Time magazine current issue about the "Protestant Mary"

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Catholic Tom:

Has anyone read this? I have com across it on the internet but haven’t read it yet. I understand that the magazine talks about how Protestant Theology is undergoing a re-think of what role Mary should have.

time.com/time/covers/1101050321/

European Protestantism has been doing so for a long time - The USA seems to be still in the 1950s in some ways, and leaving Europe behind in others. It’s very interesting.​

There are some very readable Anglican boooks on her - my favourite was written in 1938.

What I find disturbing is any “trendiness” - when Christian things become trendy, whether one thinks of the Cross, Mary, angels, the Bible, or something else, they are in danger of being corrupted by their popularity. I would be easier in mind if this sort of euphoria did not sweep people off their feet and out of their senses.; but it’s happened with angels. Angels are the (current) “in thing”, the current craze for them demands no faith in Christ or conversion of manners, they are easily accommodated into a New Age or similar “spirituality” which has nothing to do with Christ the Saviour and Lord. Christian is not concerned with spirituality, but with Christ; the devil is a spirit, but is none the better for that.

I’m afraid that Mary may become “popular” in this corrupt way, a way that makes her meaningless by cutting her connection with her Son. A Christ-free Mary is a useless Mary, a husk of a Mary, a Mary good only for throwing in the rubbish. It’s a very efficient means of gutting Christian sambols and doctrines - and it is deadly. No wonder people find life outside Christ meaningless: Christ alone can give us meaning, becase we are made for Him. Trendy stuff about angels - or Mary - won’t give us Christ - but can inoculate us against Christ. ##

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

CSJ,

If one believes in Original Sin, one must also believe in the Immaculate Conception. It would’ve been handed down to Jesus if Mary wasn’t immaculately conceived. If that happened, he wouldn’t have been able to take on the burden of dying for all of our sins. Also, please see Luke 1:28-32 (quoted from the KJV)…

“And the angel came unto her, and said, Hail, thou art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast her mind what manner of salutation this should be. And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.”

You see where it tells Mary explicitly to “fear not”? Why would Mary have nothing to fear? Because she had no sin and was righteous. Everywhere else in the Bible “normal” everyday people are taught to fear God, so why the exception for Mary? I think it’s obvious…

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Semper Fi:

CSJ,

If one believes in Original Sin, one must also believe in the Immaculate Conception. It would’ve been handed down to Jesus if Mary wasn’t immaculately conceived. If that happened, he wouldn’t have been able to take on the burden of dying for all of our sins. Also, please see Luke 1:28-32 (quoted from the KJV)…

“And the angel came unto her, and said, Hail, thou art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast her mind what manner of salutation this should be. And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.”

You see where it tells Mary explicitly to “fear not”? Why would Mary have nothing to fear? Because she had no sin and was righteous. Everywhere else in the Bible “normal” everyday people are taught to fear God, so why the exception for Mary? I think it’s obvious…

That is not a very convincing argument: Were all these people immaculately conceived ? If those words prove the IC, they also prove too much. (My link is to 62 quotations where the Bible uses those words)​

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

## That is not a very convincing argument: Were all these people immaculately conceived ? If those words prove the IC, they also prove too much. (My link is to 62 quotations where the Bible uses those words) ##

I was merely quoting only from the KJV… and no, those words don’t prove the Immaculate Conception but combined with the real translation, it adds more weight. the real translation from Greek reads “Mary, full of grace”. Also there’s that thing about Original Sin… if you believe in Original Sin then you must believe in the Immaculate Conception.

 

[O.S.Luke]

(That noise you hear is other Methodists throwing things at me.)

This Methodist won’t be throwing anything at you.

 

[steve_b]

Amadeus:

Every inch that the Protestants take nearer to the Truth, to Catholicism, is a blessing!

Look out for your ABC local TV station on March 27th: it is airing in a 1-hour special the conversion stories of some of the estimated 150,000 Americans who converted to Catholicism Easter of 2004.

I wish I came accross this sooner. I obviously missed seeing it. In looking over this thread, it looks like everyone else missed the program also. How was it?

 

[steve_b]

CSJ:

There are “general” parts to Marian doctrine that I have difficulty accepting. (Immaculate Conception, Assumption, Perpetual Viriginity, etc.). …Regarding Perpetual Virginity, Matthew 1 states that Joseph did not “know” Mary UNTIL she had borne her firstborn son. …, it might also imply that they consummated their marriage after Christ’s birth. It all depends on translation. There are other verses (i.e. Luke), but they’ve been hashed over too many times already in this forum.

Claude

Hi Claude,

In Luke 1:28 the original Greek was kecharitomene, (for full of grace) the perfect passive participle of charis, grace. St. Jerome translated it into Latin as gratia plena, “full of grace.” In Greek the perfect stem denotes a completed action with a permanent result. Kecharitomene means completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace. Since no one on earth up to this point could fit that description because Christ hadn’t come yet, this is a very unique title to be called “full of grace” from the beginning, by the arcangel Gabriel, right?. If one is perfectly in grace, can there be sin in them?

The KJV uses the verb charitoo. Charitoo is a verb, so it can hardly be rendered “sinlessness,” which is a noun. Kecharitomene is the original word, and is a perfect passive participle. That means Mary had nothing to do with her condition. It was done for her in advance and denotes a continuance of a completed action. You can look up the grammar if you do a Greek grammar search on Kecharitomene. Check it out yourself. There’s a ton of information on this subject.

Hey BTW, how is it that you were baptised Catholic but not brought up in the faith?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Semper Fi:

I was merely quoting only from the KJV… and no, those words don’t prove the Immaculate Conception but combined with the real translation, it adds more weight. the real translation from Greek reads “Mary, full of grace”. Also there’s that thing about Original Sin… if you believe in Original Sin then you must believe in the Immaculate Conception.

But your post read as though the knock-down argument for the IC was the use of the words “Fear not” ​

 

[Catholic_Tom]

steve b:

I wish I came accross this sooner. I obviously missed seeing it. In looking over this thread, it looks like everyone else missed the program also. How was it?

I missed it too…did anyone see it?

 

[andre]

CSJ:

There are two “general” parts to Marian doctrine that I have difficulty accepting. One part is the prayer issue. I know that Mary and all the saints before us are more “alive” with Christ than we presently are - too obvious. I’m just not sure of any Biblical evidence that they can hear our prayers. Also, I feel that if I pray to Mary and/or any other saints that I am deifying them or deeming them omnipresent like God.

The second part is the remainder of the Marian doctrine (Immaculate Conception, Assumption, Perpetual Viriginity, etc.). While it may all make sense to a cradle Catholic, some of it is difficult for me to accept as the Bible is silent on it - i.e. Assumption. While I understand that her remains have not been found, to assume her Assumption is still quite speculative based on that one fact alone.

Regarding Perpetual Virginity, Matthew 1 states that Joseph did not “know” Mary UNTIL she had borne her firstborn son. While that verse may simply be there to stress Mary’s virginity, it might also imply that they consummated their marriage after Christ’s birth. It all depends on translation. There are other verses (i.e. Luke), but they’ve been hashed over too many times already in this forum.

Evidently, there is more prayer and study required on my part. Please note that I am not hardened toward Catholics (or I wouldn’t be here). I was baptized Catholic, but raised early on in a Pentecostal church - I’m almost a living paradox - LOL. Before last year, I knew almost nothing of Catholicism except for my misconceptions. I’m not closed to Marian doctrine - its just that the jury is still out.

Be certain of one thing - we can learn much from each other when we let our guards down.

Blessings,
Claude

Hi there,

I understand that you have struggles with some Catholic Docma’s and Doctrines. So I want to refere you to a website where you can come with many questions. (I can think of others also, e.g. Scott Hahn’s website, these forums(ask an apologist), catholic.com, ewtn.com)
But this is the site I mean:

chnetwork.org

This site is not just for converts but also for others that have many questions which they cannot find an anwers to. (as you might have found on the Catholic Answers website in the “library” section, there are some anwers given, but as someone also said is that sometimes you cannot wholly be satisfied intellectually about anwers given. I guess you just have to pray about the anwers given. You should feel free to accept(or not), these anwers)

Anyway, all the best to all the ones that are searching for answers.

God Bless!

Andre

 

[Milliardo]

“I always thought of her as the first disciple,” said Corrine Whitesell, 74.

The Catholic Church already anticipated this for a long while now; Protestants are just coming around the corner on this one.

Remarked John Burtch, 75: Maguire [referring to a Protestant minister who reveres Mary] is “the new guy on the block, and he’s go some interesting ideas. So we listen to him. We’re open to change.”

If he knew about Catholic teachings on Mary, she’ll be shocked that what his pastor is saying is nothing new. And I wonder how far his pastor will go; reminds me how Scott Hahn’s Presbyterian congregation found his preachings “radical”, but he was finding out that the Catholic Church taught them way before he did. Maybe his pastor is also heading in that direction, hopefully.

 

[sparkle]

Catholic Tom:

Has anyone read this? I have com across it on the internet but haven’t read it yet. I understand that the magazine talks about how Protestant Theology is undergoing a re-think of what role Mary should have.

time.com/time/covers/1101050321/

Yes, I saw and read it, and just think how marvelous and it’s about time!!! Praise God!!! For our Blessed Mother is here for us ALL; ALL Christians, Catholics, Protestants, Pentacostals, Evangelicals, ALL believers…what a shame they throw her out. Don’t you all think so?

Just a couple days ago, (die-hard Prot–Dad a 50-yr. pastor) sent my mom a Miraculous Medal in the mail, telling her that our Blessed Mother is waiting for her. Can’t wait to hear the backlash.!!! But it’s true. She is waiting for us all to give us her Love, and Lead us ALL, regardless of our denomination, to her Son, our Savior, JESUS. How beautiful. Why so many reject, and have done so for years is beyond me, guess it’s that “Catholic stuff” that needs to be thrown out–otherwise so many denominations would have no basis, would they?

I’m so glad this article was printed!!!

 

[child_of_light]

nearly 5 century the protestant is now knows the role of mary to the catholic church.protestant may find the true truth of the catholic church.in which christ whom they(worship) has a mother they know also that the denial of mary is the denial of christ.you know why because christ came here on this world and born to virgin mother and that mother is MARY.how can christ brought to this world without a mother,by that protestant doctrine.they are also the same that you will not beleive that you have a mother…the bible itself teaches us how to respect and adore mary.adore is diffent from worshipbecause worship is reserved for god alone.even all his apostles and first christian respect and adore mary.

now the protestant accept the role of mary to us(humanity).they may realized that they believed in christ but rejecting his mother is such an insult to them,it’s because the christ that was worship by the catholic church was born to a virgin woman and that woman is mary.

i read that magazine 3 times,and i say to you " that martin luther’s greatest mistake is that;he rejected the role of mary to a christian faith as a former catholic priest he know the truth,an the truth is that jesus was born to a virgin mother and that mother is mary in which he decline to accept it"…

 

[nilofc]

If you don’t pray the Hail Mary, then you are not fulfilling Bible prophecy when Mary said “All generations will call me blessed.”

The scriptures says so…and I thought Protestants regards the bible as their only source of truth.

 

[nilofc]

I am not catholic, but I do have some questions about praying to Mary or any other dead saint.The scripture tells us in I timothy 2:5 there is one mediator between god and men, the man Jesus Christ.
As I understand word mediator a go between negotiator. According to this scripture Christ is the only one that can do it. So tell me should I believe this sripture or not.

Roger

Yes there is one mediator between God and Man and that is Jesus…but remember, that Jesus is not only the “Son of God” but also “God the Son”. What makes you think you can go directly to God, knowing you are unworthy??

You can’t offer a dirty thing to God directly. What you do is you ask Mother Mary to put you in a golden platter and be presented to Jesus. Her Son will never refuse anything that Mary asks for.

One concrete example of this…is in the Bible itself. Wedding at Cana. The divine plan of God was altered when Mary requests Jesus to perform a miracle. Jesus said “It is not my time yet”…but out of His love for His mother, he performed His first miracle.

Imagine that, the Divine Plan altered at the request of Mary. That’s how Jesus loves His mother so much.

Mary introduced Jesus to the world by virtue of birth, and Mary was the one who also introduce Jesus into the public, as what was mentioned in the Wedding at Cana.

You might also wanna learn typology, how the New Testament is concealed in the Old, and how the Old is revealed in the New. Then you will see how central is the role of Mary in the Divine Plan of salvation.