The most intense debate between Catholic and Protestant:Mary the Mother of God

[tqualey]

Hi, 1HolyCatholic,

About the only comment I will make is that these SS folks may think they have trumped the arugment - but - private interpretation has already been soundly condemned in Scripture itself - 2Peter 1:20. Their insistance that they have the last word based on their private interpretation is truly sad indeed.

God bless

It should be painfully obvious that what is written in the Bible simply doesn’t matter to Sola Scriptura adherents, it is their interpretation that matters. No matter how good your case is their personal interpretation trumps you every time. It’s not just a rail against the Church, they do it to other Protestants too. That’s why there are tens of thousands of Sola Scrioptura Protestant denominations all teaching different “truths” from the same Catholic book - the Bible.:bible1:

 

[inkaneer]

Hi, PLeeD,

I don’t want to be critical - but if this was your idea of a ‘Cliff’s Notes’ summary of the two Chapters of Luke … you would have crashed and burned! Now, this is embarrassing…correcting a Protestant about the Bible… But here goes:

Luke 1 consists of 80 verses. There is the:

Introduction 01-04
Zechariah’s experience in believing God 05-26
Mary’s experience in believing God 27-38
Mary visits Elizabeth 39-58
Naming of John the Baptist 59-80

Luke 2 consists of 52 verses. There is the:

Birth of Christ 01-21
Simeon and Anna 22-40
Finding of Child Jesus in Temple 41-52

Now, this is NOT going to requrie a leap of faith - merely reading what is there. Look at the amount of space devoted to Mary and actions taken by Mary in thesse 132 verses. Yes, the Birth of Christ is there Lk 2:2-21 but look what attention is given to Mary. Now, this is not an idel exercise in counting verses - but a demonstration that Scripture spends a lot of time and detail describing what the Mother of God did. And, when you consider that this is the Inspired Word of God … well… to my way of thinking, dismissing this as unimportant is a rash indeed.

Christ died for our sins and opend the Gates of Heaven - Mary didn’t. But, May’s “Yes” acting through the Grace of God made it all possible. Her words to the servants at the Marriage Feast of Cana resound to this day, “Do whatever He tells you.” Yes, I think she is truly worthy of special honor - and, if you don’t … well… you may want to reconsider your position while you have the time…

God bless

Again I say, the reason behind all this is that the protestants have an abridged concept of the Incarnation. To them it is "the word made flesh.’ It is not the plan of God for the redemption of man thru the cooperation of a woman selected by God to be the mother of His only begotten Son. To them “God is no respecter of person” so He “uses” Mary to achieve His purpose. In other words God does not respect Mary. He uses her like some men use women.

 

[1holycatholic]

Hi, 1HolyCatholic,

About the only comment I will make is that these SS folks may think they have trumped the arugment - but - private interpretation has already been soundly condemned in Scripture itself - 2Peter 1:20. Their insistance that they have the last word based on their private interpretation is truly sad indeed.

God bless

That and the fact that the Bible states that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth - not anyone who picks up a Catholic book and puts their own spin on it.

 

[1holycatholic]

How to Explain Mary to a Sola Scriptura Protestant

 

[panevino]

Originally Posted by tqualey
Hi, 1HolyCatholic,

About the only comment I will make is that these SS folks may think they have trumped the arugment - but - private interpretation has already been soundly condemned in Scripture itself - 2Peter 1:20. Their insistance that they have the last word based on their private interpretation is truly sad indeed.

God bless

I had impression 2Pet1:20 is not stating that privately interpreting scripture is wrong, rather that what is written is not of man but of God.

I think there are other relevant versus , ie: acts 8:30-31
and 2 Peter 3:15-16
1 Tim3:15 &
Acts 15:7-14

 

[placido]

I had impression 2Pet1:20 is not stating that privately interpreting scripture is wrong, rather that what is written is not of man but of God.

Of God but for man and God has put a mechanism in place to interpret what is of God for man – the Church, not the individual.

placido

 

[panevino]

Agreed per the versus I listed

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Panevino,

Thank you for the additional verses. Here is the actual quote for 2 Peter 1:20-21

**20 Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, 21 for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God. **

We need to distinguish between the interpretation made by the Magisterium and those made by private individuals (and, this is what Peter is addressing in his second letter). II think that private interpretation of scripture has lead to the thousands upon thousands of competing protestant groups all claiming to have the truth - and while all of them have ‘some’, none but the Catholic Church has it all. Here are a couple of links:

newadvent.org/cathen/05089a.htm

newadvent.org/cathen/13674a.htm

catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9212clas.asp

catholic.com/library/Fundamentalist_or_Catholic.asp

catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9806qq.asp

God bless

I had impression 2Pet1:20 is not stating that privately interpreting scripture is wrong, rather that what is written is not of man but of God.

I think there are other relevant versus , ie: acts 8:30-31
and 2 Peter 3:15-16
1 Tim3:15 &
Acts 15:7-14

 

[Pitcharan]

Hi, Panevino,

Thank you for the additional verses. Here is the actual quote for 2 Peter 1:20-21

**20 Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, 21 for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God. **

Something more for Panevino on Interpretation of Scriptures:
I recommend this excerpt from THE SINNER’S GUIDE by Louis of Granada:
*“Notwithstanding the power and efficacy of this wisdom with which God fills the souls of the just, no man, however great the light he has received, should refuse to submit his judgment to his lawful superiors, especially the authorized teachers and doctors of the Church. Who ever received greater light than St. Paul, who was raised to the third heaven; or than Moses, who spoke face to face with God? Yet St. Paul went to Jerusalem to confer with the Apostles upon the Gospel which he had received from Christ Himself; and Moses did not disdain to accept the advice of his father-in-law, Jethro, who was a Gentile. For the interior aids of grace do not exclude the exterior succors of the Church. Divine Providence has willed to make them both an aid to our salvation. As the natural heat of our body is stimulated by that of the sun, and the healing powers of nature are aided by exterior remedies, so the light of grace is strengthened by the teaching and direction of the Church. Whoever refuses, therefore, to humble himself and submit to her authority will render himself unworthy of any favor from God.” *

 

[PAboy57]

Just start with 1 Hail Mary a day and she will begin to lead you back to your Savior, Jesus.

We all could use some help and she will always be there caring for you as she did Jesus.

 

[PLeeD]

**20 Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, 21 for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God. **

We need to distinguish between the interpretation made by the Magisterium and those made by private individuals (and, this is what Peter is addressing in his second letter).

The end of 2 Peter 1 seems to clearly be establishing the divine inspiration of scripture, but says nothing regarding how we should read or interpret it. That passage also doesn’t establish any sole authority for interpretation, it only says that we should recognize scripture as having been inspired by the Holy Spirit working in Godly men.

As evidence that verse 20 refers to the inspiration of scripture, and not to interpretation of it, look at verse 16. Peter is saying that we do not follow fables that are skillfully devised by man. He says that what he teaches he learned as an eyewitness to the power of Jesus.

Then, in verse 21, Peter says scripture didn’t come from the will of man, but was born of the Holy Spirit.

I have to say that attempts at turning that clear teaching in order to apply it to interpretation of scripture doesn’t hold up well under examination.

As far as Acts 15, with Philip and the eunuch, the eunuch was reading prophesy about the coming of Jesus. The eunuch knew nothing of Jesus’ existence, and he didn’t have the NT. How could he have understood that prophecy?

So Acts 15 also says nothing regarding sola scriptura.

 

[nickybr38]

20 Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, 21 for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God.

Um, which Scripture was Peter talking about? At this time the ‘Scripture’ was the Old Testament… and the letters were just that, letters.

I’m not sure if I’m the only one but when I read this verse I read it like this (my paraphrasing).

“know that Scripture cannot be personally interpretated. Because it was written by human beings moved by the Holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God.”

Am I the only one who understands it that way?

Basically it was written by men but inspired by God and thus only those who are equally inspired by God can interpret it. And this is why the Church is in place. For people like me.

 

[PLeeD]

Um, which Scripture was Peter talking about? At this time the ‘Scripture’ was the Old Testament… and the letters were just that, letters.

Since in Chapter 3 Peter references Paul’s epistles along with “other” writings and scriptures, I assume he is talking about both OT texts and newer writings used to teach God’s will that are recognized to be born of the Holy Spirit.

I’m not sure if I’m the only one but when I read this verse I read it like this (my paraphrasing).

“know that Scripture cannot be personally interpretated(sp). Because it was written by human beings moved by the Holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God.”

Am I the only one who understands it that way?

Obviously not. But, in the surrounding context, it doesn’t seem to me that your understanding is what Peter meant. I realize that mine is clearly a minority opinion on this forum.

Basically it was written by men but inspired by God and thus only those who are equally inspired by God can interpret it. And this is why the Church is in place. For people like me.

IMO you are reading extra meaning into that passage. I’m not saying you are wrong to hold your opinion, I just don’t find that these verses back up your position.

 

[nickybr38]

Since in Chapter 3 Peter references Paul’s epistles along with “other” writings and scriptures, I assume he is talking about both OT texts and newer writings used to teach God’s will that are recognized to be born of the Holy Spirit.

Obviously not. But, in the surrounding context, it doesn’t seem to me that your understanding is what Peter meant. I realize that mine is clearly a minority opinion on this forum.

IMO you are reading extra meaning into that passage. I’m not saying you are wrong to hold your opinion, I just don’t find that these verses back up your position.

Fair enough. That’s just how I always understood those passages. And yours is not clearly a minority opinion. It’s just those that agree are not sharing on this particular thread.

 

[Roy5]

I wish the scriptures were clearer on the precise role Mary should play in Christian doctrine and worship. There is considerable vagueness. For example, the three times that Mary appears in the gospels, between the Nativity and the Crucifixion are not all that clear. I always have been troubled that Mary and Joseph had left Jerusalem without apparently knowing where 12-year-old Jesus was. And both times Mary is mentioned elsewhere before the scene at Golgotha are ambiguous. Matt. 12:48. John 2:4.

Even more curious to me is that St. Paul, who apparently wrote the oldest books of the New Testament, does not once mention Mary. If Mary was to be so central in the Christian faith, why was that? He certainly covered all sorts of theological matters.

As for the Immaculate Conception, at no place does the Bible mention the parents of Mary, a tradition apparently taken from non-canonical sources. Ditto for the Assumption. Then you have the complex issues around whether Mary lived a sinles slife, whether Jesus had siblings, etc.

If God expected everybody to agree on Mary we might have been provided clearer material to work from. References in Genesis and Revelation are vague, at best.

For those who accept without question the teachings of the Magisterium, no problem. For others it all can be rather murky.

 I certainly honor Mary, of course, as the nmother of Christ. But as for the development of veneration of Mary and all the titles given her - well, not so sure about that. I always have been skeptical of anything that might have been influenced by the pagan envirnoment within which the early church took shape. Protestants may have discarded too much, Catholics may have added too much????

 

[nickybr38]

I wish the scriptures were clearer on the precise role Mary should play in Christian doctrine and worship. There is considerable vagueness. For example, the three times that Mary appears in the gospels, between the Nativity and the Crucifixion are not all that clear. I always have been troubled that Mary and Joseph had left Jerusalem without apparently knowing where 12-year-old Jesus was. And both times Mary is mentioned elsewhere before the scene at Golgotha are ambiguous. Matt. 12:48. John 2:4.

Even more curious to me is that St. Paul, who apparently wrote the oldest books of the New Testament, does not once mention Mary. If Mary was to be so central in the Christian faith, why was that? He certainly covered all sorts of theological matters.

As for the Immaculate Conception, at no place does the Bible mention the parents of Mary, a tradition apparently taken from non-canonical sources. Ditto for the Assumption. Then you have the complex issues around whether Mary lived a sinles slife, whether Jesus had siblings, etc.

If God expected everybody to agree on Mary we might have been provided clearer material to work from. References in Genesis and Revelation are vague, at best.

For those who accept without question the teachings of the Magisterium, no problem. For others it all can be rather murky.

 I certainly honor Mary, of course, as the nmother of Christ. But as for the development of veneration of Mary and all the titles given her - well, not so sure about that. I always have been skeptical of anything that might have been influenced by the pagan envirnoment within which the early church took shape. Protestants may have discarded too much, Catholics may have added too much????

To some Christian’s the Bible isn’t clear on the Trinity. The Bible isn’t clear on sin. The Bible isn’t clear on a LOT of things. Because it wasn’t meant to be all we had. It was meant to be a supplement to strong oral traditions.

It seems to me the Jewish faith did not have a concept of Scripture Alone is enough (someone correct me if I’m wrong on this please. :\ )… it makes me wonder why the Christian faith evolved to include such an idea.

 

[inkaneer]

I wish the scriptures were clearer on the precise role Mary should play in Christian doctrine and worship. There is considerable vagueness. For example, the three times that Mary appears in the gospels, between the Nativity and the Crucifixion are not all that clear. I always have been troubled that Mary and Joseph had left Jerusalem without apparently knowing where 12-year-old Jesus was. And both times Mary is mentioned elsewhere before the scene at Golgotha are ambiguous. Matt. 12:48. John 2:4.

Even more curious to me is that St. Paul, who apparently wrote the oldest books of the New Testament, does not once mention Mary. If Mary was to be so central in the Christian faith, why was that? He certainly covered all sorts of theological matters.

As for the Immaculate Conception, at no place does the Bible mention the parents of Mary, a tradition apparently taken from non-canonical sources. Ditto for the Assumption. Then you have the complex issues around whether Mary lived a sinles slife, whether Jesus had siblings, etc.

If God expected everybody to agree on Mary we might have been provided clearer material to work from. References in Genesis and Revelation are vague, at best.

For those who accept without question the teachings of the Magisterium, no problem. For others it all can be rather murky.

 I certainly honor Mary, of course, as the nmother of Christ. But as for the development of veneration of Mary and all the titles given her - well, not so sure about that. I always have been skeptical of anything that might have been influenced by the pagan envirnoment within which the early church took shape. Protestants may have discarded too much, Catholics may have added too much????

Your protestantism is showing. You keep saying, “we might have been provided clearer material to work from…” and referring to Paul writing “the oldest books of the New Testament” along with “at no place does the Bible mention the parents of Mary” as if scripture was the be all and end all of Christianity. It isn’t. First and foremost is the fact that Jesus established a Church and that Church would prevail over the forces of hell. Second Jesus would remain with that Church and that Church would be guided into the Truth by the Holy Spirit. That is what the scripture says Jesus said. Also scripture says that Paul called that Church the pillar and foundation of truth. The idea that scripture has to say this or scripture has to say that for it to be believed is unscriptural. That is a man made tradition of the 16th century. You don’t believe in a Magisterium because you were taught there was no such thing as a Magisterium. You were taught error.

If you don’t think so then explain to me how you can justify sola scriptura scripturally against 2 Thess 2:15.

 

[Roy5]

I’m definitely not a sola scriptura person and have serious differences with Protestant fundamentalists and evangelicals who are. Along life’s way (I come from a mixed Catholic-Protestant heritage) I have become concerned about pagan-like influences upon Christianity. For example, I have read a good deal about the saints (and have heard the Lords tell of them many times on EWTN) and the stories of miracles they performed and such have made me very skeptical. Did Padre Pio, for example, really levitate and bilocate? I have to express honest doubts about such claims.

 As to Mary, my own position at this stage of life (I am a senior) would go like this. Different Christians view Mary differently. Many Catholics focus on veneration as, say, when they say the Rosary.with its numerous 'Hail Marys'. Protestants, generally, tend to minimize her except perhaps at Christmas and when they focus on the 'Seven Last Words' on Good Friday. I suspect that there are millions of Christians like myself. Obviously Mary was special as the mother of Christ. But, haven't some Catholics gone too far in their Marian emphasis? Shouldn't the church be open enough and tolerant enough to accept a variety of opinions on this matter? Years ago I happened to be in Rome when Pius XII defined the Assumption (1950). It became just another barrier between the Protestant majority here in the USA and Catholicism.  

 Devout Catholics generally accept whatever the church teaches. I don't knock them for their faithfilness, but what of us who can't honestly do that? Does God really insist that we follow a church rather than our conscience? Or, our brain? I assume the issue boils down to authority. I respect those who can believe everything they are asked to believe. I have lived many years and over time have become more and more inclined to appreciate a wide variety of interpretations and beliefs. This universe is so awesome that I spend far more time feeling that awe and worshiping our Creator than worrying about such trivia as whether Mary committed any sin or not. My guess is that she probably did, and that doesn't trouble me for a minute. It makes her more of a human mother, wife, and daughter. To make her sinless is to make her seem like some sort of goddess, and I can't bring myself to do that.

 God bless all of his children of every creed and color and country.

 

[PLeeD]

As far as Acts 15, with Philip and the eunuch, the eunuch was reading prophesy about the coming of Jesus. The eunuch knew nothing of Jesus’ existence, and he didn’t have the NT. How could he have understood that prophecy?

So Acts 15 also says nothing regarding sola scriptura.

Sorry, I meant Acts 8.

 

[PLeeD]

It seems to me the Jewish faith did not have a concept of Scripture Alone is enough (someone correct me if I’m wrong on this please. :\ )… it makes me wonder why the Christian faith evolved to include such an idea.

I’m no expert on Judaism either, but it seems to me that in Jesus’ time it was the straying from the spirit of God’s teaching in the Torah, and the institution of man-made traditions, that led to the somewhat tyrannical system the Pharisees had established. Pardon me for saying it, but in some ways I see the Catholic system traveling the same path. That is, putting a system in place that disallows any deviation from rulings of earthly authority.

That’s not to say that much or most of what the CC church teaches is truly born of the Holy Spirit. It’s just hard for an outsider to discern what is and what might not be. For me personally, having come up in protestant tradition, all I have to compare is what is in the Bible, and many of the scriptural arguments for the more “sacred tradition” aspects of Catholicism just don’t stand up to my own sense of logic and understanding.

If you don’t think so then explain to me how you can justify sola scriptura scripturally against 2 Thess 2:15.

I wouldn’t justitfy sola scriptura with or against that passage. I don’t even necessarily buy into sola scriptura as a doctrine. But it’s easy to believe that 2 Thess. doesn’t preclude sola scriptura.

Paul was writing to the Thessalonians. He taught them traditions in person, and they heard his spoken word with their own ears. His letter to them reflects that intimate relationship. In 2010, all we have to go by is Paul’s (and the other apostles’s) letters, i.e. scripture.

I understand the Catholic claim to Apostolic succession, and all that entails, but I can’t view any Pope with the same regard as Paul (or, more properly, with Peter). My problem with Catholic tradition is that so much of it seems arbitrary and inefficient. There is a lot about Catholicism that I like, and that my church is in absolute agreement with, but there is also a lot that I would liken to the Pharisees - that is, seemingly man-made inventions passed off as commandments. I’ve read some of the early church father writings, and even there I don’t find references to all of what Catholicism has become.

The best source I have to find God’s will is the writings of the original apostles. Where the bible doesn’t closely line up with Catholic teaching I have to make a judgement call. I wouldn’t say things like the confessional or communion of the saints are wrong, and that Catholics are wrong for practicing those things. I simply don’t find clear basis for them in the bible, and so I can’t accept and practice them with any intellectual honesty. At the same time I can fully appreciate that Holy Spirit leads Catholics to practice them in good faith.

It’s troubling that that appreciation is not reciprocal.