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

[placido]

I think that’s the question right there. I hear a lot of people say “don’t you ask for people to pray for you…that’s what you do with the saints” but I don’t generally ask people to pray for me. I pray for myself! It has nothing to do with not believing in the communion of saints, to me that means we all worship God and “commune” together, not that I have to ask them to pray for me.

Asking other to pray for you does not mean you don’t have to pray directly to God. You still pray but ask other to join you in prayer … nothing wrong with that. In fact the Bible encourages that: “First of all, then, I ask that supplications, prayers, petitions, and thanksgivings be offered for everyone … this is good and pleasing to God our savior” (1 Tim. 2:1-3)

placido

 

[inkaneer]

I imagine as long as protestants continue to find and join this forum

Thanks for the response. Based on a casual reading it’s easy to assume (as I always have) that Jesus did have siblings born of Mary. It now certainly seems like a reasonable interpretation to say that Jesus was the only child of Mary. It opens my eyes to the possibility that there is more to Mary than I previously thought.

It still seems inefficient to take prayers to anyone other than God in the name of our Christ our Savior. What can Mary do that Jesus can’t or won’t?

Look at it this way, protestants have ‘prayer circles’ * that consist of fellow church goers. But protestants have a limited concept of what is ‘church’. They think ‘church’ is here and now on earth so their prayer circle is limited to those in ‘church’ here on earth. But Catholics have a greater concept of ‘church’. To us ‘church’ is composed of three parts, the ‘church’ glorious [heaven], the ‘church’ militant [here on earth] and the church suffering [those in purgatory] therefore our prayer circle is not only much, much larger but more effective too. Scripture states that prayer of a righteous man availeth much. So who is more righteous, a wretched sinner on earth or a perfected soul in glory? So we pray to Mary and the saints asking them to interceed with God for us. By no means do we bypass Jesus anymore than a protestant does when they ask a fellow church member to pray for them. To me protestants have a hangup on physical death as an impediment to a spiritual activity. That is unscriptural.*

 

[FNDRB58]

after viewing it, I think Martin won. But, like everyone else that is my personal opinion.

We must explalin what “won” means. Martin may have “won” only because he had that moderator chime in against Father Pacwa too. It was two against one and they were putting up all those visual aids on the screen, one after the other and they didn’t allow time for Father Pacwa to respond to each and every one. As a Catholic I can see how a non-catholic would view Martin’s side as more compelling. After Father Pacwa explained one thing then Martin would respond…then Akenberg responded. The debate was a farce, after all it was Akenberg’s show and I must presume there was no agreement to the use of visual aids and such as their side put up one after the other where Pacwa had none. Also it was more of a discussion since there didn’t seem to be any time limits which again goes against Pacwa’s favor because he had two people bombarding him with questions. I don’t think Pacwa even had a chance to ask them any questions as he was defending, explaining, and defending some more. Who “wins” a debate is only the person who seems to be more fluid in their presentation. Martin didn’t stump Father Pacwa on anything, Father Pacwa just didn’t have time to respond to every assertion.

This wasn’t a true debate with time limits and cross-examination, etc. This was a Protestant run television show which obviously doesn’t follow the norms for a true and impartial debate between two sides.

I put this up before…if you want to see a real debate gone wrong, check out this crazy one with Karl Keating and Ni Iglesia Cristo in the Phillipines. Keating’s opponent was not the most respectful opponent to say the least.

youtube.com/watch?v=iOUydCT6IKo

 

[PLeeD]

That was a very unreasonable but common assumption.

Sorry, I don’t see it as unreasonable at all.

I merely see that the Catholic interpretation is possible with regard to the question of Jesus having earthly half-siblings. It doesn’t look like an open/shut case to me at the moment. It seems like a disputable issue (though I now understand why it is indisputable to Catholics).

Accepting that Jesus has no siblings would not affect my faith/beliefs in the least. If I did find that to ring true, there would still be a huge chasm to leap before assenting to the more supernatural beliefs that the RCC holds regarding Mary.

An aside; I once told a joke in a public setting that was very disrespectful toward Mary. I quickly realized the error, and would never make it again. Long ago I did pray for forgiveness for that, though without any reference to a supernatural Mary, only in the sense that protestants understand her role. As a result of this discussion today, I prayed again for forgiveness - not to Mary, only to God in the name of Jesus as is my usual tradition. Ordinarily, when my prayers are, let’s say ‘effective’, I feel a strong presence of the Lord (or maybe stirring of the Holy Spirit? However you might describe it). I did not feel that presence with this particular prayer. As a result, I still don’t sense that I need to incorporate a more supernatural view of Mary.

 

[nickybr38]

Sorry, I don’t see it as unreasonable at all.

Neither do I. But then I used to think that verse clearly states Jesus had brothers too. It’s actually a pretty reasonable conclusion to come to if you don’t know Jewish customs.

 

[mark_a]

WOW, how many times do I have to answer this one??? Okay here it goes. This position is based on a strict interpretation of the Greek word adelphos as meaning a sibling born of the same parents or just one parent of another child. Now the word is used in this way as pointed out [Mat 4:18, 4:21, 10:2, and 10:21] but no one denies that adelphos can mean a sibling or son of the same parents. The question is in scripture does adelphos **ALWAYS **mean a son of the same parent? Because if it does not then we cannot force the strict meaning of sibling onto it every time. The answer to the question is that, in scripture, adelphos is used to denote other relationships other than a son of the same parent. Let’s take a look.

In Galatians 1:19 Paul writesthat while he was in Jerusalem visiting with Peter:

“But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother.” [Ga 1:19]

The word translated as brother is the Greek adelphos but there is something else there. The verse states the James that Paul saw was an Apostle. Now there were only two apostles named James were either of them the son of Joseph and Mary? Let’s see shall we. In Mt 10:2-3 Matthew tells us about the Apostles. What does he say of the two James? In Mt 10 :2 we learn about one of them:

“The names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zeb’edee, and John his brother;” [Mt 10:2]

Obviously this is not the sibling of Jesus because his father is Zebedee. In fact this is one of the brothers that Jesus called the “sons of thunder”. So it must be the other Apostle James who is Jesus sibling brother, right? Let’s see. Mt 10:3 tells us:

"3 Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; 4 Simon the Cananaean, and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him. " [Mt 10:3]

OOPS!!! This James is the son of some guy named Alphaeus. Who was Mary married to, Alphaeus or Joseph??? Obviously Paul is using the word adelphos to denote a relationship other than a son of the same parent. The verses you quoted come from the gospel of Matthew. So does Matthew use adelphos only to denote a sibling relationship? Let’s see. In Matthew 23:8 Jesus says to the Apostles:

“But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren.”

There the word brethren is the Greek adelphos but obviously all the Apostles did not come from the same family sohow could they be siblings? They can’t. Again in Mt 28:10 Jesus calls all of the Apostles his brothers:

"Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid; go and tell my brethren to go to Galilee, and there they will see me.” [Mt 28:10]

Again the word brethern is the translation of the Greek adelphos but were all the Apostles Jesus’ siblings? Of course not. We see the same use of the Greek *adelphos *in Luke 22:32 as well as John 20:17 and John 21:23. So obviously adelphos was not restricted to mean a sibling brother and to do so is terrible exogesis.

But let’s not stop there because there is more evidence to consider. First, name one person, other than Jesus, that scripture calls a child of Mary. Can you? No, because only Jesus is called Mary’s child. Second, on the cross Jesus entrusts Mary to the care of the youngest Apostle, John. Why entrust His mother to someone outside the family if he had all these otjher siblings? Third, care of the parents was the obligation of the youngest child. Why is Jesus doing this if He is Mary’s first born and thus the oldest of this alleged family of siblings? It does not make sense except if Jesus is both the oldest as well as the youngest which He would be if He was an only child. And notice He entrust Mary to the youngest of his “brethren” as He called his Apostles in Mt 28:10.

And I’ll end with this last point to ponder. The early church was quite boastful of their pedigree. We see evidence of this in the scriptures in the epistle of Jude who claims to be the brother of James [Jude 1:1]. Later cities would boast that they have the body of this Apostle or that Apostle and later still the boast would be the bodies of the saints. We do something similar hby claiming “We are No.1” when our favorite sports team wins the championship. But there are three boasts that are never found at anytime in the early church or down to the present day. They are:

1. No city claims to have the body of Jesus Christ.
2. No city claims to have the body of the Blessed Virgin Mary and
3. No one has ever claimed to be the brother of Jesus.

That last one is the 800 pound gorilla in the room that no one wants to talk about let alone acknowledge.

Thank you for this thoughtful post!

 

[mark_a]

there would still be a huge chasm to leap before assenting to the more supernatural beliefs that the RCC holds regarding Mary.

Keep in mind though, that it’s not just the RCC. Its all the original apostolic Churches.

An aside; I once told a joke in a public setting that was very disrespectful toward Mary. I quickly realized the error, and would never make it again. Long ago I did pray for forgiveness for that, though without any reference to a supernatural Mary, only in the sense that protestants understand her role. As a result of this discussion today, I prayed again for forgiveness - not to Mary, only to God in the name of Jesus as is my usual tradition.

If you had offended a friend’s mother in a public setting, you would need to ask forgiveness of your friend and his mother.

 

[placido]

Sorry, I don’t see it as unreasonable at all.
I merely see that the Catholic interpretation is possible with regard to the question of Jesus having earthly half-siblings. It doesn’t look like an open/shut case to me at the moment. It seems like a disputable issue (though I now understand why it is indisputable to Catholics).

Accepting that Jesus has no siblings would not affect my faith/beliefs in the least. If I did find that to ring true, there would still be a huge chasm to leap before assenting to the more supernatural beliefs that the RCC holds regarding Mary.

An aside; I once told a joke in a public setting that was very disrespectful toward Mary. I quickly realized the error, and would never make it again. Long ago I did pray for forgiveness for that, though without any reference to a supernatural Mary, only in the sense that protestants understand her role. .

We need to make sure we don’t talk past each other … what do you mean with the phrase “supernatural Mary”?

As a result of this discussion today, I prayed again for forgiveness - not to Mary, only to God in the name of Jesus as is my usual tradition. Ordinarily, when my prayers are, let’s say ‘effective’, I feel a strong presence of the Lord (or maybe stirring of the Holy Spirit? However you might describe it). I did not feel that presence with this particular prayer. As a result, I still don’t sense that I need to incorporate a more supernatural view of Mary.

Serving God based on good “feelings” is not always advisable. That is in fact the misleading “burning in the bosom” Mormons talk about.

placido

 

[FNDRB58]

FNDRB58,

Nowadays one would not expect leniency in a court if one approached the judge’s mother to try to avoid being found guilty.

I have no clue what this means. Please explain in plain terms the point you are making.

 

[Pitcharan]

The problem with debating Bible only Chrisitians is that they don’t accept the fact that some of Jesus’ teachings, ergo Catholic beliefs, took some time to be fully understood by the early Christians who followed the apostles. Bible only Christians don’t allow for history and church development. The Trinity for example, though fully understood by the apostles had to be explained to their successors who weren’t yet disciples of the living Christ. Bible only Christians have little tolerance for anything that is not explicitly stated in the Bible. I wish more Catholic debaters would throw out there the verse that says that not all the books in the world could contain everything Jesus taught. (paraphrasing)

The typical religious pattern of non-catholic christians in southern India is this:

• For fellowship, praise and worship, go to Assembly of God church on Sundays
• For liturgical quests either attend catholic church mass on Sunday evenings or listen to some good preacher on TV
• When in dire need or serious tribulation rush to Mother Mary
• For all official purposes remain a member of the church you belong to

Most protestants here, offer only some lip service to the official policy of the Church of England but never hide their awe for catholicism. They fully acknowledge the real presence of God only in catholic churches. Many protestants are catholics at heart and attend our mass; some even receive communion after privately confirming their belief in the eucharistic Lord to the catholic priest. **They even hang the rosary in their cars in typical catholic style **(which is one of the most prominent symbols of catholic faith and solidarity in India). However, for reasons best known only to God, they continue to be members of their protestant church but generously donate to our churches. Though some of their pastors are critical of our use of statues and veneration of Mother Mary, they encourage their flock to listen to catholic sermons. In general most of them throng our churches en masse to celebrate all Marian feasts. They never say no to catholics in any of their educational institutions.

 

[placido]

Many protestants are catholics at heart and attend our mass; some even receive communion after privately confirming their belief in the eucharistic Lord to the catholic priest. **They even hang the rosary in their cars in typical catholic style **(which is one of the most prominent symbols of catholic faith and solidarity in India).

The bolded part is true even in most African countries like Namibia. That is mostly Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists and those un-churched. I did never try to find out why they do this.

placido

 

[PLeeD]

We need to make sure we don’t talk past each other … what do you mean with the phrase “supernatural Mary”?

My understanding of Mary has always been that she is a normal human being who had a supernatural experience.

Catholic teaching seems to say there is more to her than that. I don’t fully understand it, but it seems that she was born without original sin? Then also there is the idea that she is not simply dead and buried like everyone else. So there are things about her life that are thought to be supernatural, other than just the conception of Jesus. So that is what I mean by a supernatural Mary.

Then there is also the idea that in death she can intercede in prayers. I guess this comes down to communion with the saints, which is a completely foreign idea to me.

Serving God based on good “feelings” is not always advisable. That is in fact the misleading “burning in the bosom” Mormons talk about.

See, this is why I’m glad to be here. I’ve never heard that term before. I’ve known Mormon’s who are great people, but I know practically nothing about their faith.

But I have to ask, have you never felt this? I feel it fairly regularly, usually during praise and worship, and most often during intercessory prayer for other Christians. I’ve always interpreted it as the presence of God. Only in certain specific situations have I thought of it as a confirmation of something, or as a positive response of the Holy Spirit on some issue.

I’ve never prayed over an object as the Mormons apparently challenge people to do with the BOM. Not sure how I’d react if I ever did and had that response.

 

[placido]

My understanding of Mary has always been that she is a normal human being who had a supernatural experience.

I don’t know but … does having supernatural experience make a normal human being a supernatural person?

Catholic teaching seems to say there is more to her than that. I don’t fully understand it, but it seems that she was born without original sin?

Yes, that is what the Church teaches.

Then also there is the idea that she is not simply dead and buried like everyone else.
So there are things about her life that are thought to be supernatural, other than just the conception of Jesus. So that is what I mean by a supernatural Mary.

Oh, I see!

placido

 

[inkaneer]

after viewing it, I think Martin won. But, like everyone else that is my personal opinion.

Of course what you don’t know is how much of the debate ended up on the cutting room floor and not in the final version. This debate was heavily edited and a real disservice done to interfaith dialogue. So don’t believe everything you see and hear on TV.

 

[placido]

But I have to ask, have you never felt this? I feel it fairly regularly, usually during praise and worship, and most often during intercessory prayer for other Christians. I’ve always interpreted it as the presence of God. Only in certain specific situations have I thought of it as a confirmation of something, or as a positive response of the Holy Spirit on some issue.

Good feelings are okay, all I was saying is that they CAN BE misleading. In other words, it is not advisable to make a judgement based ONLY on what feels good.

placido

 

[inkaneer]

Sorry, I don’t see it as unreasonable at all.

I merely see that the Catholic interpretation is possible with regard to the question of Jesus having earthly half-siblings. It doesn’t look like an open/shut case to me at the moment. It seems like a disputable issue (though I now understand why it is indisputable to Catholics).

Accepting that Jesus has no siblings would not affect my faith/beliefs in the least. If I did find that to ring true, there would still be a huge chasm to leap before assenting to the more supernatural beliefs that the RCC holds regarding Mary.

An aside; I once told a joke in a public setting that was very disrespectful toward Mary. I quickly realized the error, and would never make it again. Long ago I did pray for forgiveness for that, though without any reference to a supernatural Mary, only in the sense that protestants understand her role. As a result of this discussion today, I prayed again for forgiveness - not to Mary, only to God in the name of Jesus as is my usual tradition. Ordinarily, when my prayers are, let’s say ‘effective’, I feel a strong presence of the Lord (or maybe stirring of the Holy Spirit? However you might describe it). I did not feel that presence with this particular prayer. As a result, I still don’t sense that I need to incorporate a more supernatural view of Mary.

Here is something that I would appreciate you would do. I have done this on several occasions with different protestants and the results have always been the same. I have never done this in a forum setting so I am going to modify it a bit. It is a simple word association where I say a word and you tell me what first comes into your mind. The word is INCARNATION. Now what do you think of when you hear that word?

Every protestant, regardless of denomination, that I have asked has given me the same answer. It is straight from scripture. That answer is: “The Word made flesh”. Now that is a correct answer to be sure and I am not knocking it. BUT, ask a Catholic the same question and chances are you will not get the same answer. Instead you may get something on the order of “God’s plan for the salvation of mankind.” That is also a correct answer and probably a more correct one because the Catholic response is much fuller than the protestant one. It incorporates the plan of God as stated in scripture with a virgin conceiving a child in order for the Word to become flesh. And like it or not Mary is intimately connected with the plan of salvation of mankind. But the protestant response ignores that aspect. Catholics don’t turn their backs on Mary as is the case that recent protestants are wont to do. In fact if you look at the early protestant ‘reformers’ all of them shared a deep respect for Mary and all believed that she was sinless and a virgin before and after the birth of Jesus. Nowhere did they claim that she was just a normal human being. Somewhere protestants, in their zeal to distance themselves from Catholicism, dropped a lot of beliefs because they were thought to be “too Catholic.” The Marian beliefs were part of that and you today are left with the wreckage that has caused.

 

[KShaft]

This is where you and I differ. I was raised Protestant and attended many, many demoninations. We were a roamin’ non-denominational Protestant family. Heh. And in most cases Mary was not really even recognized. The people I encountered only really ever thought of Mary during Christmas and then she was barely glimpsed at.

I can’t say anyone honored her but I can’t say anyone hated her either. She was just another ‘character’ from the birth story and little more. I don’t know if that’s Protestant doctrine, but that was my Protestant experience.

And to FNDRB58:

It’s not just praying to Mary that bothers Protestants but many of the ideas Catholics share about her. As in, she is coredemptrix, you can ONLY get to Jesus THROUGH Mary… etc.

From attending protestant services, recently attending campus crusades for Christ, and even (name removed by moderator)ut from secular professors, I would have to say that most of the protestant sects have no reverence for Mary at all. Its almost like they want to just brush her off to the side and forget her. Its more of a disrespect if you ask me.

My secular Brit Lit instructor had us read a poem about a Greek demi-god that was impregnated by zues as he took the form of a bird. It was a modern era (early 1900s) poem and It was supposed to be a parallel to Mary, but basically the author was making the observation that Mary was forgoten about. My instructor agreed, and said “Well, except for the Catholic Church…”

I guess I am myself pretty minimalistic about my reverence towards Mary. There is much love and thanks, but it is a distant second compared to my Worship of the Trinity. I surley do not forget her or brush her off blatantly as the heretics do.

 

[PLeeD]

… I would have to say that most of the protestant sects have no reverence for Mary at all. Its almost like they want to just brush her off to the side and forget her. Its more of a disrespect if you ask me.

Lack of veneration hardly equals disrespect.

Why would you expect excessive reverence from a person who sees Mary as equal to any other human being, except for having been used by God as part of his plan? In that view, Mary is similar to Ananias, who was used by God to help convert Paul. Should we venerate Ananias as well?

I surley do not forget her or brush her off blatantly as the heretics do.

From what I’ve seen, protestants are far more charitable toward Mary than you are toward protestants.

 

[FNDRB58]

Lack of veneration hardly equals disrespect.

Why would you expect excessive reverence from a person who sees Mary as equal to any other human being, except for having been used by God as part of his plan? In that view, Mary is similar to Ananias, who was used by God to help convert Paul. Should we venerate Ananias as well?

Was Ananias blessED among all men? Did he give birth to our Lord and Savior? I would indeed expect not excessive reverence, but due reverence and honor and veneration to the woman who did.

From what I’ve seen, protestants are far more charitable toward Mary than you are toward protestants.

Why do you say this?

 

[Axion]

Lack of veneration hardly equals disrespect.

Why would you expect excessive reverence from a person who sees Mary as equal to any other human being, except for having been used by God as part of his plan? In that view, Mary is similar to Ananias, who was used by God to help convert Paul. Should we venerate Ananias as well?.

I’m afraid this is typical of the attitude of some protestant groups. Firstly mary was NOT “used”. She is a person with free will, who made a very fundamental and pivotal role in the economy of salvation in her decision to accept God’s plan. In this she is every bit as important as Eve, who made a decision to disobey God’s plan. However, while most protestants remember Eve’s decision, they ignore and forget that of Mary. Saying that she was “used” is extremely disrepectful and improper in this respect, implying an inamate object without a will or soul.

There are so many other things that are unique to the Virgin Mary.

She is the Woman Prophecied at three crucial instances in the Bible in Genesis 3, Isaiah 7, and Revelation 12, whose seed crushes the head of the serpent.

She was the only one who gave her flesh and her humanity to
the Son of God, and she is uniquely to be blessed throughout all
generations (Luke 1:48).

She is the only human in scripture to be named Kecharitomene, that is, Full of Grace.

Mary was the first human being to receive Christ. Out of the millions of “decisions” made for Christ, Mary’s was the first. Therefore, whatever promises the Holy Scriptures hold for us, Mary already possesses. If the sacred Scriptures declare that we are all kings (Revelation 1:6), is it so strange that the Church refers to Mary as Queen?

She is the mother of the Son, therefore the mother of the Church, which is His body. As adopted brothers of Jesus, all Christians are similarly children of Mary, something Jesus reaffirmed from the cross. Hence Mary is Mother of all Christians.

If the Holy Bible promised that Christians shall judge angels (1 Corinthians 6:3), is it so odd that the Church should sing that Mary is “more honorable than the cherubim and more glorious beyond compare than the seraphim”?