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

[Roy5]

A couple points

1. The issue here is not the Virgin Birth, though among 'big tent' Protestants some believe in this emphastically while some doubt or disbelieve. Frankly, I find that Catholics differ in their views on this matter, also, but it is not openly discussed and debated among Catholics as among Protestants.

2. Because Jesus was the only child mentioned when the family went to Jerusalem when he was 12 doesn't necessarily mean he was the only child of Mary and Joseph. Maybe that's one reason they apparently didn't miss him for three days! That has always stumped me. My parents surely would have checked on me all the time when on such a journey. But perhaps they saw their other children and assumed they were all together.

3. The main evidence to me that Jesus may have been the only child is that Jesus gave Mary into the care of John rather than that of a brother at Calvary. But if there were other children, as the Bible seems to suggest, what's the problem? Yes, I know, Catholic theologians insist that they were step-siblings or cousins or whatever.

4. Mark 6:3 refers to Jesus as the firstborn son of Mary. Hm! That word firstborn usually would mean there were others to come.

5. St. Paul, at various places, refers to James, a brother of Jesus, as a (or the) leader of the church in Jerusalem.

7. Actually, I don't fret all that much whether Mary was a perpetual virgin or not. That whole concept parallels stories in Egyptian, Greek and Roman mythology and may have crept into early Christianity. I don't know, nor can scholars prove anything one way or the other. Lots of conjecture is based on fierce Catholic or Protestant 'tribal loyalty' more than any concrete evidence. My primary interest is in the teachings of Christ, and I try my best to follow them. How much better off the world would be if that was where we focused our attention. Much of the elaborate and often picayune theology that has developed over the centuries tends to emphasize who Jesus was rather than what Jesus taught us. "Why do you call me Lord, Lord, and do not the things that I say?" Luke 6:46. 

 God bless his children of all creeds, colors and countries. May we work together to make religion a bridge rather than a barrier.

 

[inkaneer]

A couple points

1. The issue here is not the Virgin Birth, though among 'big tent' Protestants some believe in this emphastically while some doubt or disbelieve. Frankly, I find that Catholics differ in their views on this matter, also, but it is not openly discussed and debated among Catholics as among Protestants.?Quote]

The term ‘Virgin Birth’ refers to the birth of Jesus and is universally accepted by all christians. I think you are referring to the Catholic [and Orthodox and Copt] term “ever virgin” or “Perpetual Virgin”. These beliefs were held by protestants initially but protestants decided to reinvent the wheel especially with the rise of the fundamentalist movement in the 19th century.
Roy5;6951504:

2. Because Jesus was the only child mentioned when the family went to Jerusalem when he was 12 doesn't necessarily mean he was the only child of Mary and Joseph. Maybe that's one reason they apparently didn't miss him for three days! That has always stumped me. My parents surely would have checked on me all the time when on such a journey. But perhaps they saw their other children and assumed they were all together.

You apparently inject the modern concept of family as just the spouses and their children. But in the first century there were no assisted living cenbters or old folks home. The concept of family was much larger and included as many as four generations. It would correspond to what we would refer to as a clan. The Bible passage alludes to that in Luke 2:42-44:

“42 And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast. 43 And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it. 44 But they, supposing him to have been in the company, went a day’s journey; and they sought him among their kinsfolk and acquaintance.” [Luke 2:42-44]

“Kinsfolk” = family.

3. The main evidence to me that Jesus may have been the only child is that Jesus gave Mary into the care of John rather than that of a brother at Calvary. But if there were other children, as the Bible seems to suggest, what's the problem? Yes, I know, Catholic theologians insist that they were step-siblings or cousins or whatever.

The problem in Jesus doing this is that if there were any other children of Mary the responsibility is theirs not Jesus’. Jesus is dying on the cross. Hardly a time to usurp the duties of someone else. And what of John? The scripture quotes Jesus as saying:

“Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.” [Joh 19:27]

Note that this is from the gospel of John, the very apostle to whom Jesus was speaking. Why doesn’t John say, But what about your brothers?" Why does He just say ‘And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home." No hesitation. He says it matter of factly. He certainly knows Jesus’ family situation. Also, in the previous verse, John writes:

"When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! [Joh 19:26]

Again, a stement made matter of factly with no qualification.

And why, as Jerome states, did Ignatius and Polycarp who sat at the feet and were disciples of this same Apostle, write that Mary was “ever virgin”? Where did they learn that if not from the same source, the Apostle John, from whom they learned everything else they wrote about?

1. Mark 6:3 refers to Jesus as the firstborn son of Mary. Hm! That word firstborn usually would mean there were others to come.

This is humorous. Did you ever consider the fact that an only child is also the first born?

5. St. Paul, at various places, refers to James, a brother of Jesus, as a (or the) leader of the church in Jerusalem.{/QUOTE]

Well this provess that you do not know the scriptures. First of all, although Paul mentions James four times in his letters He only says he is the brother of the Lord in only one place. That is Ga 1:19 which says:

" But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother."

Note that this James is an Apostle. There were only two Apostles named James. One was the brother of John and they were the sons of Zebedee. The other was the son of Alphaeus. So neither of them is a sibling brother of Jesus because Joseph is not the father of James. By the way you will find out who the fathers of the two Apostles named James in Matthew 10:2,3. Okay? I don’t make this stuff up.

 

[Ann1231]

earlier in this thread there was a comment that Catholics don’t bow or kneel to a statue of the Blessed Mary but here is a quote from CAF’s “quick questions” that you can get thru the email.

Q:“ Should Catholics kneel before a statue of the Blessed Virgin Mary? After all, in Scripture Peter rebuked Cornelius for kneeling before him.

”A: The passage in question states: “When Peter entered, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshipped him. But Peter lifted him up, saying, ‘Stand up; I too am a man’” (Acts 10:25–26).

The act of kneeling does not always mean that the person kneeling is performing an act of worship. Catholics kneel in front of a statue of the Virgin Mary to show her respect and honor and to pray for her intercession; they are not kneeling to worship her."

some said this doesn’t happen but according the the “answer” part of this, it evidently does…

 

[NoelFitz]

Roy5,

The nearest Paul gets to referencing the mother of God is in Gal 4:4

But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law

Your post makes a lot of sense. Believing the doctrines about Mary is not as important as believing that Jesus Christ is Lord.

This opinion of mine has been criticized. However I write as a Catholic who believes in the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, because these are Church teachings.

However is this discussion getting anywhere?

 

[1holycatholic]

1 Peter 3:15 - “sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence”

Instead of jumping down someone’s throat over one word, how about next time explaining what Catholics mean by ‘adoration’? That word has several definitions, and is normally used differently than Catholics use the term.

It’s not normally used that way.

“O come, let us adore Him,
Christ the Lord.”

Even nominal Protestant Clark W. Griswold knows it.

 

[1holycatholic]

Mark 6:3 refers to Jesus as the firstborn son of Mary. Hm! That word firstborn usually would mean there were others to come.

[bibledrb]Mark 6:3[/bibledrb]
Don’t you mean Matthew 1:25?
[bibledrb]Matthew 1:25[/bibledrb]
Not necessarily. I have a friend from high school who is the firstborn son and he’s an only child. I know many without brothers and sisters.

 

[FNDRB58]

Roy5,

The nearest Paul gets to referencing the mother of God is in Gal 4:4

Your post makes a lot of sense. Believing the doctrines about Mary is not as important as believing that Jesus Christ is Lord.

This opinion of mine has been criticized. However I write as a Catholic who believes in the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, because these are Church teachings.

However is this discussion getting anywhere?

Now Noel, you know very well that’s not what was criticized. I would refer others to your post #6 where you said the following and sparked this debate regarding Mary’s role and her doctrines:

“The doctrine of Mary as the mother of God is not really important. Our faith is in Jesus.”

This is an incomplete statement. Marian doctrines are extremely important because our Blessed Mother is important because she gave birth to God Incarnate. You have yet to recant that statement.

Of course the belief in Jesus is the MOST important belief that there is. Neither I nor any other dissenting Catholic in this thread has equated a Marian belief with a Christological belief. Diminishing the importance of our Blessed Mother, however, is not Catholic teaching.

 

[panevino]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roy5
Mark 6:3 refers to Jesus as the firstborn son of Mary. Hm! That word firstborn usually would mean there were others to come.

An only born is a firstborn

Jesus is given this title for a reason

Psalm89: 27 Also I will make him [my] firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth.

Zch 12: 10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for [his] only [son], and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for [his] firstborn.

 

[Axion]

earlier in this thread there was a comment that Catholics don’t bow or kneel to a statue of the Blessed Mary but here is a quote from CAF’s “quick questions” that you can get thru the email.

Q:“ Should Catholics kneel before a statue of the Blessed Virgin Mary? After all, in Scripture Peter rebuked Cornelius for kneeling before him.

”A: The passage in question states: “When Peter entered, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshipped him. But Peter lifted him up, saying, ‘Stand up; I too am a man’” (Acts 10:25–26).

The act of kneeling does not always mean that the person kneeling is performing an act of worship. Catholics kneel in front of a statue of the Virgin Mary to show her respect and honor and to pray for her intercession; they are not kneeling to worship her."

some said this doesn’t happen but according the the “answer” part of this, it evidently does…

The question being answered in that quote is whether Catholics are ALLOWED to kneel BEFORE (in the presence of) a statue of the Virgin Mary. (Bowing, which we were discussing, is not mentioned at all). The answer to the prescriptive question is that, of course, Catholics are allowed to kneel. Do you expect CA to say you can’t kneel where there is a statue present?

As I said, Catholics bow their heads (or kneel) when a statue is present as a “visual aid” or whether one is NOT present. The implication that catholics worship statues is refuted.

Eastern Orthodox do venerate certain icons. I believe they have a specific teaching that the veneration passes through the icon to the original.

 

[Ann1231]

The question being answered in that quote is whether Catholics are ALLOWED to kneel BEFORE (in the presence of) a statue of the Virgin Mary. (Bowing, which we were discussing, is not mentioned at all). The answer to the prescriptive question is that, of course, Catholics are allowed to kneel. Do you expect CA to say you can’t kneel where there is a statue present?

As I said, Catholics bow their heads (or kneel) when a statue is present as a “visual aid” or whether one is NOT present. The implication that catholics worship statues is refuted.

Eastern Orthodox do venerate certain icons. I believe they have a specific teaching that the veneration passes through the icon to the original.

correct. some say that Catholics don’t kneel or bow before statues. As long as it’s not “worship” what difference does it make? I don’t see that it does!

 

[Pitcharan]

…

Eastern Orthodox do venerate certain icons. I believe they have a specific teaching that the veneration passes through the icon to the original.

This is something that is not only interesting but very important: seeing the manifestation of God in humans. In the OT we come across several instances when the faithful see the face of God in the face of a human. He (Jacob) himself went on ahead and bowed down to the ground seven times as he approached his brother. But Esau ran to meet Jacob and embraced him; he threw his arms around his neck and kissed him. And they wept. … (Jacob told Esau) …to see your face is like seeing the face of God, now that you have received me favorably. (Gen33:3-4, 10c)

Many christians, especially Protestants, misundertand God’s teaching against idolatroy and bowing before creatures. They miss this point: the background of God’s instruction against idolatory was the depraval and degeneration of human mind to the extent of fashioning vile images, bowing to these images and indulging in perverse orgies and offering human sacrifices

 

[placido]

1. Because Jesus was the only child mentioned when the family went to Jerusalem when he was 12 doesn’t necessarily mean he was the only child of Mary and Joseph. Maybe that’s one reason they apparently didn’t miss him for three days!

I hope people will now understand me correctly when I accuse some posters of double standards. Normally, non-catholics would demand biblical evidence for every thing, but here we have one determined to believe that Mary had other children after Jesus’ birth even though there is no biblical evidence for such a bilief.

That has always stumped me. My parents surely would have checked on me all the time when on such a journey. But perhaps they saw their other children and assumed they were all together.

Mary’s child born after Jesus would have been 10 years old by the time Jesus was twelve. But we find Mary and Joseph looking for Jesus and even asking relatives, yet they don’t ask the 10 years old brother or sister of Jesus “where is your elder brother?”
But no, for whatever reason, some “Bible-believers” are so determined in seeing Mary and Joseph having children after Jesus even without biblical support.

placido

 

[Axion]

Mary’s child born after Jesus would have been 10 years old by the time Jesus was twelve. But we find Mary and Joseph looking for Jesus and even asking relatives, yet they don’t ask the 10 years old brother or sister of Jesus “where is your elder brother?”
But no, for whatever reason, some “Bible-believers” are so determined in seeing Mary and Joseph having children after Jesus even without biblical support.

placido

Indeed. And we know that BOTH Mary and Joseph at once left the Caravan to travel back through dangerous country to Jerusalem to look for Jesus. So where were all of Mary and Joseph’s supposed babies and younger children when this was happening? There had to be at least six others, if the people named as “brothers and sisters” of Jesus were siblings. And if seven children survived to adulthood - considering infant mortality at the time, that meant FOURTEEN babies!

 

[1holycatholic]

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?

[bibledrb]Luke 1:48[/bibledrb]
When you don’t ever call Mary blessed in opposition to what is written in the Bible, those that do call Mary blessed probably seem excessive.

 

[PLeeD]

[bibledrb]Luke 1:48[/bibledrb]

“Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid; for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.”

When you don’t ever call Mary blessed in opposition to what is written in the Bible, those that do call Mary blessed probably seem excessive.

Just so I understand Catholic thought on this, you consider it disrespectful to refer to Mary without using the qualifier of “Blessed”? That is, in normal conversation if I refer to the mother of Jesus simply as “Mary”, then a Catholic believer will consider me as being disrespectful?

If that’s the case, then I apologize to everyone who I have offended.

But at the same time, how has what Mary Blessed Mother of Jesus says come to be considered as a commandment that you would feel so strongly about? I just don’t understand how you can get from point A to point B on this,

 

[Chris258]

Just so I understand Catholic thought on this, you consider it disrespectful to refer to Mary without using the qualifier of “Blessed”? That is, in normal conversation if I refer to the mother of Jesus simply as “Mary”, then a Catholic believer will consider me as being disrespectful?

If that’s the case, then I apologize to everyone who I have offended.

But at the same time, how has what Mary Blessed Mother of Jesus says come to be considered as a commandment that you would feel so strongly about? I just don’t understand how you can get from point A to point B on this,

I don’t think the fact that one generally does not add the honorific ‘Blessed’ to Mary’s name should really peeve Catholics.

In understanding why Catholics keep such a strong tradition of veneration regarding Mary, and all the saints really, you must remember that we are not Protestants in the way we look at Scripture.

If we’re looking at the written Word with a Protestant mindset, then naturally it looks like Catholics are just making stuff up, because Mary is honestly not talked about that much throughout the New Testament; though the textual references to her give us a great impression of how holy, loving and submissive to God’s will she was, there’s just not much written about her.

But you must remember that Catholics don’t decide how they’re going to live and express their faith by saying “if it’s not in the Bible, it doesn’t matter” or “if a doctrine or practice is not taught clearly in the words of Scripture, then it is groundless”.

While many of my Catholic brothers and sisters here are trying very energetically to help you see the implicit witness of Scripture regarding Mary’s perpetual virginity, etc, you shouldn’t come away from this discussion with the impression that we demand an unambiguous Scriptural witness to a practice or belief before we will hold it. Any honest Catholic will admit that the chief reasoning behind our veneration of Mary and the saints comes from Tradition, rather than unambiguous witness from the Scriptural text. Not a Tradition in the sense that it is an alien encrustation of the Christian faith, rather a living Tradition that grows out from the seed of Christian faith becoming more and more explicit, like the eventual formal declaration of the Trinitarian doctrines.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, PLeeD,

I just joined this thread… … and your question just jumped out at me, calling for an answer - or, at least a response. Let me see if I can help.

Just so I understand Catholic thought on this, you consider it disrespectful to refer to Mary without using the qualifier of “Blessed”? That is, in normal conversation if I refer to the mother of Jesus simply as “Mary”, then a Catholic believer will consider me as being disrespectful?

If that’s the case, then I apologize to everyone who I have offended.

But at the same time, how has what Mary Blessed Mother of Jesus says come to be considered as a commandment that you would feel so strongly about? I just don’t understand how you can get from point A to point B on this,

Catholics consider certain people to be special Friends of God and the Church has identified that these people are in Heaven and have lived lives on earth that we can use as models of virtue and piety. The Church gives these Friends of God the special title of “Saint”.

Let me give you an example. In the US, it is customary to call the President of the US, “Mr. President” or the governor of a state as, “Governor _____”. Even after their term of office has concluded, they still are called by this special designation. It is a way of showing respect and appreciation for their service to the Country.

Looking back on the Life of Christ, we can see that we address Jesus’ cousin, not just by his name but rather as St. John the Baptist, the Four Evangelists as St. Matthew…St. John, the Apostles as St. Peter…St Paul, etc. This has continued to our present day - but, let’s look back now at the person (lower case ‘p’) whose life was the one of saying “Yes” to God at every turn - the Blessed Virgin Mary.

The Chruch honors the Mother of God as living a life totally dedicated to doing God’s Will - and as such always call her Blessed, never just Mary. Look at it this way: anyone who is honoring your mother is also honoring you (and, the reverse is equally and more painfully true). Catholics do not worship Mary as we worship God. The Blessed Mother is a creature (just like we are creatures). God, Who knows all things, chose Mary to be the Mother of Jesus and as such - by a special undeserved Gift of Grace - she was conceived in the usual manner BUT upon her conception, she was spared from Original Sin. She was to be like the Ark of the Covenant - to be made as perfectly as possible for it would hold the Ten Commandments and other items signifying God’s special graces to the Hebrews. Imagine God’s handiwork with the Blessed Mother - the person who would carry the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity in her body for nine months.

For those who honor Christ as Savior and Lord - there is no reason not to honor His Blessed Mother. Her role in Salvation History is to point all peoples to her Son.

God bless

 

[PLeeD]

I don’t think the fact that one generally does not add the honorific ‘Blessed’ to Mary’s name should really peeve Catholics.

I wouldn’t have thought so, but it seems to rub some people the wrong way to simply say “Mary”.

I’ve referred to apostles using “saint” occasionally, but only in a casual way. We typically refer to “Paul” as “Paul”, “Peter” as “Peter”, and “Blessed Mary” as “Mary”. The only bible figure that comes to mind as not generally being referred to solely by their first name is John the Baptist, and that’s only to differentiate him from John the Apostle Once it’s been established which John is the subject of discussion, he is subsequently only referred to by his first name. I assure you that no disrespect is intended in any case.

Inferring that a protestant intends disrespect by leaving out the word “saint” or “blessed” is unreasonable.

 

[budgie2]

I hope people will now understand me correctly when I accuse some posters of double standards. Normally, non-catholics would demand biblical evidence for every thing, but here we have one determined to believe that Mary had other children after Jesus’ birth even though there is no biblical evidence for such a bilief.

Mary’s child born after Jesus would have been 10 years old by the time Jesus was twelve. But we find Mary and Joseph looking for Jesus and even asking relatives, yet they don’t ask the 10 years old brother or sister of Jesus “where is your elder brother?”
But no, for whatever reason, some “Bible-believers” are so determined in seeing Mary and Joseph having children after Jesus even without biblical support.

placido

As far as I know Mary and Joseph split up when Jesus was about 5 or 6. They did not have a sexual relationship and Mary is ever-virgin. It was Mary’s own choice to be ever virgin and not by God’s command. In some ways Jesus had a hard childhood and was from a lone parent family, but it’s shrouded in mystery. (divine revelation)

 

[1holycatholic]

Just so I understand Catholic thought on this, you consider it disrespectful to refer to Mary without using the qualifier of “Blessed”? That is, in normal conversation if I refer to the mother of Jesus simply as “Mary”, then a Catholic believer will consider me as being disrespectful?

If that’s the case, then I apologize to everyone who I have offended.

No. You’re reading something that isn’t there. It would be offensive to refuse to ever do it.

But at the same time, how has what Mary Blessed Mother of Jesus says come to be considered as a commandment that you would feel so strongly about? I just don’t understand how you can get from point A to point B on this,

Mary is the Mother of God.

Can you say that, or are you a Nestorian?