Scholar says Baptists neglect lessons from Virgin Mary

[Della]

She is the mother of Christ, but she was not without sin. She lived and died like everybody else. She also was not a perpetual virgin, especially not during and after childbirth… that is ridiculous, even though Pope Pius XII taught that her corporal integrity was not affected by giving birth.

It’s not enough for you to simply make statements. What evidence do you have for your assertions?

First of all, the Archangel Gabriel addressed her, before the Incarnation, as “full of grace”. No other person besides Jesus himself is ever described as having this type of grace.

It is not ridiculous that Mary was a virgin before and after giving birth any more than it is ridiculous that she conceived as a virgin. Why is one possible and the other not possible?

Certainly Mary lived like most others of her station in life, but we have no evidence of her place of death except local traditions. In the early Church the remains of holy people were greatly reverenced and their relics and tombs venerated. There never were any relics of Mary except pieces of her clothing but none of her own body. No bones to venerate anywhere. This isn’t proof of the Assumption, of course, but it is historical evidence that can’t be dismissed merely because one doesn’t want to accept that she was taken bodily into heaven.

 

[estesbob]

You ever witnessed a birth? She conceived as a virgin and then she gave birth. After that there is simply no chance for the hymen to stay intact…

I was not aware that having a ruptured hymen meant loss of virginity?

Had there been anything special about Jesus being born, wouldn’t it have been mentioned in the Bible?

You mean other than the star, the singing angels and the three kings ?

 

[Janet1983]

It’s not enough for you to simply make statements. What evidence do you have for your assertions?

First of all, the Archangel Gabriel addressed her, before the Incarnation, as “full of grace”. No other person besides Jesus himself is ever described as having this type of grace.

It is not ridiculous that Mary was a virgin before and after giving birth any more than it is ridiculous that she conceived as a virgin. Why is one possible and the other not possible?

Certainly Mary lived like most others of her station in life, but we have no evidence of her place of death except local traditions. In the early Church the remains of holy people were greatly reverenced and their relics and tombs venerated. There never were any relics of Mary except pieces of her clothing but none of her own body. No bones to venerate anywhere. This isn’t proof of the Assumption, of course, but it is historical evidence that can’t be dismissed merely because one doesn’t want to accept that she was taken bodily into heaven.

How come that this is exactly how the opposing declarations came into being? Someone declared it (usually a pope) and everybody had to believe it. None of these assertions is biblically funded.

 

[estesbob]

How come that this is exactly how the opposing declarations came into being? Someone declared it (usually a pope) and everybody had to believe it. None of these assertions is biblically funded.

Doctines of the Church just dont spring up from a Pope. The Church doctinres are all grounded in scripture, sacred tradition and teachings of the Magestrium. The perpetual virginity of mary and the immacualte conception were beleived by nearly all chrisitans for the first 1500 years of Christianity. to reject all those who went before us one needs a bit more than their personal interpreation of Scripture.

 

[Della]

Just to add to estesbob’s comments, there is a common misconception that the Bible was written to tell us every doctrine and dogma we need to believe. That was not at all the purpose of the writers of the Bibles many books. Each was written for a specific reason, at a time in which that book’s message was needed (and of course has much for us, or it wouldn’t be the eternal word of God), and in many styles of writing. Nowhere does the Bible tell us that it was written to tell us everything about everything dealing with God and his relationship with man and all the implications of that. No one thought of the Bible as the end all and be all of the faith until the Reformers decided to just declare it so, without any basis for doing it except it would help them refute some of the teachings of the very Church in which they had learned about God, Jesus, the Bible, salvation, etc. They were the ones being presumptuous, not the popes who were the successors of those who were commissioned by Christ himself. But who commissioned Luther or Calvin? No one but themselves.

 

[Janet1983]

I was not aware that having a ruptured hymen meant loss of virginity?

Well when I was Catholic I wasn’t aware of that teaching either…
I just read it somewhere… Thomas Aquinas’s teachings (Summa Theologiae III.28.2) state that Mary gave birth painlessly in miraculous fashion without opening of the womb and without injury to the hymen as did Pope Paul IV’s Cum quorundam of 7 August 1555 at the Council of Trent… I was trying to get a ling for Cum quorundam, but for whatever reason said pope is left out on papalencyclicals.net…

 

[mark_a]

[

A Latina theologian says overreaction to Catholic veneration of the Virgin Mary has caused Baptists to miss important biblical teaching associated with the mother of Jesus.
](http://www.abpnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4269&Itemid=53)

Huh!

That’s exactly what Billy Graham says.

 

[Zenas]

Yes, perhaps Protestants should give a bit more attention to Mary. But the problem has been that Mariology has gone much too far in the Catholic Church. When I attend mass (as I often do) visible signs and symbols often appear to make more out of Mary than Jesus. I sense that the"Hail Mary" is a much more popular prayer than the “Our Father”. Etc. One cannot help but wonder if pagan goddess worship didn’t invade Catholicism way back when. After all, the first books of the New Testament were the epistles of Paul, and he doesn’t even mention Mary once in all those letters. Yet, we look to Paul for guidance and instruction when it comes to our core beliefs as Christians.

 I found it interesting to read that on July 26 (or thereabouts) Pope Benedict XVI defrocked Fr. Vlasic, who was former 'spiritual director' of the six visionaries who claimed that Mary visited them 40,000 times over the past 28 years at Medjugorje. Doesn't that suggest something? I am a friend of a couple who went there about 20 years ago. The Catholic wife was sure she saw Mary in the sky. Her Protestant husband didn't see a thing. It makes you wonder. Over thirty nillion pilgrims have visited Medjugorje, many claiming that they also saw Mary. Apparently, Fr. Vlasic has been accused of heresy as well as refusal to cooperate with the Vatican. And he also has been charged with covering up a sexual relationship he had with a nun!  It's difficult to trust such leadership. Witness the recent scandal involving the departed priest who headed the Legionnaires of Mary.

  Hundreds of apparations of Mary have been reported - probably thousands if you go back centuries. She has been seen in everything from a frosted window to a pizza, from a tree trunk to many cloud formations. Many faithful Catholics have been quick to gather, eager to believe. Sorry, but I see this as sheer paganism.

   Perhaps Protestants have not emphasized Mary enough, but certainly Catholicism's obsession with Mary as "Queen of Heaven" and a hundred other 'queenly' titles has been alienating to those who want a reasonable religion that avoids superstition.

Roy, I agree with most of what you have said here but wouldn’t you agree that one man’s religion is another’s superstition? I’m not sure where you draw the line.

 

[Roy5]

A Couple Quick Points

 1. In this particular community, three of the five Catholic churches are named after Mary, the other two after saints.  In all five of them there are statues of Mary, and during May at least several (maybe all) of those statues are crowned in a ceremonious way. Sorry, but this sounds rather alien to me.

  2. The local Italian community has an annual festival during which the image of Mary is carried through the streets, with paper currency hanging from it. Hm.

  3. I did not mean that the 'Hail Mary" is recited at mass, though I have seen worshipers 'saying their beads' during mass, especially in my childhood when the mass was still in Latin. My impression then (as a child-teenager) was that saying the Rosary during worship back then was acceptable, even encouraged. My church and my family certainly permitted us to attend Catholic mass with friends, and I had a rather serious Catholic girlfriend back then. But, of course, she was forbidden by her church to so much as enter mine. Fortunately, Vatican !! brought some of this silliness to an end, even though Pope Benedict not so long ago said Protestant churches were not really churches but 'ecclesial societies' and that Protestant pastor had no authority to officiate over a service of Holy Communion. How are ecumenical Protestants (like me) supposed to react to such condescension? Back to the Rosary: it clearly appears to be the most recited prayer among devout Catholics - by a large, large margin. True, the first part is from the Bible, but the second part is not.

   3. New Testament scholars that I have read - quite a number - indicate that Paul's epistles were written, of course, during his lifetime, while the Gospels came a bit later, beginning with Mark. Frankly, I think it's very significant that in everything Paul wrote to advise the early churches he makes no reference to Mary. The Mary veneration seems to have began in earnest about 300 A. D. I believe it was heavily influenced by Greek and Roman traditions as well as mystery religions. The whole saint emphasis seems to me to be, in large part, a continuation of polytheism-of-sorts, praying to them in lieu of the various gods. There appears to be at least one saint for every occupation, every problem, etc. - altogether, what, roughly 10,000? Quite a number were 'demoted' 30-40 years ago as I recall, among them St. Christopher and St. Nicholas. So I have that right? I admire many saints myself, such as St. Francis of Assisi and St. Augustine. But consider Padre Pio, made a saint not so long ago. He claimed to levitate, bilocate, etc. Do Catholics really have to accept that? To me, it's wildly unbelievable. And many other saints seem enveloped by different legends or myths. 

   4. But perhaps Protestant should give a little more attention to Mary. It likely is true that they were reacting to the over-emphasis on her within Catholicism.

    God bless Catholics, Protestants and all other people of sincere faith. May religion become a bridge and no longer a barrier among us. That must cause Christ considerable pain.

 

[mark_a]

Yes, perhaps Protestants should give a bit more attention to Mary. But the problem has been that Mariology has gone much too far in the Catholic Church.

I just can’t understand why Protestants can’t teach what they believe about Mary without dragging how the Catholic Church “has gone much to far” into the mix. Preach what you believe, not what you perceive as wrong with others’ beliefs.

One cannot help but wonder if pagan goddess worship didn’t invade Catholicism way back when.

Do you think maybe the Greeks ruined Christianity the way Thomas Jefferson believed? Or perhaps the Holy Spirit made a mistake by leading the Church to include The Gospel of (the Greek) Luke in the new testament? Many of the Church’s Marian teachings are rooted in Luke’s parallellisms with 2 Samuel.

Hundreds of apparations of Mary have been reported - probably thousands if you go back centuries. She has been seen in everything from a frosted window to a pizza, from a tree trunk to many cloud formations. Many faithful Catholics have been quick to gather, eager to believe. Sorry, but I see this as sheer paganism.

Which is why so few Marian apparitions are approved as worthy of belief. Oh, and don’t forget the grilled cheese sandwich on ebay a few years ago.

Perhaps Protestants have not emphasized Mary enough, but certainly Catholicism’s obsession with Mary as “Queen of Heaven” and a hundred other ‘queenly’ titles has been alienating to those who want a reasonable religion that avoids superstition.

If Catholics take things too far, then why not try to get it right instead of calling Mary a “vessel”. I’ve heard the insults from Protestants about Mary. Insulting Mary to take a jab at Catholics (and Orthodox, by the way) ain’t going to score any points with the Son of Man.

 

[Siddhartha]

Frankly, I think it’s very significant that in everything Paul wrote to advise the early churches he makes no reference to Mary.

Perhaps Paul himself did not understand the significance of Mary? Perhaps Paul had no idea of Mary’s holiness (which would have been evident at Mary’s Dormition and Assumption into heaven)? Or perhaps Paul did know of Mary’s holiness, but did not mention it in the letters he wrote to the churches because such knowledge was not essential to the Gospel?

Paul didn’t mention the virgin birth, either, if I’m not mistaken.

 

[brb2]

I attend Mass every Sunday and Holy Day of Obligation and the only time Mary is every mentioned in the Mass (unless it’s a Mass in honor of her) is in the Nicene Creed and at the Intercessions at the Altar. Otherwise, Jesus is the entire focus.

Catholicism isn’t “obsessed” with Mary.

!

I’m a Baptist convert to Catholicism. And I’m amazed how little Catholics show deference / motherly respect to Mary.

Sometimes seems like I’m the only one who kneels before her after Mass … to thank her for helping lead me first to her Son, and later to his Church.

 

[onenow1]

Perhaps Paul himself did not understand the significance of Mary? Perhaps Paul had no idea of Mary’s holiness (which would have been evident at Mary’s Dormition and Assumption into heaven)? Or perhaps Paul did know of Mary’s holiness, but did not mention it in the letters he wrote to the churches because such knowledge was not essential to the Gospel?

Paul didn’t mention the virgin birth, either, if I’m not mistaken.{QUOTE]

Perhaps because Luke was the author of acts and many of the letter’s of St.Paul, not to metion the Gospel of Luke where he indeed mentions Mary.:yup: {/Quote]

Peace and God Bless,onenow1

 

[kalt]

Mary was a virgin who conceived Jesus Christ by the will of God, through the Holy Spirit and with her own consent.
She is the mother of Christ, but she was not without sin. She lived and died like everybody else. She also was not a perpetual virgin, especially not during and after childbirth… that is ridiculous, even though Pope Pius XII taught that her corporal integrity was not affected by giving birth.

There is something special about that: She gave herself over into the service of the most high and that is something we should aspire to do too. God is almighty and we are His creatures. He made us, so what makes you assume that God using someone is not special?

All of this shows her devotion towards God. A devotion that many others have had throughout history till today.
This devotion however does not make her into a mediatrix and it does not make her the mother of all Christians or the co-redemptrix or the queen of heaven or even the mother of God.

Do you believe that Jesus is God? If He is, then Mary is the mother of God. If you don’t believe that Jesus is God, who or what is he?

 

[kalt]

Well when I was Catholic I wasn’t aware of that teaching either…
I just read it somewhere… Thomas Aquinas’s teachings (Summa Theologiae III.28.2) state that Mary gave birth painlessly in miraculous fashion without opening of the womb and without injury to the hymen as did Pope Paul IV’s Cum quorundam of 7 August 1555 at the Council of Trent… I was trying to get a ling for Cum quorundam, but for whatever reason said pope is left out on papalencyclicals.net…

Do we really need a 6th grade biology lesson here? Many women were accused of fornication because of their physical condition. Such “experts” in anatomy have no business dictating what we know today.

I think it’s equally ridiculous that Christians put limits on what God can and can’t do, what he did and didn’t do, based on nothing but a cursory knowledge of human anatomy and what “should” be.

 

[kalt]

A Couple Quick Points

1. In this particular community, three of the five Catholic churches are named after Mary, the other two after saints. In all five of them there are statues of Mary, and during May at least several (maybe all) of those statues are crowned in a ceremonious way. Sorry, but this sounds rather alien to me.
2. The local Italian community has an annual festival during which the image of Mary is carried through the streets, with paper currency hanging from it. Hm.
3. I did not mean that the 'Hail Mary" is recited at mass, though I have seen worshipers ‘saying their beads’ during mass, especially in my childhood when the mass was still in Latin. My impression then (as a child-teenager) was that saying the Rosary during worship back then was acceptable, even encouraged. My church and my family certainly permitted us to attend Catholic mass with friends, and I had a rather serious Catholic girlfriend back then. But, of course, she was forbidden by her church to so much as enter mine. Fortunately, Vatican !! brought some of this silliness to an end, even though Pope Benedict not so long ago said Protestant churches were not really churches but ‘ecclesial societies’ and that Protestant pastor had no authority to officiate over a service of Holy Communion. How are ecumenical Protestants (like me) supposed to react to such condescension? Back to the Rosary: it clearly appears to be the most recited prayer among devout Catholics - by a large, large margin. True, the first part is from the Bible, but the second part is not.
4. New Testament scholars that I have read - quite a number - indicate that Paul’s epistles were written, of course, during his lifetime, while the Gospels came a bit later, beginning with Mark. Frankly, I think it’s very significant that in everything Paul wrote to advise the early churches he makes no reference to Mary. The Mary veneration seems to have began in earnest about 300 A. D. I believe it was heavily influenced by Greek and Roman traditions as well as mystery religions. The whole saint emphasis seems to me to be, in large part, a continuation of polytheism-of-sorts, praying to them in lieu of the various gods. There appears to be at least one saint for every occupation, every problem, etc. - altogether, what, roughly 10,000? Quite a number were ‘demoted’ 30-40 years ago as I recall, among them St. Christopher and St. Nicholas. So I have that right? I admire many saints myself, such as St. Francis of Assisi and St. Augustine. But consider Padre Pio, made a saint not so long ago. He claimed to levitate, bilocate, etc. Do Catholics really have to accept that? To me, it’s wildly unbelievable. And many other saints seem enveloped by different legends or myths.
5. But perhaps Protestant should give a little more attention to Mary. It likely is true that they were reacting to the over-emphasis on her within Catholicism.

God bless Catholics, Protestants and all other people of sincere faith. May religion become a bridge and no longer a barrier among us. That must cause Christ considerable pain.

I know that you mean to portray the Marian festival and focus as a bad, but it simply isn’t bad. It’s good!

The Hail Mary comes from the Bible, so this prayer focus predates the 4th century.

The earliest written prayer found to date is from the 3rd century.

We fly to thy patronage, O holy Mother of God;
Despise not our petitions in our necessities, but deliver us always from all dangers,
O glorious and blessed Virgin. Amen.

This doesn’t mean that written or spoken prayer wasn’t common before then, but this prayer, and the Bible, show that prayer to Mary comes very early in Christianity. It is not of pagan origin.

The saints weren’t demoted - so to speak or for real.

 

[Janet1983]

Do we really need a 6th grade biology lesson here?

Do you really think I wouldn’t know that?
Come one! I finished school, have a college degree and I am married. Practical and theoretical knowledge should do to assume that a hymen would not survive birth… During history there were however people who claimed that God made it easy for Mary and the question is: How can we base such a strange assumption on scripture and why should He do that?
We can’t base it on scripture and there is no good reason to assume that this teaching that was talked about back then was true. All this does is emphasize Mary’s supposed status, but emphasis is not a good reason to assume truthfulness.

 

[estesbob]

Do you really think I wouldn’t know that?
Come one! I finished school, have a college degree and I am married. Practical and theoretical knowledge should do to assume that a hymen would not survive birth… During history there were however people who claimed that God made it easy for Mary and the question is: How can we base such a strange assumption on scripture and why should He do that?
We can’t base it on scripture and there is no good reason to assume that this teaching that was talked about back then was true. All this does is emphasize Mary’s supposed status, but emphasis is not a good reason to assume truthfulness.

During History there have been pople who believe Elvis is still alive-that does not make it Catholic Doctrine. You have created a straw man and are now vigorously tearing it down.

 

[Roy5]

A BRIEF REJOINDER

 I have never heard a Protestant criticize Mary. That is ridiculous. This thread raises the issue of Protestants and Mary, which is why we are discussing her here. There is a big gap between Catholic veneration of Mary and Protestant appreciation of Mary. This became accentuated when in 1854 Pius IX defined the Immaculate Conception - Mary the only human to be born without sin - and in 1950 when Pius XII defined the Assumption of Mary

. Most Protestants who give the subject thought (and many don’t) simply disagree with several key Catholic doctrines and rites that focus on Mary. Ecumenical Protestants like myself are willing to respect different Christians and their beliefs. We believe in the ‘big tent’ - the idea that Christians should be free to embrace various understandings of the gospel. The problem arises in large part because the Catholic Church keeps insisting that it alone has the full truth and that Protestantism in whatever form is a heresy that needs to be condemned. Sorry, but that’s what I keep reading here on CAF. Fortunately, millions of Catholic laity are more open-minded than that, including my Catholic friends. Different strokes for different folks. I’m sure that God in God’s enormous wisdom and compassion will not condemn Christians who seek to serve the Kingdom but have opinions that differ from one another.

  Some people need an authoritarian faith that preaches the one and only truth. Perhaps it gives them a feeling of superiority. Many of us don't mind that, but we want to explore issues of faith without limits imposed by any church. My own view is that this contributes to the majesty and mystery of God.

  God bless all those who seek to serve our one Lord, and may religion become a bridge and not a barrier between us.

 

[estesbob]

ASome people need an authoritarian faith that preaches the one and only truth. Perhaps it gives them a feeling of superiority. Many of us don’t mind that, but we want to explore issues of faith without limits imposed by any church. My own view is that this contributes to the majesty and mystery of God.

.

So there are many verions of the TRUTH? Or is this a case of some people not wanting to accept any authority greater than themsleves and using this authority to creat a god in their own image an likeness?