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

[Prieldedi]

If I can come boldly before the Great High Priest’s throne of grace why would I want to go through Mary? If you ask me to pray for you, you aren’t praying to me. We’re getting into intersession by the dead and this is off point, but these are reasons why Protestants don’t talk about Mary.

What assurance do you have that your prayers to the Great High Priest will be answered? Yes, He will hear your prayers, but IF you’re not in good terms with Him (e.g. showing no respect for His Mother), He might not want to move a finger for you. Have you thought about it?

Look at 1 Kings 2:

13 Then Adonijah, son of Haggith, came to Bathsheba, mother of Solomon, who asked him, “Do you come in peace?” He answered, “In peace,”
14 and added, “I have something to tell you.” She said, “Speak”
15 and Adonijah said, “You know that the kingdom was mine and that all Israel fully expected me to reign. But the kingdom has slipped from my hands and become my brother’s for it was given him by Yahweh.
16 Now I have one thing to ask of you and I beg you not to refuse me.” She said, “Speak,”
17 and he continued, “Please ask King Solomon to give me Abishag the Shunammite for my wife. I know that he cannot refuse you.”
18 Bathsheba answered, “Very well, I shall speak to the king on your behalf.”
19 So Bathsheba went to King Solomon to speak to him on behalf of Adonijah. The king met her and bowed to her. Then he sat on his throne and had a seat brought for the king’s mother who sat on his right.
20 She said, “I have one small request to make of you. Do not refuse me.” And the king answered her, “Make your request, my mother, for I will not refuse you.”

Adonijah had access to King Solomon, he didn’t have “to go through” Bathsheba, yet he did. Like many who pray directly to God, maybe the King had reasons not to grant Adonijah’s request. How many times our prayers to God go unanswered?

Now move a few hundred years later, look at what the Apostle describes in John 2:

1 Three days later there was a wedding at Cana in Galilee and the mother of Jesus was there.
2 Jesus was also invited to the wedding with his disciples.
3 When all the wine provided for the celebration had been served and they had run out of wine, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.”
4 Jesus replied, “Woman, your thoughts are not mine! My hour has not yet come.”
5 However his mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.”

The family of the newlyweds had invited Jesus, He was already in the company of His disciples. Jesus was there in their home! …and just like Adonijah, they had no need “to go through” Mary… but they did! The family knew Jesus and must’ve known what He could do, they felt He was capable of solving their problem. But they didn’t go “boldly” before Him, they went to His Mother. Why? Was it possible He could refuse them? We know He told His Mother it was not His hour yet, so the chances of Him refusing the family was high, very high. Somehow the family sensed that “going through Mary” Jesus would not refused Her. He didn’t, Mary’s intercession was powerful, Jesus changed His hour.

Now the question is this: was this a frozen moment in time with no further consequences, or was it a lesson for all Christians to follow forever? Knowing Jesus gave meaning to all the things He did and said we now know this is a true lesson not to be taken lightly.

 

[englishredrose]

I strongly advise you to show more care than you do in this post.

The mother of the king in the Old Testament was the queen. Twenty nine of them are listed in the Old Testament. Like all the kings of the Old Testament, Jesus the King has a queen, and Jesus’ queen is his mother Mary.

I urge you to consider your words carefully, for your own sake, when you deal with the King of Kings and his mother the queen.

-Tim-

In assumptious defence of the poster may be she has chosen her words carefully and mayn’t know about Mary and is simply asking a question. I don’t know enough about all other denominations to know whether Mary isn’t taught in some and it may be just simply ignorance and a little gentle education rather than a hint of undertone of accusation to her. Be aware she may never heard of her and is simply asking and wouldn’t there fore realise quite how she is sounding at all and may not be meaning to be controversial. Just simply don’t know. I wish we weren’t quite so quick to be judging of each other and learn to tollerate not everyone knows everything about everything.

 

[inocente]

I strongly advise you to show more care than you do in this post.

The mother of the king in the Old Testament was the queen. Twenty nine of them are listed in the Old Testament. Like all the kings of the Old Testament, Jesus the King has a queen, and Jesus’ queen is his mother Mary.

I urge you to consider your words carefully, for your own sake, when you deal with the King of Kings and his mother the queen.

I was responding to the OP, but thanks, advice from total strangers is always welcome .

 

[inocente]

According to the origins of the term, government restriction of the limiting of religious free exercise at the Second Diet of Speyer, 1529.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Diet_of_Speyer

Yeah, I know. Wiki. But it was a quick response.

Jon

1. That’s what I mean. No one ever explained why I should care about that particular bit of ancient history in 2012.

Which thankfully is off-topic.

 

[TimothyH]

I was responding to the OP, but thanks, advice from total strangers is always welcome .

There is a fine line between sarcasm and insult. I know, because I have both given and recieved my fair share of both.

I still urge caution and respect for your own sake, when speaking of the woman through whom salvation came to the world. Direct your sarcasm at me, if you will, but for your own salvation, not at the Mother of God.

-Tim-

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

The term mother of God was functional, not an apostolic doctrine. Since Jesus is both God and man, Mary is in a sense the mother of God in so far as her son was God himself.

When this phrase came into usage it was not meant to develop a doctrine of Mary which now defined new ways of looking at her presently in heaven. Rather, it is a functional doctrine, in the fact that she gave birth to God, but this did not define patterns of worship or honor that we should give her in the proceeding centuries. We call her blessed, and that is it.

 

[Lochias]

The term mother of God was functional, not an apostolic doctrine. Since Jesus is both God and man, Mary is in a sense the mother of God in so far as her son was God himself.

When this phrase came into usage it was not meant to develop a doctrine of Mary which now defined new ways of looking at her presently in heaven. Rather, it is a functional doctrine, in the fact that she gave birth to God, but this did not define patterns of worship or honor that we should give her in the proceeding centuries. We call her blessed, and that is it.

“Woman, here is your son.”

“Here is your mother.”

I think Jesus placed more importance in Mary and her influence in the lives of the Apostles than you do. I’ll go with Jesus’ example, thanks.

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

But let’s read a bit further:

Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.

Therefore, the “mothering” of Mary is in the context of living in the same household, no? and the “sonship” of John is in the context of taking care of Mary as the Son leaves, no?

I would be totally won over if this additional information was not given. It seems it is a specific relationship that Jesus is passing over to John. The apostle John was a special disciple of Jesus, and Jesus really loved John. And Jesus knew John would be the one to take care of his mother as he left.

 

[Lochias]

But let’s read a bit further:

Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.

Therefore, the “mothering” of Mary is in the context of living in the same household, no? and the “sonship” of John is in the context of taking care of Mary as the Son leaves, no?

I would be totally won over if this additional information was not given. It seems it is a specific relationship that Jesus is passing over to John. The apostle John was a special disciple of Jesus, and Jesus really loved John. And Jesus knew John would be the one to take care of his mother as he left.

Ah, cherry-picking will never die.

So, Jesus’ first miracle coming at the behest of his mother means squat to you?

 

[GEddie]

Are we really to think that our LORD will only tend to those who attach themselves emotionally to Mary?

I mean, is HE not the ultimate in magnanimousness? Certainly we should not attach our petty human clannish ideas to HIM?

Fwiw, I accept what the Church teaches about Mary, but find the cultural emotionality surrounding her very hard to relate to.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I was responding to the OP, but thanks, advice from total strangers is always welcome .

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?”

 

[stewstew03]

The term mother of God was functional, not an apostolic doctrine. Since Jesus is both God and man, Mary is in a sense the mother of God in so far as her son was God himself.

I don’t understand your distinction. Are you saying Mary was the mother of Jesus the man, but not Jesus the Lord?

When this phrase came into usage it was not meant to develop a doctrine of Mary which now defined new ways of looking at her presently in heaven. Rather, it is a functional doctrine, in the fact that she gave birth to God, but this did not define patterns of worship or honor that we should give her in the proceeding centuries. We call her blessed, and that is it.

Okay, so the doctrine developed over time, much like the Trinity and Jesus’s divine/human nature.

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

The motherhood of Mary to john is specific to john and Mary since she was to remain with john. And no I don’t believe doctrine can develop

 

[Lochias]

The motherhood of Mary to john is specific to john and Mary since she was to remain with john. And no I don’t believe doctrine can develop

Good golly…been wearing those blinders long? Can you find for me in the Bible where it speaks about the Holy Trinity, directly, as we know it today?

 

[stewstew03]

The motherhood of Mary to john is specific to john and Mary since she was to remain with john. And no I don’t believe doctrine can develop

Develop = deeper understanding.

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?

:bible1:

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

Why do you assume that I use the king James? And the filthy rudeness is not needed. You are catholic, act like it.

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

 

[mpartyka]

Speaking from my time as a Protestant, Protestants don’t actually have anything against Mary. They don’t believe in her sinlessness or assumption into heaven because the Bible never explicitly states that she was sinless or assumed into heaven, and they don’t believe in her perpetual virginity because they see references to Jesus’ “brothers” and “sisters” in the Bible and see nothing wrong with her having marital intercourse with Joseph to produce half-siblings for Jesus.

Of all the dogmas that Protestants reject concerning Mary, probably the hardest for them to reconcile are her sinlessness and Immaculate Conception, because there are a number of difficult questions these particular dogmas raise:

*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?

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?
2. If God hates sin, and one’s Original Sin inevitably leads to one’s actual sin, why doesn’t God preserve all of humankind from Original Sin as He did with Mary? Wouldn’t that make for less sin in the world? (It would at least be a kindness.)
3. If Mary’s Immaculate Conception was necessary for her to preserve Christ from any taint of sin in the womb, why wasn’t the immaculate conception of Mary’s mother necessary to preserver Mary from any taint of sin in the womb? (And if Mary’s Immaculate Conception had nothing to do with preserving Christ free from sin, what was it for, and again, why only her and not the rest of us?)
4. 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?*

Okay, so the doctrine developed over time, much like the Trinity and Jesus’s divine/human nature.

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.

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 – and when people cling so to the signpost, will they ever reach the destination to which it points? (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?)

 

[PRmerger]

Why do you assume that I use the king James? And the filthy rudeness is not needed.

There has been no filthy rudeness here, Erick. :nope:

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

All those teachings are not “new things”.

That teachings are formally proclaimed at a certain point of time is not an indication of its inception.

To wit: the Trinity. Not formally proclaimed for centuries. Believed from the beginning. Understanding developed through the theology of the Church.

 

[PRmerger]

. When this phrase came into usage it was not meant to develop a doctrine of Mary…

You are absolutely correct here, Erick. No teaching regarding Mary is actually meant to be a “doctrine of Mary”. Rather, all teachings on Mary only serve to enhance, highlight and nourish our understanding of Christ.

An impoverished understanding of Mary leads to an impoverished understanding of Christ.

 

[mpartyka]

An impoverished understanding of Mary leads to an impoverished understanding of Christ.

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