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

[stewstew03]

You have the mysterious conviction that you can attack a procession of Catholic worshippers, knock the miter off the priest’s head, dash the Eucharist to the ground, burn the vestments, smash the images, and overturn the altar – yet inexplicably seize their Holy Book and declare it an infallible oracle.

Great quote! I’m going to put that in my signature line.

 

[PRmerger]

Great quote! I’m going to put that in my signature line.

It is a good one, isn’t it. Kudos to apologist Mark Shea for his trenchant insight!

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

What about Anglicans who don’t destroy those things

 

[stewstew03]

It is a good one, isn’t it. Kudos to apologist Mark Shea for his trenchant insight!

Added (paraphrased).

 

[stewstew03]

I would say all these things at the very least, existed in the early centuries as well, regardless of what heretic taught it. For instance, Irenaus said that the Eucharist, even after the prayer, consists of both earthly and heavenly substances. But Catholics believe it is only heavenly. And no, he was not just speaking about “appearances”. Tertullian beleived that only adults should be baptized. And this is a man who was catechized and actually speaks just like Hippolytus’s instructions for the baptized.

So how do you know what’s true?

 

[stewstew03]

Protestants do not believe that sola scriptura is a belief handed down from the apostles.

Good. I’m glad we can agree the bible doesn’t teach sola scriptura.

… I believe that it is possible that God placed a judgement upon Rome until she repents.

Okay, but you’re just speculating. And there’s no reason for anyone to adopt your speculations.

This is why you do not read many amazing stories of saints and their effort to bring the mission of Christ to the world from many Catholics from the reformation period onward. Mother Teresa was a universalist, she was very outspoken about this and she was no help the people of calcutta if she actually told people that they were ok serving their gods.

There are millions of saints around the world (from all stripes) doing Christ’s work. What are you talking about?

Your comment about Mother Teresa is incoherent. Would you mind re-stating it?

Thanks!

 

[stewstew03]

I think it is very clear that “works of the law” do not only refer to outward ceremonial Jewish works, and this is also admitted by many catholic apologists.

What you think is clear is irrelevant. What matters is truth.

And then they have to re-define faith to mean “faithful works” in order to maintain that Paul does not teach justification by faith alone.

No idea what you’re saying here.

And really this is just a straw man. Because the protestants actually taught more on the necessity of holiness and perseverance than did any of the Catholics. The theology of the puritans was an outflow of the doctrine of salvation posed in Calvin’s theology. They hard pressed the need for holiness in order to enter into heaven. They saw themselves as doing this out of a reaction to the easy-believism of the Catholic Church (just go through the sacraments and look good).

Therefore, if you read through the Fathers and notice they speak about the necessity of good works for eternal life, then you need to read the protestant theology of the puritans and you will see nothing different.

Trying very hard to understand your arguments. Are you saying that Catholics believe in faith plus works for salvation? But that protestants were the ones that emphasized this doctrine vis-a-vis the Puritans? And the Puritans were doing this in reaction to the Catholic faith alone, once-saved-always-saved easy-believeism?

I’m sorry, Erick, but you really are not making any sense. What is your denomination? Perhaps that will provide some context.

 

[stewstew03]

The doctrine of total depravity does not say that Mary could not have loved Jesus. Total depravity simply teaches that without the aid of God’s grace, not the normal grace of human life, but the special grace of God’s calling (which some catholics are allowed to believe) coming to make the first move upon the soul, that person cannot attain salvation by their own works of merit or effort.

“Some Catholics” are allowed to believe what?

First, Catholics are allowed to believe anything they want – he or she may not be in communion with Rome, but they have free will and make their own choices.

Second, the catechism does not teach that one can attain salvation by his own merits. Justification is God’s free and undeserved gift - we are justified only by God’s grace.

 

[onemangang]

I would say all these things at the very least, existed in the early centuries as well, regardless of what heretic taught it. For instance, Irenaus said that the Eucharist, even after the prayer, consists of both earthly and heavenly substances. But Catholics believe it is only heavenly. And no, he was not just speaking about “appearances”. Tertullian beleived that only adults should be baptized. And this is a man who was catechized and actually speaks just like Hippolytus’s instructions for the baptized.

Believers baptism was the practice of the NT times as well as in the first 200 hundred years of the church. The texts of the NT all show baptisms of believing adults and children.

Are you saying there was no superstition in the Catholic Church throughout the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 16th century?

We are united to Jesus Humanity and Divinity through the Eucharist!

So, every thing after what 100…200…300 years after Christ is not to be believed? What exactly is the cut off period in your historical reconstruction type Christianity, do you get to make that decision for all of Christendom as well?

Yeah those puritans didn’t have any superstitious beliefs, how about focusing on truth, if there is superstition, atleast we have a Church to address it

 

[nuntym]

and the Protestants only know what the Scriptures are because of the history of the Church and the longevity of its organization.

Reminds me of a quote I once read (paraphrasing)

You have the mysterious conviction that you can attack a procession of Catholic worshippers, knock the miter off the priest’s head, dash the Eucharist to the ground, burn the vestments, smash the images, and overturn the altar – yet inexplicably seize their Holy Book and declare it an infallible oracle.

Oh wow, Mark Shea paraphrased G.K. Chesterton, and it’s even more awesome

The ordinary sensible sceptic or pagan
is standing in the street (in the supreme character of the man
in the street) and he sees a procession go by of the priests
of some strange cult, carrying their object of worship under
a canopy, some of them wearing high head-dresses and carrying
symbolical staffs, others carrying scrolls and sacred records,
others carrying sacred images and lighted candles before them,
others sacred relics in caskets or cases, and so on.
I can understand the spectator saying, “This is all hocus-pocus”;
I can even understand him, in moments of irritation,
breaking up the procession, throwing down the images, tearing up
the scrolls, dancing on the priests and anything else that
might express that general view. I can understand his saying,
“Your croziers are bosh, your candles are bosh, your statues
and scrolls and relics and all the rest of it are bosh.”
But in what conceivable frame of mind does he rush in to
select one particular scroll of the scriptures of this one
particular group (a scroll which had always belonged to them
and been a part of their hocus-pocus, if it was hocus-pocus);
why in the world should the man in the street say that one
particular scroll was not bosh, but was the one and only
truth by which all the other things were to be condemned?

The Catholic Church and Conversion

Sorry for derailing, but I just HAD to get that out of my system

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

Anglicans do not cut off everything afterb100 or 200 or 300.

We do not believe in the infallibility of the pope. Just like the orthodox

 

[Snowwhite16]

This is a very serious question, and not meant to be an attack in any way. Catholics can engage in this forum if they wish, but they won’t be able to help me with my question, because I want to hear from Protestants.

First of all, the asking of this question comes from my constant fellowship with my Protestant brothers and sisters. I am a Catholic, but I consider both Catholics and Protestants to be Christian. My question, though, stems from the somewhat hostile feelings Protestants have regarding the Virgin Mary. Many of my Protestant brothers and sisters will come to me for spiritual advice and bible reflection, and often I will post bible verses or pictures of Jesus on facebook. I have many pictures of Jesus in my arsenal of inspirational pictures, but I also have a few pictures of Mary that I enjoy looking at and will sometimes post. In response to posts/pictures of Jesus, they respond with things like “Hallelujah!” and “Amen!” but when a picture of Mary is shown, it is met with only scorns and cries of idolatry.

I’ll be honest, this greatly saddens and confuses me. When I see a picture of Mary, I say to myself “Behold, the beloved Mother of Christ Himself. How happy am I to see a picture of my dear Savior’s mother.” When seeing these pictures of Mary, my Protestant friends seemed to be filled with feelings that are almost exactly opposite. They often respond with words such as “Idolatry!” and “You worship Mary!” and other hostile remarks about Catholics or the Virgin herself. I’m sorry, but I don’t see the reasoning behind this. Keep in mind, my Protestant brethren who are kindly taking the time to read this, that I know not all Protestants are like this. But when my friends and followers who are Protestant see pictures of Mary, instead of filling them with love for Our Lord, it seemingly fills them with hatred of Catholics and resentment.

It saddens me; I don’t understand why this hatred comes out like this. I know what idolatry is, and I try to explain to them that I’m not in any way in my own mind raising Mary above God by looking joyfully at a few pictures of her. I explain to them that when I see a picture of Mary, I say to myself what I already stated as above. I do not say to myself “Behold, the Virgin Mary who is Divine and Greater than Our Lord Jesus Christ and ought to be worshipped as God!”

Yet still, even after I explain this, some of my Protestant brethren (not all of them, however) will claim that loving Mary is not loving Jesus, and that honoring her is against scripture. How saddening and confusing this is! Jesus Himself said that we are to “Love one another”, but somehow, according to them, this excludes the Virgin Mary, who was God’s most faithful and blessed servant. If someone loves Mary, do they not also love Jesus? If someone loves Jesus, should they not also love Mary? Anyone who loves Jesus obeys His commandments (John 14:21). Let’s apply this to Blessed Mary. If somebody loves Mary, they will obey her commandments also, correct? What are Mary’s commandments? “Do whatever he tells you” (John 2:5). So whoever loves Mary must also love Jesus.

So my question is, if there are Protestants here who feel this way that Mary ought to not be shown any love or honor whatsoever, and that seeing pictures of her only ignites resentment of Catholics, why do you feel this way? Keep in mind, my Protestant brethren, that I know full well that this does not apply to all of you. My best friend, and perhaps the most righteous and holy person I have ever known, was my grandfather, who was Lutheran. Unfortunately we never got to talk about Mary before his death, but I’m sure that the mention of Mary the beloved servant did not induce any hatred or resentment in him. This is not in any way an attack on all Protestants, only a question out of confusion for the ones who are seemingly, at least in my experiences, hostile towards the Virgin Mary. Oh, and by the way, I fully understand the desire by Protestants, or even instead of desire, the fear, to not raise Mary to a level above God, what I don’t understand is the apparent hatred that she instills in some, and the almost defiant refusal to show her any love or honor whatsoever, which in my opinion is very offensive to God.

Thank you, and God Bless

Hello:
As I grew up in the Protestant Religion we were never taught or allowed to be Hostile Towards Mary. She is Jesus’s Mother.

I never heard of a Protestant being hostile towards Mary. And I am a child of the 60’'s and 70s (so I am not a young adult)

It ist true about your comment “to not raise Mary to a level above God”. That is what we understood…no one taught us that, we just understood it. Does that make sense?
She was “just there” inanother words she was not praised or prayed to.

Hostile…no. I think that you may be misinformed OR have learned this from another sect or branch off f Protestants. Maye a non-denom group or something. I know a few people who attend those churhes who really get mad and have no bones about telling people their opinions of Our Lady.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

We have at least one quote that indicates that she believes that Hell exists. Naturally, given her work dealing with the poor throughout the world, she wouldn’t condemn anybody vocally to Hell. It would negatively affect her mission.

“I have more often as my companion “darkness.” And when the night becomes very thick- and it seems to me as if I will end up in hell- then I simply offer myself to Jesus.”

At any rate, she believes it exists, and that people can go there.

 

[stewstew03]

Naturally, given her work dealing with the poor throughout the world, she wouldn’t condemn anybody vocally to Hell. It would negatively affect her mission.

Exactly.

Scripture does not say: “feed the poor who have converted after your proselytizing efforts…”

[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 25:35[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[onemangang]

Anglicans do not cut off everything afterb100 or 200 or 300.

We do not believe in the infallibility of the pope. Just like the orthodox

Ok, so your wrong along with every other group

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

Many people both of genius intellect and martyr faith have disagreed

 

[PRmerger]

What about Anglicans who don’t destroy those things

What Anglicans have done is create a religion in their own image, rather than conform themselves to the religion established by Christ.

Anglicans have, IMHO, is a theology that is palatable and “easy to swallow”. That which the believer doesn’t care for, he discards.

That’s Anglicanism.

Truly, if you’re in the Church that Christ established, He’s going to demand that you change your POV. Not find a church that conforms to your own tastes and wishes.

 

[PRmerger]

We do not believe in the infallibility of the pope. Just like the orthodox

Have you disabused yourself of the belief that a man cannot receive the charism of infallibility?

Or are you going to proclaim that there’s some theological error in the epistles of St. Peter? Or in the gospels?

 

[PRmerger]

Added (paraphrased).

Protestants think they can attack a procession of Catholic worshippers, knock the miter off the priest’s head, dash the Eucharist to the ground, burn the vestments, smash the images, and overturn the altar – yet inexplicably seize their Holy Book and declare it an infallible oracle! --Mark Shea

Too bad this isn’t Facebook where I could click “Like!”

 

[PRmerger]

Oh wow, Mark Shea paraphrased G.K. Chesterton, and it’s even more awesome

The ordinary sensible sceptic or pagan
is standing in the street (in the supreme character of the man
in the street) and he sees a procession go by of the priests
of some strange cult, carrying their object of worship under
a canopy, some of them wearing high head-dresses and carrying
symbolical staffs, others carrying scrolls and sacred records,
others carrying sacred images and lighted candles before them,
others sacred relics in caskets or cases, and so on.
I can understand the spectator saying, “This is all hocus-pocus”;
I can even understand him, in moments of irritation,
breaking up the procession, throwing down the images, tearing up
the scrolls, dancing on the priests and anything else that
might express that general view. I can understand his saying,
“Your croziers are bosh, your candles are bosh, your statues
and scrolls and relics and all the rest of it are bosh.”
But in what conceivable frame of mind does he rush in to
select one particular scroll of the scriptures of this one
particular group (a scroll which had always belonged to them
and been a part of their hocus-pocus, if it was hocus-pocus);
why in the world should the man in the street say that one
particular scroll was not bosh, but was the one and only
truth by which all the other things were to be condemned?

The Catholic Church and Conversion

Sorry for derailing, but I just HAD to get that out of my system

Interesting. I had originally attributed that quote to GK Chesterton, but someone here stated that it was really only a paraphrase. I found my original quote, later, on Mark Shea’s blog.