There is Still Something about Mary

  • Thread starter Thread starter Truthstalker
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
As an Episcopalian, I frequently attended Benediction and Adoration in my parish . . .

Have a look at Newman’s Tract 90 on the wider interpretation of the Sacraments. He wrote it before he left the Anglican Communion. If you are a “refugee from the Episcopal Church,” you seem not to have been exposed to the full wealth of your own sacramental Tradition.
If you said your Parish participated in the adoration of the host, I believe you. Were you Anglo-Catholic? Still, it is not something supported by the 39 Articles and not something that most of the Episcopal Church does. The comments you cited from Newman are interesting, although it appears that his problem was more cultural than theological…at least in the passage you cite. I was a member of the Episcopal Church for 20 years of my adult life, but I do not pretend to be fully cognizant of the entire heritage by any means. Especially, as pertains to the Newman and the other Anglo-Catholics, since the Parish I attended was low church evangelical.
 
Eucharistic adoration? Again, unscriptural. The blood and body are being offered for the communion of the saints during the communion of the saints.

As stated in the 39 Articles,

“The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon, or to be carried about, but that we should duly use them. And in such only as worthily receive the same have they a wholesome effect or operation: but they that receive them unworthily purchase to themselves damnation, as Saint Paul saith.” (Article 25) …,and,

“The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.” (Article 28).
the proposition that something is unscriptural, and therefore unacceptable, is fine, but do you apply it consistently?

do you, for example, use the term “Trinity”?

unscriptural, my friend.

oh, but you say it’s perfectly consistent with scripture?

well, the same is true of eucharistic adoration. it is indeed “a classic example of what we call development of doctrine.

note that Christ held the eucharist up for observation to the apostles at the last supper, saying “This is My body.”

note, too, that the early Christians carried the Eucharist about, to bring it to sick persons, for example.

now, you may say, well, to my mind, eucharistic adoration is not consistent with scripture.

but who gave you the authority to render this judgment?

are you “the pillar and foundation of truth”?

no - the church is. 1 timothy 3:15

well, which church?

the one established by Christ.

and which is that?

Among the Christian churches, only the Catholic Church has existed since the time of Jesus.

you could look it up. and please do.
 
Mariology is the study of Christian theology concerned with Mary, the Mother of Jesus. You’re worried about people excessively studying? Why is that it is so obviously must be Catholics who overemphasize the Blessed Virgin? Why isn’t it at least just as likely the real problem is with those who don’t respect her enough and, in process, fail to give God His full measure of glory?

– Mark L. Chance.
 
I think ML Chance’s laughter was in reference to the incorrect use of the word “mariology,” which is a legitimate study of the theology of Mary’s position in Christian doctrine. The word that should have been used in that post is “mariolatry” – a snide anti-Catholic term inferring that Catholic veneration of Our Lady is a form of idolatry.
 
I think ML Chance’s laughter was in reference to the incorrect use of the word “mariology,” which is a legitimate study of the theology of Mary’s position in Christian doctrine. The word that should have been used in that post is “mariolatry” – a snide anti-Catholic term inferring that Catholic veneration of Our Lady is a form of idolatry.
I don’t agree it is the teaching of the church that is “mariolatry” per se, as said by earlier posts, veneration to Mary is a glorification of God… Sad to say that many Catholics, especially here in the Philippines fall to the said mariolatry… Such a pity that true Catholic doctrines are not clear to many in my country…
 
the proposition that something is unscriptural, and therefore unacceptable, is fine, but do you apply it consistently?

do you, for example, use the term “Trinity”?

unscriptural, my friend.

oh, but you say it’s perfectly consistent with scripture?
The doctrine of the Trinity is not an extrapolation from Scripture. It is set forth in Scripture. In numerous places, Christ is said to be the Son of God. Christ refers to God as the Father. Christ says that the Father will send a comforter to the disciples when Christ leaves the Earth…the Holy Spirit. The concept is explicit. What is not explicit is the word “Trinity”. I think your analogy does not hold.
 
Mariology is the study of Christian theology concerned with Mary, the Mother of Jesus. You’re worried about people excessively studying? Why is that it is so obviously must be Catholics who overemphasize the Blessed Virgin? Why isn’t it at least just as likely the real problem is with those who don’t respect her enough and, in process, fail to give God His full measure of glory?

– Mark L. Chance.
If you look at what I posted before, in my opinion there is error on the part of both Protestants and Catholics regarding Mary. Both faiths emphasize the extreme and fall into that trap, they are just on opposite sides.
 
I think ML Chance’s laughter was in reference to the incorrect use of the word “mariology,” which is a legitimate study of the theology of Mary’s position in Christian doctrine. The word that should have been used in that post is “mariolatry” – a snide anti-Catholic term inferring that Catholic veneration of Our Lady is a form of idolatry.
My problem is with the Catholic doctrines regarding Mary and attitude towards Mary. I suspect that everyone knew to which I was referring…it’s not like this is a new issue of dispute between Catholics and Protestants. If I misued the word, I’m sorry for that.
 
The doctrine of the Trinity is not an extrapolation from Scripture. It is set forth in Scripture.
There are anti-Trinitarians (some on this forum) who would debate you for months about this–and they would use Scripture to do it.
 
There are anti-Trinitarians (some on this forum) who would debate you for months about this–and they would use Scripture to do it.
Aaahhh…but they would be wrong and I would be right. 😉
 
The doctrine of the Trinity is not an extrapolation from Scripture. It is set forth in Scripture. In numerous places, Christ is said to be the Son of God. Christ refers to God as the Father. Christ says that the Father will send a comforter to the disciples when Christ leaves the Earth…the Holy Spirit. The concept is explicit. What is not explicit is the word “Trinity”. I think your analogy does not hold.
The doctrine of Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant is not an extrapolation from Scripture. It is set forth in Scritpure. In numerous places (see: Luke 1; 2 Sam 6; Rev 12). If you want the power of God in battle, you’d better have the ark (Num 31; Josh 6-7).

Every time Jesus refers to Mary as “Woman” he aludes to her status as the New Eve (see: Gen 3:15). Very Biblical. The concept is explicit. What is not explicit are the words “Mary is the ark of the New Covenant” or “Mary is the New Eve.” However, as the Bible says, these OT things were “only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves.” (Heb 10:1.)

I think you haven’t examined the analogy if you think it does not hold.

God Bless,
RyanL
 
My problem is with the Catholic doctrines regarding Mary and attitude towards Mary. I suspect that everyone knew to which I was referring…it’s not like this is a new issue of dispute between Catholics and Protestants. If I misued the word, I’m sorry for that.
Was it on this thread or elsewhere that the matter of the distinction between doctrine and devotion came up with the reference to Newman’s observations on this?
 
Aaahhh…but they would be wrong and I would be right. 😉
That was funny. 🙂

At least you have a sense of humor, please don’t lose it as we discuss faith matters. (Sometimes we get a little too intense on these forums, even though we are talking about serious matters we shouldn’t always be uptight.)

God Bless
Scylla
 
That was funny. 🙂

At least you have a sense of humor, please don’t lose it as we discuss faith matters. (Sometimes we get a little too intense on these forums, even though we are talking about serious matters we shouldn’t always be uptight.)

God Bless
Scylla
Agreed. As you noted, the issues ARE serious…quite serious in most cases…yet we ought to be able to discuss them in a pleasant manner. And, unfortunately, getting too serious about things is something I’ve done way too many times here and elsewhere.
 
Not really sure quite why I’m posting it…prolly something to do with the something about Mary…but in any case, I thought I’d post the following from C.S. Lewis:
Mere Christianity:
Some people draw unwarranted conclusions from the fact that I never say more about the Blessed Virgin Mary than is involved in asserting the Virgin Birth of Christ. But surely my reason for not doing so is obvious? To say more would take me at once into highly controversial regions. And there is no controversy between Christians which needs to be so delicately touched as this. The Roman Catholic beliefs on that subject are held not only with the ordinary fervour that attaches to all sincere religious belief, but (very naturally) with the peculiar and, as it were, chivalrous sensibility that a man feels when the honour of his mother or his beloved is at stake.
Mary…mom.

Rev 12:17 Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to make war against the rest of her offspring—those who obey God’s commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus.

God Bless,
RyanL
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top