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.
I’ve heard this said before, but I’ve never understood it. Let’s say that Mary was exactly as Protestants would depict her:
  1. Born with Original Sin, same as all of us.
  2. Having guilt of actual sin, same as all of us.
  3. Sexually active with her lawfully married husband after Christ’s birth, producing children.
  4. Dead and disintegrating in a tomb somewhere, same as all of us (eventually).
How does viewing Mary in this fashion detract from our understanding of Christ?

–Mike
Let’s say you’re a Muslim who’s examining Christianity, Mike. You want to know if Jesus is really divine. He seems to be just like any other holy man.

Now, if the Catholic presents her arguments to the Muslim: Jesus was so holy–divine, even-- that the womb which contained him was pure and undefiled.

vs the Protestant presenting his understanding: Mary was just like any other creature, sinful and depraved…

which POV is more likely to uphold the Christian belief that Jesus is divine?
 
Statements such as this:

Is it your opinion that protestants had a full understanding of the Trinity and Christ’s divine/human nature in 33 AD? Oh wait, there were no protestants in 33 AD. And there was no King James Bible in 33 AD. Uh-oh… now what?

is simply not fitting for saints. This is not how I would allow my son to talk to his brother. He was not asking me these questions, he was being sarcastic.

Also, since protestants believe that original sin is only transmitted through the male gender in a marriage relationship, would a baby be born free from original sin if (hypothetically speaking) a man was sinless and the woman had original sin?
 
Let’s say you’re a Muslim who’s examining Christianity, Mike. You want to know if Jesus is really divine. He seems to be just like any other holy man.

Now, if the Catholic presents her arguments to the Muslim: Jesus was so holy–divine, even-- that the womb which contained him was pure and undefiled.

vs the Protestant presenting his understanding: Mary was just like any other creature, sinful and depraved…

which POV is more likely to uphold the Christian belief that Jesus is divine?
Neither, since Jesus’ divinity isn’t derived from Mary. Jesus’ humanity is derived from Mary. Mary is how we know Jesus was a man, not that He was God.
 
I’ve heard this said before, but I’ve never understood it. Let’s say that Mary was exactly as Protestants would depict her:
  1. Born with Original Sin, same as all of us.
Wrong. This violates Genesis 3:15
  1. Having guilt of actual sin, same as all of us.
Wrong. This also violates Genesis 3:15 for the same reason.
  1. Sexually active with her lawfully married husband after Christ’s birth, producing children.
Wrong. This violates Ezekiel 43:4-7. I also address the “brothers” issue here.
  1. Dead and disintegrating in a tomb somewhere, same as all of us (eventually).
Wrong. This violates Mark 8:36-39 and 13:26-27; also, Her tomb is actually empty
How does viewing Mary in this fashion detract from our understanding of Christ?
It destroys the authority of the Bible and leads to a diminishment of both the humanity and the divinity of Christ. This is evidenced by this statement:
The interesting thing about the development of the doctrines of the Trinity and Jesus’ divine/human natures (not nature – one person, two natures, remember) is that what you see during the early centuries of the Church is a loss of balance, a swinging to either the human pole or the divine pole that must repeatedly be corrected and brought back to center. For example, in the gospel and letters of John it is important to John that Christ came in the flesh – this was to combat the heresies of those who denied the humanity of Christ. Then, in the Arian heresy, the fight was against those who swung too far the other way and denied the divinity of Christ. Then there was the Nestorian heresy that separated the natures of Christ into persons, driving the divine and human too far apart. After that came the monophysite heresy that brought the divine and human too close together. So in the early centuries of the Church, the fight against heresy way much like the needle of a scale that had gotten kicked off center and then wobbled way to one side, way to the other side, but less and less with each corrective action by the Church, finally stabilizing at the center where it belongs.
Jesus is not a sliding scale. He is both FULLY human and FULLY God. There were no see-saw rulings in the early Church; all of the councils insisted on His FULL and simultaneous divinity and humanity. It is only necessary to water Jesus down if one is trying to water Mary down, for example, to try and avoid calling Her “Mother of God” by making Her Son not God. But any attempt to tamper with Jesus Christ’s identity as the God-Man is absolute heresy. And this is how we ended up with Islam and everything that followed from the Arab conquest of the Eastern world–go watch the news tonight and you can see how much damage was created by a simple misunderstanding about the divinity of Christ.

There’s a whole bunch of misunderstandings referenced in your post (not saying they are yours) as well:
1) Eve was created without sin and began her life in a sinless world with only one temptation, yet she succumbed to that one tempation and sinned. Even if Mary was born just as sinless as Eve, how was she able to withstand the myriad tempations of the sin-filled world into which she was born so as to never sin her entire life?

By the grace of God, of course. It is certainly possible for Him to grant this grace to anyone if He chooses to do so.
  1. If Mary was so personally strong as to resist sin even in a sin-filled world, why didn’t God give Mary to Adam in Eden instead of Eve so that she would have resisted sin in paradise and saved humankind the trouble of this whole Fall and Redemption thing?
 
(Continued from Part 1)
  1. How could Mary have been born without Original Sin and lived a sinless life when certain fathers of the Church, including two popes titled “The Great” by the Church, maintained that anyone born of sexual intercourse was necessarily subject to Original Sin (and did not explicitly exclude Mary when speaking on this topic), and one saint and doctor of the Church explicitly called her a sinner?
None of these were making infallible pronouncements of doctrine. Not everything a pope says is infallible. A pope must follow certain procedure in order to exercise the charism of infallibility and none of these were doing so. Plenty of debate has been had in the Church about all kinds of things, from millennialism to veneration of images to whether Gentiles were required to keep the Mosaic Law:

[BIBLEDRB]Acts 10:10-25[/BIBLEDRB]

As you can see, there was a great discord involving several of the Apostles on this issue. But then PETER, i.e. the Pope, gets up and settles the matter. Now, Peter had been wrong about this issue before (Gal 2:11-14), but this time, after following procedure (using an ecumenical council), he gets it right and this settles the debate forever (a judgment the reader accepts, seeing as he/she just had pork for breakfast.)
But what do we see with the “development of doctrine” concerning Mary? Rather than a wobbling off a central course, we see a nonstop increase and accumulation of reverence and honor (and power – I wonder how “Co-Mediatrix” and “Mediatrix of All Graces” would have rung in the ears of an early Christian). The Church’s vision of Mary has just gotten bigger and bigger as the centuries have passed, with hardly anything to slow it down, as there is certainly too little in Scripture to serve as a brake or a check on the progression. Mary has grown so large in the eyes of the Church that she practically blocks the vision of God
According to who? People who don’t accept the authority of the Bible in the first place, so are they fit to judge?
The tradition of the Rosary is especially telling: 10 Hail Marys for every 1 Our Father? Shouldn’t it be the other way around, given that when Jesus was asked, “Teach us to pray,” it was the “Our Father” He delivered to us?
This shows that the person making this claim does not understand what the Rosary actually is. It is 65% Jesus when all of the prayer, including mediation, is taken into account.
 
I am not quite sure how you cannot see the flaw in the reasoning you have just put forth. You are saying that it does not matter what any of the Pope’s or Early Christians said, what matters is what is pronounced as authoritative in a council with all the requirements for the charism of infallibility to actually be energized???

So you are telling me that it is possible for a Pope to be misinformed about something, but then is totally informed when he is under the charism of infallibility? You gotta be kidding.

Why has Christ Church gone so astray in her thinking??? The doctrine of the Church is apostolic. There is a reason why it is called “apostolic” and not “bishoprical”. The bishops succeeding the apostles have absolutely no right to develop doctrine into new teaching that was not know before. If the early Church bishops believe Mary to be sinful, then from whence did the belief that she was sinless arise if not after the apostles? And if this is true, would this not prove it’s falsehood? How can we justify a special and unique “charism” which endows one with knowledge that he would not have known regularly from his catechesis?
 
(Continued from Part 1)
  1. How could Mary have been born without Original Sin and lived a sinless life when certain fathers of the Church, including two popes titled “The Great” by the Church, maintained that anyone born of sexual intercourse was necessarily subject to Original Sin (and did not explicitly exclude Mary when speaking on this topic), and one saint and doctor of the Church explicitly called her a sinner?
None of these were making infallible pronouncements of doctrine. Not everything a pope says is infallible. A pope must follow certain procedure in order to exercise the charism of infallibility and none of these were doing so. Plenty of debate has been had in the Church about all kinds of things, from millennialism to veneration of images to whether Gentiles were required to keep the Mosaic Law:

[BIBLEDRB]Acts 15:1-12[/BIBLEDRB]

As you can see, there was a great discord involving several of the Apostles on this issue. But then PETER, i.e. the Pope, gets up and settles the matter. Now, Peter had been wrong about this issue before when acting as a private person (Gal 2:11-14), but this time, after following procedure (using an ecumenical council), he gets it right and this settles the debate forever (a judgment the reader accepts, seeing as he/she just had pork for breakfast.)
Mary has grown so large in the eyes of the Church that she practically blocks the vision of God
According to who? People who don’t accept the authority of the Bible in the first place, and just choose the parts that fit their own views, so are they fit to judge?
The tradition of the Rosary is especially telling: 10 Hail Marys for every 1 Our Father? Shouldn’t it be the other way around, given that when Jesus was asked, “Teach us to pray,” it was the “Our Father” He delivered to us?
This shows that the person making this claim does not understand what the Rosary actually is. It is 65% Jesus when all of the prayer, including mediation, is taken into account.
 
I am not quite sure how you cannot see the flaw in the reasoning you have just put forth.
What flaw? Moses was the undisputed authoritative prophet and lawgiver and in his own private conduct, he fell short of the standards he had given to Israel on behalf of God. (Num. 20:13) Does that mean we chuck the Ten Commandments? Come on.
So you are telling me that it is possible for a Pope to be misinformed about something, but then is totally informed when he is under the charism of infallibility? You gotta be kidding.
Absolutely, just as it’s possible for anybody to be wrong on some count when the requirements for infallibility are not there. This happened all the time with the Apostles–JUDAS, anyone? How about Paul going back to Jewish ritual in Acts 21:20-26 and 24:10-12, and then turning around and saying those rituals had been abolished in Eph. 2:14?

Ditch the double standards.
 
I didn’t express my thought as clearly as I should have.

What you are saying is that the whole Church can believe that Mary was sinful, and yet by some inanimate God ordained mind alteration which takes place when the right conditions are laid out in the procedures for papal infallibility, the Church will believe she is sinless immediately upon the activation of the “charism”.

This is simply not how the apostles saw this. Paul told Timothy that a Bishop has learned the faith from someone who has taught him. In other words, the faith of the gospel was handed from the apostles on to the apostolic churches, and the bishops are to keep these doctrines unadulterated. To say that new things can emerge, or even new understandings can emerge apart from the normal cognitive process of discipleship, education, and catechesis under the inanimate charim of infallibility is superstitious.
 
What you are saying is that the whole Church can believe that Mary was sinful,
Show some evidence that the whole Church believed that Mary was sinful. Of course there isn’t. The matter was debated (meaning no consensus) up until the promulgation of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.
To say that new things can emerge, or even new understandings can emerge apart from the normal cognitive process of discipleship, education, and catechesis under the inanimate charim of infallibility is superstitious.
Again, JUSTIFY THE PROTESTANT REFORMATION if all new doctrines are superstitious!

Your double standards are showing.
 
What new doctrine was taught in the protestant reformation?

That someone can be forgiven for their sin because of faith? We have that example of the paralytic who was brought to Jesus. That the church is the body of Christ and therefore must be purified of evil via excommunicating powers? That’s in 1 Corinthians 5.

The priesthood of all believers? That bishops should be married? That church should not be married to the state? That people go to heaven or hell? That one must be living a life of purity in order to be saved?

Some of these doctrines were very old and not practiced in the Catholic church
 
Cat Herder,

You have some nice arguments there, and I don’t want to try for a point-by-point rebuttal. There are a couple of items I do want to respond to, though:
The Blessed Virgin Mary never suffered death. She was assumed into Heaven at the end of her life like Enoch and Elijah before her.
You do realize that most of the early accounts of the Virgin Mary’s Assumption have her actually, properly dead for at least some period of time, right? And that several of the Church Fathers even gave homilies based on these accounts and had no issue with saying she had died?

pages.uoregon.edu/sshoemak/texts/dormitionL/dormitionL3.htm

Also, Enoch and Elijah are considered by some to be the “two faithful witnesses” from Revelation who return to witness in the end times and then be slain and rise 3-1/2 days later (so as not to one-up the Son of God, who rose on the 3rd day). And if Enoch & Elijah’s being resurrected before the Son of God would not have been fitting, how could Mary’s rising earlier than 3 days have been considered fitting? (Indeed, at least one dormition account has her dead 3-1/2 days.)
As you can see, there was a great discord involving several of the Apostles on this issue. But then PETER, i.e. the Pope, gets up and settles the matter.
Well, no, as a matter of fact not, because after Peter spoke, then Paul and Barnabas gave their testimony, and then James delivered “my sentence” (i.e., not Peter’s, but his) on the matter. The idea that Peter “settled the matter” when he neither finished out the discussion nor rendered the verdict is rather ludicrous.
Show some evidence that the whole Church believed that Mary was sinful.
Why does anyone have to show you that the whole Church believed this? If it were true, I’d be more suspicious of the fact that the whole church didn’t believe it, because it’s kind of hard to get something like that wrong. None of the heresies concerning Christ ever called him a sinner. That Mary’s sinlessness was up for grabs for 1800 years past the death of Christ shows how inconsequential it was to the faith. Indeed, one of the saints and doctors of the Church, St. John Chrysostom, explicitly said Mary was a sinner. I’d have to dig up the reference, but it was so explicit that St. Thomas Aquinas had to address it in his Summa Theologica simply by saying, “Chrysostom goes too far.”
How about Paul going back to Jewish ritual in Acts 21:20-26 and 24:10-12, and then turning around and saying those rituals had been abolished in Eph. 2:14?
That wasn’t Paul “getting things wrong”. That was Paul behaving as a Jew to the Jews, even as he behaved as a Gentile when with Gentiles.
 
man… the catholic vs protestant debates never end…

And as a reader of many of these protestant vs catholic debates, I’ve noticed that the Catholics have such a huge support system in the history of the Church and the longevity of it’s organization and that protestants simply have the support of the Scriptures.

It is a tough decision to choose from.
 
I have nothing against Mary. She was highly favored of God. I have a problem with Catholics over emphasizing her, and have misconceptions about her. I know it’s been debated ad nauseum about Mary’s “perpetual virginity”, but, the bible said they had other kids. I believe that. I believe she died, and went to heaven, and fellowships with other believers. She is not my mother, she was Christ’s. I myself hope to see her, and thank her for being obedient to the Lord. My opinion was asked, and I won’t debate it.
 
I think this thread is diving into the superstition that many Christians would have condemned in ages past.
 
I think what was slightly offensive was that you implied being the Mother of God was so irrelevant that it wasn’t worth even knowing who she was-“Who is this Mary you speak of?”
That’s a little unfair. I wasn’t giving an opinion, it’s a fact that we mention Mary so rarely I’ve had to wait for a clue before knowing whether we’re talking about the mother of Jesus or Mary Magdalene.

If you want to be offended, two thirds of the child deaths in the world could be prevented and half of all child deaths occur in Sub-Saharan Africa.
 
Why do you assume that I use the king James?
I don’t. But that does not diminish my point.
And the filthy rudeness is not needed.
If what I said qualifies as “filthy rudeness” then I’m sure you find this deplorable!
You are catholic, act like it.
Ah yes, the “you are x, act like x” meme…
If you mean deeper understanding then of course that exists. But actually teaching new things such as assumption of Mary, immaculate conception, perpetual virginity, her power in salvation, the world wide veneration and prayer was not even heard of in the early church
What about “new things” like… what should be included in the canon?

:bible1:
 
I think this thread is diving into the superstition that many Christians would have condemned in ages past.
Serious question: Is not protestantism a superstition that many Christians would have condemned in ages past?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top