Questions on Mary from Protestant 101

[Protestant101]

Hi Mary3

I quite enjoyed your posts. They were done in a lovely spirit; and I will look forward to coming back and discussing your points.

We have agreement in several areas; especially in your comments re typology in the Bible.

I have to be gone for atleast a few days now; but will be back asap.

 

[CherryBomb]

You seem to be only referencing “Tradition” from the kind which SS Protestants see as condemned by the Bible. The Bible only supports the kind of Tradition which does not contradict the Bible, nor which adds things which are not in the Bible. “Tradition” as in the kind the Bible supports, is simply one of God’s ways to portray already existing truths; not to cook up new ones. Biblical Tradition, is not in and of itself a doctrine; rather it is a way to illustrate or symbolize a doctrine. The Bible does this most remarkably within the context of the OT sanctuary service; and within the context of the OT Exodus Movement. (for two examples of many).

But this is completely subjective. Where one sees biblical proof, another does not. People in this thread have given plenty of examples from scripture illustrating why we have the understanding of Mary that we do. You think we’ve “cooked up something new” while we see a firm scriptural basis. It’s the same with anything else. Look at any thread here on confession. Catholics give scriptural support for the Sacrament, but Protestants disagree completely with the interpretation. I’m not trying to be obtuse, I promise, it’s just we’re operating from two totally different understandings. (And this goes the other way, Protestants cite scripture and Catholics disagree because we don’t understand it that way).

Reason number 5346 I’m grateful Jesus was so wise and left us His Church to guide and deepen our understanding of Scripture

 

[Protestant101]

But this is completely subjective. Where one sees biblical proof, another does not. People in this thread have given plenty of examples from scripture illustrating why we have the understanding of Mary that we do. You think we’ve “cooked up something new” while we see a firm scriptural basis. It’s the same with anything else. Look at any thread here on confession. Catholics give scriptural support for the Sacrament, but Protestants disagree completely with the interpretation. I’m not trying to be obtuse, I promise, it’s just we’re operating from two totally different understandings. (And this goes the other way, Protestants cite scripture and Catholics disagree because we don’t understand it that way).

Reason number 5346 I’m grateful Jesus was so wise and left us His Church to guide and deepen our understanding of Scripture

“Reason 5346” eh? You are funny. I don’t see this as "subjective at all; but I do agree that we are on two different planes…

What I see Catholics as avoiding here though is the fact that the Bible speaks of two kinds of tradition; the one it condemns, and the other it condones. This is not subjective; for I have given two of a number of possible examples of what the Bible condones regarding “Tradition.” This kind of Tradition is impossible for us to “interpret” subjectively; for Jesus Himself is quite specific:

Mar 7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
Mar 7:8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
Mar 7:9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
Mat 15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

Is Jesus being “subjective” in this Scripture? It seems pretty clear.

The Apostles were also clear on this truth about Tradition which Jesus condemned:

**1Pe 1:18 **Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;

Surely, if the Church is going to quote Tradition; they would be quoting what the Bible says of it; there is no other reliable source:

2Th 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which **he received of us. **

The Tradition herein spoken of has nothing to do with Mary; for she was/is not Tradition. What the Bible says of Mary is also clear, there is no doubt or subjectivity to it.

Are there any official Catholic teachings re Mary, which would be considered by Catholics as “Tradition?” I would be interested to hear those.

 

[cor]

Surely, if the Church is going to quote Tradition; they would be quoting what the Bible says of it; there is no other reliable source

The Apostles taught not only in writing but also orally and their teachings were transmitted through the life of the Church – through preaching, through liturgical prayer and so forth. All of this constitutes Tradition. One example of a reliable source of Tradition outside of the Bible would be if all the early Christian witnesses were in agreement on something as having been handed down from the apostles.

 

[CherryBomb]

What I see Catholics as avoiding here though is the fact that the Bible speaks of two kinds of tradition; the one it condemns, and the other it condones. This is not subjective; for I have given two of a number of possible examples of what the Bible condones regarding “Tradition.” This kind of Tradition is impossible for us to “interpret” subjectively; for Jesus Himself is quite specific:

No, we get the difference. We just disagree when you label our tradition as the bad kind. There’s a difference between human traditions and sacred, spiritual Tradition that has been handed down orally throughout the ages. You just think ours falls in the first category, while we firmly believe it falls in the second.

2 Tim. 3:14–15
2 Tim. 2:2
2 Thess. 2:15
Luke 10:16
2 Tim. 2:2
John 14:25-26, 16:13

The Tradition herein spoken of has nothing to do with Mary; for she was/is not Tradition. What the Bible says of Mary is also clear, there is no doubt or subjectivity to it.

Are there any official Catholic teachings re Mary, which would be considered by Catholics as “Tradition?” I would be interested to hear those.

If it’s not subjective we wouldn’t be having this conversation. What do you want that hasn’t already been posted? Other than a complete agreement with your POV? Marian theology is a part of oral Catholic Tradition and we see the truth reflected in scripture. You don’t. So where’s that leave us?

At any rate, I’m assuming the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception would qualify as Catholic Tradition re Mary.

 

[sterryfamily]

The fact is that Sacred Tradition is that which has always been held by Christians since the beginning of the Church - BEFORE the Bible. The Bible is a part of Sacred Tradition.

When you see that all the ancient churches (and even Luther and Calvin et al.) hold the same Marian doctrines, you understand that the protestants are the ones who have invented new beliefs when it comes to Mary.

 

[sterryfamily]

:

What I see Catholics as avoiding here though is the fact that the Bible speaks of two kinds of tradition; the one it condemns, and the other it condones. This is not subjective; for I have given two of a number of possible examples of what the Bible condones regarding “Tradition.” This kind of Tradition is impossible for us to “interpret” subjectively; for Jesus Himself is quite specific:

.

Sacred Tradition is that which has been passed down to us by the apostles through their successors.

All the writers and authors of the New Testament were Catholics and it was the Catholic Church who, comparing the many books in circulation against her Sacred Tradition, determined (by the guidance of the Holy Spirit which Christ promised to her) which of those books were inspired and therefore belong in the Bible (at the councils of Hippo and Carthage in the 390’s). So it is Tradition which was used to determine Scripture, not the other way around.

Some good articles on Tradition can be found here: catholic.com/library/scripture_tradition.asp

Thanks

 

[CherryBomb]

Sacred Tradition is that which has been passed down to us by the apostles through their successors.

All the writers and authors of the New Testament were Catholics and it was the Catholic Church who, comparing the many books in circulation against her Sacred Tradition, determined (by the guidance of the Holy Spirit which Christ promised to her) which of those books were inspired and therefore belong in the Bible (at the councils of Hippo and Carthage in the 390’s). So it is Tradition which was used to determine Scripture, not the other way around.

That’s an excellent point, thank you!

 

[Maria1212]

Dear MarysRoses

Quite frankly, your cliches about The Clear Word, or about Ellen G White are just that. I, for one, have never used The Clear Word, or Ellen White’s writings on this forum; and I have been with you guys for over a year. I was even on the old forum that was hacked. So I am not just pretending here. You need to note that I am not the slightest bit intimidated by all you post from anti-adventist cult sites. I have seen it all so many times; that it really has very little effect on me. I would prefer to continue discussing Catholic Doctrines, not Dale’s doctrines.

I suggested that interested forum members might want to check out what Ellen White says with the sincere desire to further the discussion on Mary. The repeated points from Dale, which you keep bringing up, in almost all topics that I post in are barely worth addressing in my mind. I see no need to address his “message” any further on this Catholic Forum.

As I said; Adventists follow the teachings of Ellen White, as we also do with others, when the said teachings are proven correct by the Bible.

Perhaps we can examine some things Ellen White has stated about Mary? Dale doesn’t talk much about things like that; but this thread is about Mary, so I will post something that Mrs White has said about Mary, and invite discussion.

From the book, Desire Of Ages, we read

You can download a number of Ellen White’s books here, including Desire Of Ages.

Dear Protestant 101,

I have been out of town for two weeks so am just now catching up on your posts and have not gotten to the end of the thread yet. I am a little confused–and maybe it is just jet lag–but this thread was started to explain why Catholics believe what we believe regarding Mary,and to answer questions from non-Catholic Christians about Catholics beliefs with regard to Mary.

I know the thread has diversified from the original topic as previous posts built upon each other, and that is good. But I am confused because on one hand, you are suggesting that some non-Adventists perceive Adventists to put more emphasis on Ellen White than they actually do. But then a few posts later, you are posting Ellen White`s writings for us to read.

Reading writings by Ellen White will not help non-Adventists understand Adventists beliefs for the very reason you cited above. Each individual Adventists places a different amount of emphasis on Ellen White. Am I misunderstanding what you wrote?

Moreover, as others have pointed about, it is common knowledge that Ellen White plagarized. Even some Adventists acknowledge this, but argue that it was common practice during her time to copy another person`s writings without citing them or giving them credit. Regardless of the common customs during her time, it means we cannot distinguish what was her individual opinion, what was her" inspired" opinion, and what she merely copied from others.

Finally, as you also correctly pointed out, different Protestants, including Adventists, have much division amongst themselves, so it is not fair to categorize all non-Catholic Christians all in the same “box.”

My purpose in starting this thread was to explain why Catholics believe what we believe regarding Mary, and to address misperceptions about what non-Catholics believe Catholics believe regarding Mary. There is alot of misinformation and misunderstandings in the Protestant community on what the Catholic Church actually teaches regarding Mary. If you would like to discuss Ellen White`s views or Adventist views on Mary, it is best to start another thread.

I apologize in advance if I misunderstood what you wrote or am missing something. Again, I am still working my way down the thread.

Sincerely,

Maria1212

 

[Maria1212]

You are free to post your perspectives, you have to expect you will be challenged. Dale Ratzlaff is not my source for questioning Ellen White’s credentials as a ‘prophet’. Your own denomination has had to admit to the ‘copying’ and try to give an explanation for some of her writings that are obviously false and no longer followed. Any one can google the keywords and choose what sources they want to read and consider credible.

So you are saying Jesus did not keep his promise to the Church that the gates of hell would not prevail against it? That there is no way to know who’s interpretations are correct except by subjective feelings of ‘I believe’?

It took less than five minutes to find several:

“Mary often remonstrated with Jesus, and urged Him to conform to the usages of the rabbis.”

“At times she wavered between Jesus and His brothers, who did not believe that He was the Sent of
God;…” DA pg. 90

Curious, where is this in scripture? The bible never says what Mary is thinking or what her motives were.

“Yet she would have been more than human if there had not mingled with this holy joy a trace of
the fond mother’s natural pride. As she saw the many glances bent upon Jesus, she longed to have Him
prove to the company that He was really the Honored of God. She hoped there might be opportunity for
Him to work a miracle before them.” DA pg 145

Where in the bible does it say Mary asked Jesus to do this first miracle out of pride?

“Yet Mary did not understand Christ’s mission.” DA Pg 56

Actually, there are 30 pages or more commenting on the ‘silent’ years of Jesus’s youth and childhood. A time about which scripture makes only a few words of comment. So exactly how is she being ‘biblical’? Obviously, she is drawing on extra-biblical sources, her imagination or both. You are welcome to believe her if you want to but it hardly carries the weight of scripture.

A little gem I just can’t pass up an opportunity to mention, is Ellen’s little temperance lecture which she adds to the miracle at cana story:

“The wine which Christ provided for the feast, and that which He gave to the disciples as a symbol of His own blood, was the pure juice of the grape.”

Pure supposition on her part and in contradiction to the context of the story.

I don’t question we are obligated to our parents, I question her interpretation of that passage. I still do.

The bible records his words, the interpretation is your own. Or do you consider questioning you or Ellen’s interpretations to be the equivalent of questioning Jesus?

Mary is the first Christian and our Mother, and is truly our example. Ellen’s depiction of Mary though, is that she is weak, confused, prideful and sinful, whatever other flowery descriptions she uses when saying some positive things. If you choose to believe Ellen’s descriptions and interpretations, no wonder you cannot understand Catholic teaching about Mary.

"

MarysRoses

Hi MarysRoses,

I am still catching up on this thread but just read your above post. Thank you for taking the time to write it. I find Adventist utilization of Ellen Whites writings so confusing and contradicting. What you cited above, from the White writings Protestant 101 suggested we read, is shocking to me due to the way it is not supported by Scripture at all. That is definitley not “Bible alone” not to mention completely abiblical, and contradicts to the teachings of the Apostles and early Christians.

Sincerely,

Maria1212

 

[Protestant101]

Hi MarysRoses,

I am still catching up on this thread but just read your above post. Thank you for taking the time to write it. I find Adventist utilization of Ellen Whites writings so confusing and contradicting. What you cited above, from the White writings Protestant 101 suggested we read, is shocking to me due to the way it is not supported by Scripture at all. That is definitley not “Bible alone” not to mention completely abiblical, and contradicts to the teachings of the Apostles and early Christians.

Sincerely,

Maria1212

I can appreciate your concern Maria1212. As I tried to explain a few posts ago; I only mentioned what I did re Ellen White because someone else initially mentioned her here. I felt it a duty to therefore respond to that; but I did not want to get into any great details, as I was also trying to be compliant with sticking to the original topic of this thread. To attach other motives to my invitation to forum members to read what Ellen White’s writings on Mary, is of course your perogative; I just want it known that you do mis-state many things about her, and the Adventist perceptions of her writings, and their authority.

As you have mentioned to me many times already, “Protestants have so many misconceptions about Catholic beliefs;” I feel that Catholics also have many misconceptions about our’s; and, of course, they do “interpret” our beliefs from a much different perspective.

If you are going to quote the like of cultists such as Retzlaf, then I will try to give the other side of the coin so that interested forum members may make a properly informed decision.

 

[Protestant101]

Desire of Ages, Page 70
The child Jesus did not receive instruction in the synagogue schools. His mother was His first human teacher. From her lips and from the scrolls of the prophets, He learned of heavenly things. The very words which He Himself had spoken to Moses for Israel He was now taught at His mother’s knee. As He advanced from childhood to youth, He did not seek the schools of the rabbis. He needed not the education to be obtained from such sources; for God was His instructor.

I don’t think you can say this is “not Biblical” whether or not you explicitly find such words in Scripture. There is nothing in Scripture to say this cannot/could not have happened.

Mary was instrumental in teaching Jesus from God’s Word. Do Catholics deny this?