This question is for Protestants only. What do you have against Mary?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Brony4life
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
+JMJ+
Publisher said:
That’s one of the things that always “confuses” me. If “civility” cannot be maintained when discussing spiritual things…what does that say concerning the “impact” of “XYZ” teaching on one’s heart…if that teaching one is supporting does not promote gentleness, kindness, charitable responses…then what “good” is such a teaching?🤷
Click to expand...
Actually what I can see is that you want us to be “nice”, not kind and gentle.

Being “nice” is a whole different thing from being kind. “Nice”, in fact, means “stupid” in Old English, which comes from the Latin nescius, meaning ignorant, incapable.

Jesus was always kind enough to tell people the truth…scathingly, sometimes. But nice? Never.
 
How would people react if the same attitude shown Mary that contradicts not only our beliefs but our personal knowledge of her…if the same attitude were shown Christ Himself???

Fundamentalists and evangelicals should realize that the communion of saints and our devotion to Mary is simply outside their religious experience.

But yes, to say we worship Mary and at the same refuse to study church history and refuse to listen to us in how we truly worship, is certainly not a movement of Christ. And considering that God uses Mary to crush his pride (head), intense opposition and accusations that we worship her over Christ, etc. has the devil’s foot prints.

I say that because I have seen highly educated and moderated Catholics in ministry have great devotion to Mary that is not what is portrayed by those who profess such strong faith in Christ and yet on the other hand, spend alot of time attacking Catholics.
 
Furthermore, I am in my early 60’s and have never heard any priest or lay on parish property in public speak against Protestants or against any denomination of such in my entire life whether at Mass or in catechesis. There is objective taught differences of belief, but it is professional and academic and well researched.
 
nuntym said:
+JMJ+

Actually what I can see is that you want us to be “nice”, not kind and gentle.

Being “nice” is a whole different thing from being kind. “Nice”, in fact, means “stupid” in Old English, which comes from the Latin nescius, meaning ignorant, incapable.

Jesus was always kind enough to tell people the truth…scathingly, sometimes. But nice? Never.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

I believe I heard an interview once when one British actor called another British actor “nice”. And he apologized for doing so, saying something like, “Is there anything more banal than calling someone ‘nice’?”
 
AbideWithMe said:
PR—Your second example, of a husband and wife keeping each other present in their hearts, is really just their imaginations, memories, and longings at work. These human faculties are all good things where appropriate, of course, but in no way are they true spiritual presence in the way the Holy Spirit is truly spiritually present in His Personhood in our spirits. For that reason, I don’t think that example is applicable to this discussion.
Click to expand...
Perhaps.

What about this example? That of a family saying, “Dad was really present here with us this Thanksgiving!” And they don’t mean just in their memories or in the imaginations. They mean that, as he has passed on to his heavenly reward, he was, indeed, present at their family meal.

Have you ever heard someone say that?

Do you doubt that this actually occurred?
 
Protestants have nothing against Mary. How could they? She was the vessel of Jesus through the holy ghost.

Some of the Catholic adoration does seem like idolatry. Perhaps it is misunderstood.

The papacy is similar, in a way. While Protestants can appreciate the place of a spiritual leader, when concepts like “infallacy” are suggested to inhere to an individual, then there is a healthy skepticism of the claim.

It is all a matter of degree, I guess.
 
epan said:
Protestants have nothing against Mary. How could they? She was the vessel of Jesus through the holy ghost.

Some of the Catholic adoration does seem like idolatry. Perhaps it is misunderstood.
Click to expand...
Misunderstood. Absolutely.
The papacy is similar, in a way. While Protestants can appreciate the place of a spiritual leader, when concepts like “infallacy” are suggested to inhere to an individual, then there is a healthy skepticism of the claim.
Click to expand...
I have never understood this objection to a man being infallible, coming from Christians who believe that men were infallible who wrote the Scriptures.

Why is it possible for Matthew, Mark, Luke and John to write infallibly, but not Pope X? :confused:
 
nuntym said:
+JMJ+

Actually what I can see is that you want us to be “nice”, not kind and gentle.

Being “nice” is a whole different thing from being kind. “Nice”, in fact, means “stupid” in Old English, which comes from the Latin nescius, meaning ignorant, incapable.

Jesus was always kind enough to tell people the truth…scathingly, sometimes. But nice? Never.
Click to expand...
“Nice” response and very charitable.

Peace to you friend.
 
The premise is ridiculous. Protestants (even Muslims) revere Mary. What Protestants find objectionable is what is sometimes referred to by them as mariolatry (elevating Mary to a position beyond what is found in the Scriptures).

As as an Anglo-Catholic, I hold Mary in as high esteem as the Roman Catholic Church, but I am sensitive to those who see the Catholic position on Mary as unwarranted by scripture.

Áve María, grátia pléna,
Dóminus técum.
Benedícta tu in muliéribus,
et benedíctus frúctus véntris túi, Iésus.

Sáncta María, Máter Déi,
óra pro nóbis peccatóribus,
nunc et in hóra mórtis nóstrae.
Ámen.
 
+JMJ+
Publisher said:
“Nice” response and very charitable.

Peace to you friend.
Click to expand...
Thanks, and peace to you too, friend.

Dang nabit, I’m havin a headache, gonna make some my of my special Bloody Mary here. V8 + Vodka 😃
 
stewstew03 said:
Agreed. So… if you believe God can consecrate His dwelling place, why would you think He couldn’t (or wouldn’t) consecrate Mary at her conception, and therefore sanctify her womb for Christ’s presence?
Click to expand...
Stewstew and PR—I certainly believe God could have done so, but I don’t see why it would have been necessary. Yesterday you and PR were both posting on this, so my objection is mostly to PR’s pictures of dirty containers as if anyone who doesn’t believe in the Immaculate Conception must be saying Mary is like one of those unclean vessels. Why couldn’t God have made Mary clean at the time of Christ’s presence in her womb? That was the point of what I said about Jesus coming and touching unclean people, transferring His cleanness to them, in contrast to the Jewish priests who became unclean themselves if they touched someone who was unclean.

Here’s the Orthodox wiki article on the Immaculate Conception, which gives some explanation for why they don’t see it as necessary. While I’m not Orthodox, this view makes so much more sense to me. orthodoxwiki.org/Immaculate_Conception

Re: the legion of unclean spirits being cast out of a man and sent into a herd of pigs—You’re right, that does illustrate the limitations of created spirits. But I think it also may illustrate the idea of the man’s–and ours—“inner being” having a sort of spiritual space that can be dwelt in by the Holy Spirit instead of the unclean spirits in the story; a sort of spiritually spatial inner tabernacle which is very real.
 
PRmerger said:
It certainly makes it harder to provide apologia for His Divinity if He Who Could Not Be Contained was contained in this:

http://d2qss72tiioiku.cloudfront.net/image/190x190/dirty-bottle-27220.jpg?1266335377
Click to expand...
But again, Jesus does not derive His divinity from Mary, but His humanity. Therefore it is a testament to the reality of His humanity that Christ was contained by a woman no different in origin from any other woman. Mary’s mundane conception, like ours, links Christ to all of us. Christ’s unique conception, on the other hand, marks Him as someone unprecedented in all of human history – i.e., if anyone could claim to be divine as well as human, He could, thanks to his spiritual conception.

Another example, and hopefully one not too vulgar: There are some who believe that Mary’s physical virginity remained intact during the birth of Christ, as some apocryphal literature does say. But I ask you: What does it say about Christ’s humanity if He had passed through the birth canal of the Virgin Mary as if He were some sort of phantom? Despite how it may delight us to think that the Virgin Mary was not merely a virgin by activity but additionally a physical virgin, that physical intactness would be a testimony to the unreality of Christ’s flesh and a counter-witness to His being truly Man as well as God. So in this case, which do you prefer: That the Virgin Mary be elevated even though it brings Christ’s humanity into question, or that Christ’s humanity be affirmed even though it might bring His Mother closer to us rank-and-file groundlings?
Well, if you tell me what denomination of Christian you are I can answer this.
Click to expand...
I first came into Christianity as a Southern Baptist and am most familiar with their doctrines, so how about taking that for example? In what ways has disbelief in Catholic doctrines concerning the Virgin Mary diminished the Southern Baptists’ understanding of Christ?
There can be no Bible without the Church, so what you are saying is as nonsensical as saying, “In the absence of Shakespeare, Romeo still proclaimed his love for Juliet.”
Click to expand...
And yet Romeo still proclaims his love for Juliet, centuries after Shakespeare died.
 
AbideWithMe said:
Why couldn’t God have made Mary clean at the time of Christ’s presence in her womb?
Click to expand...
If you believe this, then you are one step closer than most to understanding the CC’s teaching! 👍

You see that it is indeed fitting for God to “have made Mary clean”.

The timing of this “immaculate-ness” is irrelevant, as far as this discussion goes.

Are we agreed, then, that it is indeed fitting for God to have made Mary clean? :yup:
 
Publisher said:
That’s one of the things that always “confuses” me. If “civility” cannot be maintained when discussing spiritual things…what does that say concerning the “impact” of “XYZ” teaching on one’s heart…if that teaching one is supporting does not promote gentleness, kindness, charitable responses…then what “good” is such a teaching?🤷
Click to expand...
Personality-wise, I am “confused” in the same way. But, though I’m still dismayed by the sometimes heated squabbling —and my contributions to it—I can see that these are matters close to people’s hearts, and so it can be hard to discuss them dispassionately.

Then again, we could be passionate about being open to seeing things from others’ points of view, and also respecting the goodness of other people’s motives even if we can’t all see things alike.
 
PRmerger said:
If you believe this, then you are one step closer than most to understanding the CC’s teaching! 👍

You see that it is indeed fitting for God to “have made Mary clean”.

The timing of this “immaculate-ness” is irrelevant, as far as this discussion goes.

Are we agreed, then, that it is indeed fitting for God to have made Mary clean? :yup:
Click to expand...
Yes, I firmly believe that.
 
Cat_Herder said:
Thanks. There’s no such thing as an original thought; maybe George Lucas subconsciously got the idea from the Dormition/Assumption.
Click to expand...
I’m betting Lucas got the idea from the Buddhist “rainbow body” belief…but who knows?
 
+JMJ+
AbideWithMe said:
Yes, I firmly believe that.
Click to expand...
Congratulations, you are now in St. Thomas Aquinas’ position on the immaculateness of Mary 👍 He didn’t believe in the Immaculate Conception, but he was of the opinion that Mary had to be clean of any taint of sin some time before she became pregnant with Jesus.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top