH A SON, and shalt call his name JESUS. 32 He shall be great, and shall be CALLED the SON OF THE HIGHEST: and THE LORD GOD SHALL GIVE UNTO HIM THE THRONE OF HIS FATHER DAVID: 33 HE WILL REIGN OVER THE HOUSE OF JACOB FOR EVER, his kingdom will have no end.] Jesus is King in the line of David, Mary is Queen Mother. Queen Mother was an office in the Davidic Kingdom, form Solomon, the son of David, till the last earthly king IN DAVID’S LINE.

1Kgs8:18 And the LORD said unto David my father, Whereas it was in thine heart to build an house unto my name, thou didst well that it was in thine heart. 19 Nevertheless THOU SHALT NOT BUILD THE HOUSE; BUT THY SON thy son THAT shall COME FORTH OUT OF THY LOINS, he SHALL BUILD THE HOUSE UNTO MY NAME. [2Sam 7:13 HE SHALL BUILD A HOUSE for my name and I WILL ESTABLISH the throne of HIS KINGDOM FOR EVER.] Christ the Son of David is building an everlasting universal spiritual kingdom. Christ builds with living stones. Regenerating the old earthly Davidic kingdom of God into the new spiritual heavenly kingdom of God.

[Mt19:27 Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore? 28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That YE WHICH have FOLLOWED ME, IN THE REGENERATION when THE SON OF MAN SHALL SIT IN THE THRONE of his glory, YE ALSO SHALL SIT UPON twelve THRONES, JUDGING the twelve tribes of Israel.

Lk22:28 YE are they which HAVE CONTINUED WITH ME IN MY TEMPTATIONS. 29 And I APPOINT UNTO YOU A KINGDOM, AS my Father hath APPOINTED UNTO ME; 30 That YE MAY EAT AND DRINK AT MY TABLE in my kingdom, and SIT ON THRONES JUDGING the twelve tribes of Israel. 31 And the Lord said, Simon, SIMON, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: 32 But I HAVE PRAYED FOR THEE, that THY FAITH FAIL NOT: and when thou art converted, STRENGTHEN THY BRETHREN.]

The kingdom, the Church, where we eat and drink at the LORD’s TABLE, we call it MASS today. Peter is First Minister as he is given the keys to that kingdom. Christ the king, holds the keys by right, and delegates his authority, with those keys, to his First Minister, [Isa 22:19-22 & Mt 16:13-19]. That Kingdom is for all people in all places and all times. Christ is Universal Catholic King and his mother is Universal Catholic Gebirah=Queen in the regenerated spiritual Universal=Catholic Davidic Kingdom.

[1Kgs2:19 Bathsheba therefore went unto king Solomon, to speak unto him for Adonijah. And THE KING ROSE up TO MEET HER, AND BOWED HIMSELF UNTO HER, and sat down on his throne, AND CAUSED A SEAT TO BE SET FOR THE KING’S MOTHER; and SHE SAT ON HIS RIGHT HAND.] Mk10:40 But to sit on my right hand and on my left hand is not mine to give; but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared.

[REV 11:19 And THE TEMPLE OF GOD WAS OPENED IN HEAVEN and THERE WAS SEEN in his temple THE ARK OF HIS TESTAMENT and there were lightnings and voices and thunderings and an earthquake and great hail RV 12:1 And THERE APPEARED A GREAT WONDER in heaven A WOMAN CLOTHED WITH THE SUN and the MOON UNDER HER FEET and UPON HER HEAD A CROWN OF TWELVE STARS 2 And she being with child cried travailing in birth and pained to be delivered] The woman is a person=Mary and a collective, symbolic of the Church, Old and New Covenant people of God. Twelve stars, universal queen, queen of heaven and earth.

[RV 12:5 And SHE BROUGHT FORTH A MAN CHILD who was TO RULE ALL NATIONS with a rod of iron and her child was caught up unto God and to his throne] To rule ALL NATIONS, universal king, the child is a person=Christ and collective, symbolic of the Davidic Kingdom.

Jer 52:1 ZEDIKIAH was twenty-one years old when he became KING, and he reigned eleven years in Jerusalem. HIS MOTHER’S NAME was HAMUTAL, daughter of Jeremiah of Libnah.

2 Kgs 21:1 MANASSEH was twelve years old when he became
KING, and he reigned in Jerusalem fifty-five years. HIS MOTHER’S NAME was HEPHZIBAH.

2 Kgs 8:26 Two and twenty years old was AHAZIAH when he began to reign; and HE REIGNED one year in Jerusalem. And HIS MOTHER’S NAME WAS ATHALIAH, the daughter of Omri king of Israel.

[Jer 13:18 Say to THE KING and to THE QUEEN MOTHER, Come down from YOUR THRONES, for your glorious CROWNS will fall from your heads. 19 The cities in the Negev will be shut up, and there will be no one to open them. All Judah will be carried into exile, carried completely away.] Jeremiah calls both the king and queen mother’s CROWNS glorious.

1Kgs8:20 And THE LORD HATH PERFORMED HIS WORD that he spake, and I AM RISEN UP in the room of David my father, AND SIT ON THE THRONE OF ISRAEL, AS THE LORD PROMISED, AND have BUILT AN HOUSE FOR the name of THE LORD GOD OF ISRAEL. 21 And I HAVE SET THERE A PLACE FOR THE ARK, wherein is the covenant of the LORD, which he made with our fathers, when he brought them out of the land of Egypt.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Gosh, this thread for Protestants seems to attract mostly Catholics…

CAF you know.

Now, I come a mixed background. On my paternal family tree we have the first Archbishop of Quebec. Mom’s side goes back to the Puritans of early New England…

Interesting what did the Archbishop of Quebec believe about the Blessed Mother?

Frankly, if people choose to venerate Mary and embrace such dogmas as the Immaculate Conception (defined in 1864) and the Assumption (1950) - fine. Freedom of conscience. Freedom of belief…

You say one thing about unity in Christianity and peoples free-will yet your words indicate division.

Obviously, Mary deserves honor as the mother of Jesus. However, in all honestly, I am fearful that some well-intentioned people place her on an equal level with God. Not meaning to, perhaps. But the focus of segments within Catholicism sometimes is so magnified that it can overshadow Christ…

This is triumphant fear constantly used as a weapon to deter ones belief and promote anothers. Were’s the empirical proof since the 18th century?

Apart from the nativity and crucifixion scenes, Mary is only mentioned twice in the gospels, and in both situations she seems to be sidelined a bit. Consider again Matt. 12:46-50 and John 2:4. .

Apart form the Nativity and Crucifixtion? She in Luke alone 1:27, 28. 29, 30, 34, 35, 38, 39, [annunciation/Incarnation] 40, 41, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 56 [Visitation] Is she sidelined here Roy?

Mary was present at Pentecost but barely mentioned. “the women, and mary, the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.” That surely would have been an opportunity for her to demonstrate her centrality among the early Christians…

Mary was present with Jesus daily for 30-years then through His entire ministry and at the foot of the Cross, she helped establish the early church as you mention. And the early church regarded Her as "Immaculate, No Spot or Stain. from the first established apostolic Church’s foward, apocrypha works by Christians such as St Anne, Gospel of Jame and so forth also speak more abundantly then the selected Canons, Acts of Andrew. on and on Roy.

Paul and others wrote a number of epistles. Many of these advised early Christians about doctrine and practices. Mary is not mentioned once…

Paul does mention Mary though not by name which your research seems to be limited to. does Mother of the Lord refer to Mary Roy? Or should we neglect it since Mary is not mentioned in those three words? And I mentioned other sources above without going into the individual church. prayers, liturgy etc.

A whole theology has been woven out of the ark thesis, a verse in Genesis, a verse in Revelation, etc. I find all this insufficient to justify the position Mary has gained over the years within the Church. I certainly find no scriptural evidence of either the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption. The Bible doesn’t mention the parents of Mary, and it is mum when it comes to her death. You would have thought that both would have been made plain somewhere in the Bible were they to become infallible doctrines. It seems that if they happened the writers of the gospels and the epistles would have paid considerable attention to them. .

Ah but again Christainity must be researched from all the sources as mentioned above with St Anna, and the Tradition of Churchs established within 10-years of the Cross.

St Irenaeus from the second century and many others would disagree with you. Lets see the Saint and Church or Roys theology? What a choice.

Immaculate, no spot or stain been around forever. I see no evidence from scripture of Marys sin, or that she conceived in sin. If God has people living 900 years and Giants walking around let alone a very long list of Miracles and completed prophecy why would you think He couldn’t preserve Mary from Sin at Her comception?

But, as I said, no problem for those who can believe. My main issue, I presume, is the lack of freedom within the church to take exception to any such teachings. I tend to respect well-informed conscience and am a bit skeptical when it comes to beliefs that arose in the Greco-Roman days and cannot be substantiated somewhere in scripture. I wish the church would permit a degree of tolerance for other views…

You keep saying you have no problem, but its apparent you do, as you keep talking united Christianity while promoting division. Mary is NOT going anywhere in the Apostolic Churchs, She has been a Mystery in ALL for 2000 years.

I know, I know. The Church cannot be wrong. And then I remember Galileo. And I recall Abelard’s Sic et Non. Etc. Have I been corrupted by my education or the freedom Americans like me treasure? I studied early church history and the Church Fathers years ago - along with the scriptures - and these studies led to my skepticism. Simply too many contradictions, uncertainties and the likelihood of pagan influences as early Christianity was competing with cults that emphasized a goddess or two. Sorry…

indefectibility of the Church is a gift from Christ to the Church by which she is preserved to the end of the age as the “institution of salvation”. There resides “Infallible” I doubt an argument can be a success since the Church is exactly where Christ established it 2000 years later and withstood every evil and temporal ruler. Bad men are expected, weeds grow with the Flowers, that is the Church. Prevail is the promise not perfection.

God bless people of every creed, color, country and culture. Religion should serve as a bridge and not a barrier.

You should contemplate what your saying, your typed words indicate two different thoughts which seem to indicate unity under your conditions. Not how the Apostolic Churchs work which you should know.

 

[brumano]

Hi, Brumano,

(I hit the Submit key in error… … here is what I wanted to post )

Excellent!

You know… one of the major barriers to learning anything is to think you already know it. Those who are so into ‘Solo Scriptura’ totally ignore:

John 21:25
And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen.

Phillippians 4:9

The things which you learned and received and heard and saw in me, these do, and the God of peace will be with you.

II Thessalonians 2:15

Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.

And of course no where in Scripture does Scripture say it is the only source of God’s Word.

Those who claim that things must exist in the Bible not only create a fase argument - they break from it the firrst chance they get! When you look at John 6 - we find many of the Solo Scriptura cheering section having lost their voice - because they can not take the Words of Christ saying, “If you do not eat my Flesh you have no life in you.” Like the early Jews that Christ was addressing - the Protestants in their own way say, “This is a hard saying” - and walk away from Christ! The Protestants simply dismiss what is written saying He did not mean what He said!

God bless

thnks for the encouraging words.
You know another thing I think the protestants don’t really do enough of on this Sola Scriptura question is self evaluation, I know myself that growing up and reading the Bible I would get a very strong conviction about what a certain book or chapter might mean only to read the same years later and realize I was either mis interpreting for my own purposes, or that I had really shortchanged myself as to a deeper meaning and something that was even more awe inspiring then I could have imagined at first. The most important of these openings i guess i could call them for me has been this hope in God’s Mercy, this is something I just can’t describe well enough that our Mother the church leads us into and we find the scriptures right there in support of her.