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

[NHInsider]

All of my posts have been a dialogue with NoelFitz who is a Catholic who feels that the doctrines of Mary are not very important because he doesn’t consider them to be essential. I have not responded to any Protestant within the thread, so I am confused as to the point you are trying to make with me.
Thanks

Your conversation with Noel, and his post to which you object, are all included in a thread that is called “debate between Catholic and Protestant.” The original discussion specifically addressed ecumenical dialogue, that’s the context of Noel’s observation in post 6, which you have since addressed as if it was the whole point. He was pointing out - very accurately - that when Ephesus declared Mary Theokotos, it was in the context of emphasizing the Divinity of Jesus.

Later (post 26) you said you had “never heard a Catholic emphasize different “levels” of belief required for salvation” and suggested that “Pointing out the non-essentiality of a doctrine only precludes one from fully believing in it and applying it to one’s life.” which was when I cited Unitatis Redintegratio.

Noel’s statement was explicitly in the context of dialogue with non-Catholic Christians, and you somehow concluded that he was therefore suggesting that Catholics didn’t need to accept Marian doctrines, and persisted in that line of conversation even after he reiterated that he did accept them. Seriously, what is to be gained by this?

 

[PAboy57]

For all of our Christian friends that have a problem with devotion to our Blessed Mother try reading

The Secret of Mary – by St. Louis de Montford. It is such a beautiful document.

I also suggest listening to Fr. Corapi explain how the Blessed Virgin will lead all to Jesus.

I know both have had a major impact on my life.

Take care everyone.

 

[FNDRB58]

Your conversation with Noel, and his post to which you object, are all included in a thread that is called “debate between Catholic and Protestant.” The original discussion specifically addressed ecumenical dialogue, that’s the context of Noel’s observation in post 6, which you have since addressed as if it was the whole point. He was pointing out - very accurately - that when Ephesus declared Mary Theokotos, it was in the context of emphasizing the Divinity of Jesus.

Later (post 26) you said you had “never heard a Catholic emphasize different “levels” of belief required for salvation” and suggested that “Pointing out the non-essentiality of a doctrine only precludes one from fully believing in it and applying it to one’s life.” which was when I cited Unitatis Redintegratio.

Noel’s statement was explicitly in the context of dialogue with non-Catholic Christians, and you somehow concluded that he was therefore suggesting that Catholics didn’t need to accept Marian doctrines, and persisted in that line of conversation even after he reiterated that he did accept them. Seriously, what is to be gained by this?

Thanks for clarifying your criticism of my posts. Now at least I understand what you are getting at. The original poster was summoning opinions about the debate between Father Pacwa and Dr. Martin. Several were forthcoming, including mine. NoelFitz, a catholic by his admission, did not comment on the debate itself but made a general comment about the lesser role of Mary which I and many others contested. He said, “The belief in the doctrine of Mary, Mother of God, is not really important, the belief in Jesus is.” My response was to clarify his categorically incorrect statement. He then seemed to acquiesce a trifle by saying it is important who Mary was but not in the doctrines of Mary. I would at least understand his sentiments if he were Protestant and I and others in this thread would still be making the same points to him in an effort to show him his errors. But NoelFitz is Catholic which makes his statements even more difficult to understand. I have admitted that indeed there is a hierarchy of truths but to diminish the role of Mary and/or her doctrines in the role of salvation is more of a Protestant view than a Catholic view. I am defending Mary’s role and the Church’s Marian doctrines. These forums are not only for people to agree but also to disagree. I have been civil and polite in my discussions with NoelFitz. In fact, I have not been any less loving or charitable than Father Pacwa was during his disagreements with Dr. Martin.

Also, I never concluded that NoelFitz was saying that we didn’t have to believe in the Marian doctrines. He never said that. It was the diminishment of their importance that I am contesting. The statement he made would lead someone to believe indeed that the belief in Marian doctrines is not important, only belief in Jesus is. After all that is what he believes because that is what he said.

 

[NHInsider]

For all of our Christian friends that have a problem with devotion to our Blessed Mother try reading

The Secret of Mary – by St. Louis de Montford. It is such a beautiful document.

I also suggest listening to Fr. Corapi explain how the Blessed Virgin will lead all to Jesus.

I know both have had a major impact on my life.

Take care everyone.

Hmm. I would actually not recommend St. Louis’ Secret to non-catholics who are struggling with Marian doctrines. He’s very - flowery? Not sure that’s the word I want - but I have heard from more than a few non-catholics who felt that book confirmed their suspicions about Catholics and Mary. . . .

A good place to start, if you can find a copy, is a Pastoral letter that the US Bishops issued back in the 1970s called “Behold Your Mother - Woman of Faith.”

I love Fr. Copari although he may be a bit intense for someone who’s just seeking . . . .

Scott Hahn’s *Hail Holy Queen *is very accessible although the cover may turn off non-Catholics.

 

[NoelFitz]

Pitcharan,

thanks for your reply.

Did Jesus not say that one thing was necessary, to follow him?

 

[FNDRB58]

Pitcharan,

thanks for your reply.

Did Jesus not say that one thing was necessary, to follow him?

Yes. Is that all Jesus said?

 

[xcheid]

When the Catholic Church infallibly defined the Canon of Scripture roughly three hundred and fifty years after Christ the Church still declared Mary’s perpetual virginity. Why would the Church canonize a Catholic book (Gospel according to St. Matthew) that was contrary to the faith handed down by the apostles (of which St. Matthew is one.)?

When was the official declaration of Mary’s perpetual virginity, if there was one…? I have been trying to search for this information, but I can’t find an answer

 

[1holycatholic]

When was the official declaration of Mary’s perpetual virginity, if there was one…? I have been trying to search for this information, but I can’t find an answer

It has always been the teaching of the Church. It’s in the writings of the Early Church Fathers. The rejection of Mary’s perpetual virginity is a later development among some Protestants. Most teachings aren’t dogmatically defined until someone challenges them (like the Arians’ challenge of the nature of Christ.)

The Perpetual Virginity of Mary: Catholic Dogma

 

[FNDRB58]

Pitcharan,

thanks for your reply.

Did Jesus not say that one thing was necessary, to follow him?

Is that all Jesus said? If so, then we would all be carrying one index card as our bible. He also said to obey the commandments. He said to clothe the naked and house the homeless. He said to obey the apostles when He said, “Who hears you hears me.” He said to confess your sins. He said to take your grievances to the Church. He also said to John (and to all of us by this declaration), “John this is your mother. Woman this is your son.” All these are pretty important. Following Christ didn’t mean to just walk behind him everywhere he went. It means to do everything Christ taught. If it were as simple as you state then one can go start their own church anywhere which would be like a ship without a compass. You might get to where you are going but it will take you a lot longer. Jesus came to save us from our sins and to institute one true Church to teach and guide the generations. He wanted us to have the totality of the faith. And so, we love our Blessed Mother as Jesus taught and venerate her as our Church teaches.

 

[NoelFitz]

FNDRB58,

Perhaps one index card is all we need. On it we could have one of the following:

**Jesus is Lord

Repent and believe in the Gospel

Love God and neighbor.**

Clothing the naked, being a Catholic etc all flow from these basics.

 

[FNDRB58]

FNDRB58,

Perhaps one index card is all we need. On it we could have one of the following:

**Jesus is Lord

Repent and believe in the Gospel

Love God and neighbor.**

Clothing the naked, being a Catholic etc all flow from these basics.

As does devotion to our Blessed Mother.

You take the Protestant view of our Mother. You are missing out my friend.

 

[inkaneer]

When was the official declaration of Mary’s perpetual virginity, if there was one…? I have been trying to search for this information, but I can’t find an answer

Well, if by “official declaration” you mean a formal doctrinal definition then there is none. But most doctrines have never been formally defined and Mary’s perpetual Virginity is one of them. In reality there was never any need for a formal definition as there was never any serious challenge to the teaching. The one that sticks out is that of Helvidius in about 383AD but Helvidius and his teaching withered under the weight of the great Jerome and his tract *Adversus Helvidius * and the Helvidian heresy never amounted to much. I am not aware of any other heretical teaching on this matter. Even the protestant reformers were solidly adherents to the belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity. Surprisingly though, Helvidius’ heresy has recently found a home in the present day fundamentalist camp as they have adopted his heresy either knowingly or not, for themselves.

 

[nickybr38]

Actually, I have found that Marian devotion is the single biggest stumbling block between Protestants and Catholics. It’s ironic that the woman who people continually insist CANNOT lead people away from God is the woman who stands between modern Protestants and Catholics.

Just an observation and of course this isn’t the case for every Protestant I’m sure.

Through the study of typology and parallisms in the Bible I’ve come to a place where it’s easier and easier to understand Mary’s role, and I would encourage anyone struggling with understanding Marian devotion to seek the study of typology, it’s quite helpful!

That said, I can’t watch the debate. ): I have no sound on my computer. Anyone have a transcript?

 

[NoelFitz]

1HolyCatholic says the teaching of Mary’s perpetual virginity has always been the teaching of the Church.

The earliest references I could find were from Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian and Hippolytus. Hippolytus shows us that even heretics accepted the virginity of Mary.

In the Apostles’ Creed we say:

born of the virgin Mary

For I have observed that you are perfected in an immovable faith, as if you were nailed to the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, both in the flesh and in the spirit, and are established in love through the blood of Christ, being fully persuaded with respect to our Lord, that he was truly of the seed of David according to the flesh, and the Son of God according to the will and power of God; that he was truly born of a virgin, was baptised by John, in order that all righteousness might be fulfilled by him; and was truly, under Pontius Pilate and Herod the tetrarch, nailed (to the cross) for us in his flesh.(Ignatius of Antioch, died 107)

This, then, “Behold, a virgin shall conceive,” signifies that a virgin should conceive without intercourse. For if she had had intercourse with anyone whatever, she was no longer a virgin; but the power of God having come upon the Virgin, overshadowed her, and caused her while yet a virgin to conceive. (Justin Martyr, died 165)

I

n accordance with this design, Mary the Virgin is found obedient, saying, “Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it to me according to your word.” (Irenaeus, died 202)

He therefore, the Son of God, our Lord, being the Word of the Father, and the Son of man, since he had a generation as to his human nature from Mary – who was descended from mankind, and who was herself a human being – was made the Son of man. Therefore also the Lord himself gave us a sign, in the depth below, and in the height above, which man did not ask for, because he never expected that a virgin could conceive, or that it was possible that one remaining a virgin could bring forth a son, and that what was so born should be" God with us," (Tertullian, died 225)

And in this manner they begot of a single virgin, Mary, a joint offspring, who is a Mediator, (that is,) the Saviour of all who are in the (covenant of) mediation.(Hippolytus discussing heretics, died 236)

.

 

[Ann1231]

Actually, I have found that Marian devotion is the single biggest stumbling block between Protestants and Catholics. It’s ironic that the woman who people continually insist CANNOT lead people away from God is the woman who stands between modern Protestants and Catholics.

Just an observation and of course this isn’t the case for every Protestant I’m sure.

that’s exactly right! it’s why it took me 30 years to join the church, my husband to outright say he never would, and my Lutheran family to not approve of my joining.

 

[PLeeD]

How can Mat 12:46-48 be interpreted to mean something other than sons of the same parent(s) as Jesus?

While it’s clear that the word in question can have meanings similar to the way we use the word ‘brother’, there are several other places in Matthew where the same word is used to mean sons of the same parents. For example, Mat 4:18, 4:21, 10:2, and 10:21 all use the word in this sense.

I find the convenient interpretation of that word to be unconvincing given the context of the passages, and the certainty with which that interpretation is presented to be troubling.

 

[FNDRB58]

that’s exactly right! it’s why it took me 30 years to join the church, my husband to outright say he never would, and my Lutheran family to not approve of my joining.

And as a Catholic that is something that is hard to understand. All we are saying is that we love her as Jesus did. We pray TO her asking her to pray FOR US. It is clear that we do not believe she is a god. We do not believe she can do anything without God. She is the Mother of our Savior. It is hard to understand why Protestants are so stubborn on this point. They don’t believe we can ask someone already in heaven to pray for us. I think that is the problem. If they believed one could solicit the help from those who already have seen the beatific vision of God then I don’t think asking Mary to go to her Son to help would be a stumbling block. Protestants ask humans to pray for them but not Mary or the saints or any who are in heaven. They just don’t accept the communion of saints…that, though some may have died in body, they are more alive than we are while in heaven! We are one family, one church, one body in Christ.

 

[Ann1231]

Hmm. I would actually not recommend St. Louis’ Secret to non-catholics who are struggling with Marian doctrines. He’s very - flowery? Not sure that’s the word I want - but I have heard from more than a few non-catholics who felt that book confirmed their suspicions about Catholics and Mary. . . .

Scott Hahn’s *Hail Holy Queen *is very accessible although the cover may turn off non-Catholics.

I completely agree on both counts! I read St. Louis’ and have had very serious concerns. I read Scott Hahn’s and it’s like “oh, ok, I get that.”
One sounds like obsession and worship, the other is practical and explanatory. world of difference.

 

[PLeeD]

1HolyCatholic says the teaching of Mary’s perpetual virginity has always been the teaching of the Church.

Is it just me? None of those quotes say anything about perpetual virginity. Only that she was a virgin when Jesus was conceived.

 

[FNDRB58]

How can Mat 12:46-48 be interpreted to mean something other than sons of the same parent(s) as Jesus?

While it’s clear that the word in question can have meanings similar to the way we use the word ‘brother’, there are several other places in Matthew where the same word is used to mean sons of the same parents. For example, Mat 4:18, 4:21, 10:2, and 10:21 all use the word in this sense.

I find the convenient interpretation of that word to be unconvincing given the context of the passages, and the certainty with which that interpretation is presented to be troubling.

Do a search in the search engine of the site. Type in Jesus’ brothers and you will find your answer.