what is the REAL reason why protestants reject mary?

[Dorothy]

Dorothy,

I guess this is off topic but my main concern with tradition and your church’s claim to infallibility is, how do you know that what your church teaches is true? How do you test what the church says and determine whether or not it’s true? If your church says Mary was assumed into heaven or Mary was sinless and declares it as dogma, you are no longer allowed to question that are you? How do you know tradition hasn’t perverted the word of God?

I believe what the Church teaches with all my heart. I don’t feel the need to “test” or “question” it. I am not a youngster and have read and studied about the Catholic Church all my life. (and pondered the objections of others as well.) I definitely believe what the Church declares as dogma because I believe in the divinely appointed Magisterium.

I believe that Tradition (with a capital “T” I must add) does not pervert the word of God because when the teaching authority of the Church declares something I believe it is the Voice of Christ speaking.

It makes perfect sense to me that Scripture needs an interpreter so that there will be no misunderstanding or disunity in belief.

Thank you for asking, God bless…

 

[Reformed1]

I believe what the Church teaches with all my heart. I don’t feel the need to “test” or “question” it. I am not a youngster and have read and studied about the Catholic Church all my life. (and pondered the objections of others as well.) I definitely believe what the Church declares as dogma because I believe in the divinely appointed Magisterium.

I believe that Tradition (with a capital “T” I must add) does not pervert the word of God because when the teaching authority of the Church declares something I believe it is the Voice of Christ speaking.

It makes perfect sense to me that Scripture needs an interpreter so that there will be no misunderstanding or disunity in belief.

Thank you for asking, God bless…

Thanks for you answer.

I admit the claim that your church makes to infallibility is attractive but it is also worrisome because some of what your church teaches as dogma…well, it just doesn’t make sense to me.

Most of the things I take issue to center around what you guys seem to refer to as “Tradition”.

 

[rtconstant]

Save up your money and invest in a good book on the trinity written from a protestant perspetive and see if you change your mind.

The thing is that Sacred Scripture suggests the Trinity, but no one on their own would be able to come to the full doctrine of the Trinity from Scripture without already understanding the concept.

Ask someone who is Jewish if Scripture explains the Trinity and they will show you how it doesn’t. They can do this because they have their own traditions which explain the Scriptures too them.

Christians have this doctrine because it was passed to us by Sacred Tradition. Even Protestants ultimately only have the doctrine because they brought it with them from the Catholic Church when the left. There are even Protestant denominations who don’t hold to the Trinity or have non-traditional understandings of it.

Tradition explains Scripture and that is a fact for Protestants as much as Catholics.

 

[Odell]

no one denies that the trinity is in scripture. but it is not explicitly stated. Of course you can find biblical evidence for the trinity, but nowhere does the scripture explicitly give us the definition of the trinity as

the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are three divine persons who are one divine being (God).

You mean what we believe we belive bacause of tradition

Lily,

If you want to pray to Mary, sing hymns to Mary, honor her as co-whatever, believe she was assumed into heaven, have feasts dedicated to her for various things, go ahead but from what I have seen, there isn’t a lot of evidence of these beliefs for the first few centuries after the apostles had died off.

Do you mean that I have not given you verses from the bible that show or prayers going to God from those in heaven?

Ill post them again and again if you like you can dismiss them all you want but I believe in the word of God.

(Eph 2:19) “So then you are no longer STRANGERS and sojourners, but you are FELLOW-CITIZENS WITH THE SAINTS, and the house hold of God.” And what do we do with the citizen here on earth we ask for there prayer. Same for the body of Christ in heaven.

(Rev. 8:3-4) “the smoke of the incense along with the prayers of the holy ones went up before God from the hand of the angel.” Obviously they pray for us in heaven and present our prayers to the Lord.

Who are these holy ones? And why are the angels handing them to God? If we are only to pray strait to God and if that is all people are doing than the angels would not have any prayers to offer.

(Tobit 12:12) “I can now tell you that when you, Tobit, and Sarah prayed, it was I who presented and read the record of your prayer before the glory of the Lord.” we have an angel presenting a prayer to God!!! Just as we present prayer for one another here on earth. It has always been Christian tradition that they still do this in heaven. And our loved ones who have gone before us that are equal to the angels pray for us as well.

We are also equal to the angels when in heaven (Lk 20:34-36) and there are countless verses that say angels see us… And if angels can see us and we are equal then those in heaven must be able to see us. And not only do angels see us they help us in our journey to heaven well Catholics believe the saints in heaven who are equal to the angles help us also threw there prayer. “The prayer of a rightous person availath much.”

Do me a favor and let me know what you think of these verse.

Why do you not think she was assumed into heaven? Do you not think God would do this for his mother?

Further, there is even less scriptural evidence to support many of the Marian dogmas but if you want to put your faith in your tradition, well, that’s your perogative.

Well if you dont want to put your faith in tradition, than you dont go by the word of God.

(1Cor11:2) Hold fast to traditions I handed on to you

(2Thess 2:15) Hold fast to traditions whether ORAL or by letter.

(2Tess 3:16) Shun those acting not according to tradition

(Jn 21:25) not everything Jesus did is recorded in scripture

 

[Reformed1]

The thing is that Sacred Scripture suggests the Trinity, but no one on their own would be able to come to the full doctrine of the Trinity from Scripture without already understanding the concept.

Ask someone who is Jewish if Scripture explains the Trinity and they will show you how it doesn’t. They can do this because they have their own traditions which explain the Scriptures too them.

Christians have this doctrine because it was passed to us by Sacred Tradition. Even Protestants ultimately only have the doctrine because they brought it with them from the Catholic Church when the left. There are even Protestant denominations who don’t hold to the Trinity or have non-traditional understandings of it.

Tradition explains Scripture and that is a fact for Protestants as much as Catholics.

Sure tradition can help our understanding, I think where you and I part company is I draw the line with the scriptues being the only inerrant authority (or infallible, I always confuse these two terms) and you add tradition and the teaching authority of your church.

The Jews don’t have the advantage of our NT so that probably hinders them somewhat. Anyway, there are texts out there on the trinity that are written by staunch Calvinists that would suprise you.

 

[LilyM]

Dorothy,

I guess this is off topic but my main concern with tradition and your church’s claim to infallibility is, how do you know that what your church teaches is true? How do you test what the church says and determine whether or not it’s true? If your church says Mary was assumed into heaven or Mary was sinless and declares it as dogma, you are no longer allowed to question that are you? How do you know tradition hasn’t perverted the word of God?

How on earth do you know that your church, your pastor, your Bible study leader, hasn’t perverted the Word of God or anything else they’ve taught you (and I’m sure there’s a fair you’ve been taught that isn’t explicitly in the Bible either) when they passed it on to you?

 

[Reformed1]

How on earth do you know that your church, your pastor, your Bible study leader, hasn’t perverted the Word of God or anything else they’ve taught you (and I’m sure there’s a fair you’ve been taught that isn’t explicitly in the Bible either) when they passed it on to you?

Could be.

 

[Dorothy]

Thanks for you answer.

I admit the claim that your church makes to infallibility is attractive but it is also worrisome because some of what your church teaches as dogma…well, it just doesn’t make sense to me.

Most of the things I take issue to center around what you guys seem to refer to as “Tradition”.

A “for instance” is the doctrine of the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. Early Church Fathers have written much about it, that is what the early Church believed. John 6 as interpreted by the Magisterium of the Church clinches it for me.

 

[Truthstalker]

The temper of the thread seems to have improved; I’m back to try to explain Protestant rejection of Mary. Some slams against me have been removed; I will ignore the remaining digs.

One reason some Protestants may reject Mary is because they believe they are following Jesus’ example. This is shocking to Catholics, but hear me out.

They look at the texts in the New Testament to see what Jesus said. He said the one who is his sister and mother and brother is the one who does the will of His father in heaven (Matthew 12:48-50, Mark 3:31-35, Luke 8:19-21) . When he was found in the temple at the age of 12, and again in John 2, he had an agenda that differed from Mary’s agenda. When a voice from the crowd said that blessed are the breasts, etc., He corrected her and said, no, rather blessed is he who hears the will of God and does it (Luke 11:27-28). This parallels the other passages about who His mother is. When you add the information up, it seems clear to many Protestants that Jesus rejected any special role for Mary in the Kingdom. He contrasted His disciples and family members several times (see Math 10:35, Math 10:37 for example), expressing that Kingdom ties outweigh blood ties every time. Hate family, love Him (Matthew 19:29). The idea of a special role for Mary cannot survive such an interpretation of Scripture. Of primary importance to relationships in the Kingdom of God is doing the will of Jesus. In one passage at least Mary is with the family, which is contrasted with the disciples. Mary was not always His disciple, it appears.

And who is our mother: Galatians 4:26 says Jersusalem above is free, she is our Mother. In contrast no where does it say Mary is our mother. It is a stretch to take the statement to John and say it applies to everyone - especially with a clear statement of who Mother is.

Now Catholics will say yes - Mary did the will of God, so she is His Mother twice - once naturally and once in the Spirit. But in the second sense she is brother and sister and mother, just as any of us can be the same Jesus: these meaning intimate family relationships based on trust and obedience. The one who obeys God can be all these things. The Jews boasted Abraham as their father: Jesus rejected the blood tie and emphasized faith (=belief=obedience) instead.

If the one who obeys God can be all these things, it means there is a much greater level of intimacy we can have with Christ than we dream possible. Catholics maintain that is reserved for Mary and the saints; Protestants maintain it is for all who believe. We can all be as Mary is.

In this theological construct there is no room for an exaltation of Mary. The Protestants who believe this believe they have found something better. They believe that Jesus, in the passages quoted above, rebuked an error even then in his disciplies, which was an overemphasis on Mary at the expense of obeying Him. The later reformers looked at what the Bible said about Mary and rejected Marian devotion on Biblical grounds. Not because they were sexist pigs, or hated God, or other ridiculous reasons, but because they really believed they were reading the Word of God, as the Holy Spirit gave them the understanding, and He seemed to be saying to do away with an overemphasis on Mary - based on what the Scriptures said about Jesus’ relationship with her.

Mary as His mother was still an object of care and concern. One of the last things He did was ask John to consider her his mother, and for His mother to consider John as her son - apparently a new idea. He wanted His mother taken care of, and from earlier Scriptural evidence (some of the passages above) it looks like his other relatives had more or less disowned Him, and someone needed to take care of her. Nothing more need be read into the passage.

The above is my own thought and speculation about why the Catholic concept of Mary is rejected by Protestants, but I think this states many Protestant reservations about Mary.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Truthstalker wrote:

“Mary as His mother was still an object of care and concern. One of the last things He did was ask John to consider her his mother, and for His mother to consider John as her son - apparently a new idea. He wanted His mother taken care of, and from earlier Scriptural evidence (some of the passages above) it looks like his other relatives had more or less disowned Him, and someone needed to take care of her. Nothing more need be read into the passage.”

I appreciate the level tone of your long post, and as a former Protestant, I understand where you’re coming from, believe me.

I only want to address this last paragraph quoted above, and I have no agenda other than to learn what you think.

If “his other relatives had more or less disowned Him” as you observe, then does this tell us anything about Mary’s Perpetual Virginity? I find it hard to believe that her own flesh and blood would have abandoned her - especially after the Resurrection! It should have been the family’s moment of triumph! So, my take is that Joseph had died previously, Jesus was departing this world in the physical sense, and Mary had no one else to care for her because Jesus was an only child.

Notable Protestants such as Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and John Wesley all accepted the Perpetual Virginity of Mary…

What are your thoughts?

 

[Odell]

The temper of the thread seems to have improved; I’m back to try to explain Protestant rejection of Mary. Some slams against me have been removed; I will ignore the remaining digs.

One reason some Protestants may reject Mary is because they believe they are following Jesus’ example. This is shocking to Catholics, but hear me out.

When a voice from the crowd said that blessed are the breasts, etc., He corrected her and said, no, rather blessed is he who hears the will of God and does it (Luke 11:27-28)

I bolded NO because that is not what the King James version says

it says “Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God and keep it.”

(Luke 11:28) Jesus respond to a woman who says “ blessed is the womb that carried you and the breast at which you nursed. Jesus response was. “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it,”
Jesus isn’t saying his mother is not blessed we know she is blessed because scripture says she is. Jesus is showing us that Mary was the one obedient to the Lord. Mary says in (Luke 1:38) “May it be done to me according to your word.” That is the message that the author Luke is pertraying. Luke goes on to write that Jesus says blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it. **Keep in mind also that Luke earler says that all generation will call Marry blessed **(Lk 1:48), so Luke would not contradict himself. Jesus is showing that we should do as Mary did. To hear his word and keep it.

To think Jesus would rebuke his mother. Would be saying he broke the 4th commandment. It is saying God commited sin. We know that isn’t true he obayed his mother. He obayed the commandments perfectly.

Mary was not always His disciple, it appears.

says your interpritation but we know you interpritation is wrong.

In contrast no where does it say Mary is our mother.

(Rev. 12:17) This verse talking about Mary a woman who brought forth a male child who will rule the Nations with rod in hand” this is Jesus we know this because of (Rev 19:15-16) “He will rule with rod of Iron on his robe will say King of Kings”
verse 17 tells us that Mary’s offspring are those who keep God’s commandments and bear testimony to Jesus. And as Catholics we have always believed, that Mary is the Mother of all Christians. And what shall we do we shall honor our parents. Mary being our spiritual mother whom we should honor.

The Jews boasted Abraham as their father: Jesus rejected the blood tie and emphasized faith (=belief=obedience) instead.

Are you saying Jesus rbukes the fact that Abraham is our father. I can remember singing father Abraham in sunday School I guess we got it all wrong.

Protestants maintain it is for all who believe. We can all be as Mary is.

And so do Catholics believe. And so did Jesus when he said “yea rather blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it.” We can be blessed like her

The later reformers looked at what the Bible said about Mary and rejected Marian devotion on Biblical grounds.

The reformers and yoiu only reject it because it is Catholic you have no scripture to back your claim

oh and regarding (Lk 8:21)

you got it wrong again

( Luke 8:21) “Who are my mother, and sisters and brothers?,” some Protestants like to use this verse to rebuke Mary. They claim that Jesus is rebuking Mary. But if you read scripture as a whole just before this verse in (Lk 8:5-15) Jesus is showing that Mary has rich soil and bears good fruit. Jesus shows us that we must be like Mary. Who is a perfict example of the parable verses 5-15. Who are my mother and sisters and brothers? Those who do the will of God.

\God bless

 

[dessert]

glargento:

Sexism.

Femininity and divinity produce unreasonable conflicts to their conscience. The idea that any feminine being could perform a role in the salvation of a “man” is repugnant.

AndyF

Boy you sound like my husband and father in law all roled together into one big ball.
Do you suppose this is learned behavior not savior behavior.
I don’t mean any offense to you because I live with my husband whom I think grew up not liking his mother alot but blamed her for all the problems and he has a kind of love hate relationship.
His dad wasn’t much help always blaming eve for the problems of the world and whenever I tried to encourage friendship with her his mother,he bulks.
He also felt rejected by blonds not me.
He amazingly treets me somewhat nice and we have been married for many years so we have gotten used to each other.
The idea that women can’t be priests doesn’t passify him or make him feel justified.
In that case he would probably defend them.
He is a protestant.
Hopefully will convert but I won’t bet on it.
Women should stay home but I work after many years of talking too much and he is used to that. Those are just a few reasons.return

 

[tequilamac]

I would like to see some proof that since 33 ad there has been a belief in the assumption of Mary, the immaculate conception, etc.

As far as scripture goes, you know full well no scripture speaks of Mary being assumed into heaven or that she was sinless. While you and others may read into scripture what you want in light of your tradition, you won’t find many of your traditions in scripture, at least not explicitly, such as the immaculate conception.

I think this is the sticking point for most non-Catholics. You guys seem to believe you have the fullness of faith by adding tradition and we think you have gone to far with your tradition.

Again I point you in the direction of that which you asked for:
Chronological Table of Marian EventsURL for this page is udayton.edu/mary/resources/Timetable.htm

54-60 First allusion to Mary in Paul’s Letter to the Galatians (4:4 “God sent his son born of a woman”)
65 Mary mentioned twice in Mark’s Gospel
70-100 Matthew’s Gospel, Luke Acts and John’s Gospel show Mary’s presence in the life of Jesus and the early Christian Community
90-100 Mary and the Church are both symbolized in the image of the woman in the Book of Revelation (chapter 12)
ca. 110 Ignatius of Antioch makes references to Mary as Virgin and Mother.
150-165 Justin Martyr brings the comparison between Eve and Mary (Eve-Mary-Parallel)
150-202 Irenaeus of Lyons points to Mary’s role in redemption (Mary is causa salutis and advocata Evae)
late 2nd C. Early paintings of Mary in the catacombs
200-350 Composition of the prayer Sub tuum praesidium – the oldest Marian prayer
217 Founding of Santa Maria in Trastevere, Rome
300 Introduction of the Akathistos Hymn in the East
306-373 Ephrem of Syria, known for his poetic writings about Mary
350 Earliest recorded invocation of Mary by St. Justina

Now so what you are saying is that all of these guys from 54AD through 350AD were what: heretics? false Christians? confused? You might want to be careful how you answer that simply because these guys above are several of the founding fathers of Christianity after the Apostles and Luther based much of his theology upon them. What Protestants adhere to after Christ begis here. so if these guys above are heretics, well, so are you. Not just Catholics. this is the problem with denying the early catholic Church. Luther did not dream up his theology out of a vacuum. He was schooled in all of this above and more and accepted it. so when Protestants attack Catholics for their traditions, they simply attack themselves. Which Luther knew full well and retained to his death devotion to the Virgin Mary.

 

[Truthstalker]

Truthstalker wrote:

“Mary as His mother was still an object of care and concern. One of the last things He did was ask John to consider her his mother, and for His mother to consider John as her son - apparently a new idea. He wanted His mother taken care of, and from earlier Scriptural evidence (some of the passages above) it looks like his other relatives had more or less disowned Him, and someone needed to take care of her. Nothing more need be read into the passage.”

I appreciate the level tone of your long post, and as a former Protestant, I understand where you’re coming from, believe me.

I only want to address this last paragraph quoted above, and I have no agenda other than to learn what you think.

If “his other relatives had more or less disowned Him” as you observe, then does this tell us anything about Mary’s Perpetual Virginity? I find it hard to believe that her own flesh and blood would have abandoned her - especially after the Resurrection! It should have been the family’s moment of triumph! So, my take is that Joseph had died previously, Jesus was departing this world in the physical sense, and Mary had no one else to care for her because Jesus was an only child.

Notable Protestants such as Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and John Wesley all accepted the Perpetual Virginity of Mary…

What are your thoughts?

I don’t think the “behold your mother” passage bears on the issue of the Perpetual Virginity because the alternatives are equally suggestive. In case 1, Mary the Perpetual Virgin, then there still would have been a family obligation for Joseph’s sons to care for the widow. Where were they? In case 2, Mary the Mother of many, again, where were those bums? In either case John was hearing and doing the will of Christ by standing by the cross - indicating that this surpasses blood ties in a manner consistent with the rest of the construct I presented.

The doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity goes way back in church history. There’s something really early, I think in Ignatius, that makes me wonder, and the Protoevangelium of John I think was very early. I haven’t read it and I don’t know what to make of it. Clement of Alexandria refers to it as if it were true (before 157 AD). The disavowal of the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity is a recent theological invention, I think mainly based use of the word “brother” and one that I think calls for Extreme Caution. Nowhere does it say “Xanthes, son of Mary and brother of Jesus” but neither does it spell out that Mary had no other children in just those words. In cases like that I conclude Scripture is silent, and to resolve the issue, if it is possible, one must turn to tradition. And all the ancient writers, even up through the Reformation, affirm the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. Under Sola Scriptura, Prima Scriptura, or Scripture plus Tradition the most reasonable course is to accept it. To me you have to go out of your way to deny it, and I find no reason unless you are wedded to a particular theological construction that goes against the evidence.

 

[Reformed1]

Again I point you in the direction of that which you asked for:
Chronological Table of Marian EventsURL for this page is udayton.edu/mary/resources/Timetable.htm

54-60 First allusion to Mary in Paul’s Letter to the Galatians (4:4 “God sent his son born of a woman”)
65 Mary mentioned twice in Mark’s Gospel
70-100 Matthew’s Gospel, Luke Acts and John’s Gospel show Mary’s presence in the life of Jesus and the early Christian Community
90-100 Mary and the Church are both symbolized in the image of the woman in the Book of Revelation (chapter 12)
ca. 110 Ignatius of Antioch makes references to Mary as Virgin and Mother.
150-165 Justin Martyr brings the comparison between Eve and Mary (Eve-Mary-Parallel)
150-202 Irenaeus of Lyons points to Mary’s role in redemption (Mary is causa salutis and advocata Evae)
late 2nd C. Early paintings of Mary in the catacombs
200-350 Composition of the prayer Sub tuum praesidium – the oldest Marian prayer
217 Founding of Santa Maria in Trastevere, Rome
300 Introduction of the Akathistos Hymn in the East
306-373 Ephrem of Syria, known for his poetic writings about Mary
350 Earliest recorded invocation of Mary by St. Justina

Now so what you are saying is that all of these guys from 54AD through 350AD were what: heretics? false Christians? confused? You might want to be careful how you answer that simply because these guys above are several of the founding fathers of Christianity after the Apostles and Luther based much of his theology upon them. What Protestants adhere to after Christ begis here. so if these guys above are heretics, well, so are you. Not just Catholics. this is the problem with denying the early catholic Church. Luther did not dream up his theology out of a vacuum. He was schooled in all of this above and more and accepted it. so when Protestants attack Catholics for their traditions, they simply attack themselves. Which Luther knew full well and retained to his death devotion to the Virgin Mary.

 

[tequilamac]

One reason some Protestants may reject Mary is because they believe they are following Jesus’ example. This is shocking to Catholics, but hear me out.

In this theological construct there is no room for an exaltation of Mary. The Protestants who believe this believe they have found something better. They believe that Jesus, in the passages quoted above, rebuked an error even then in his disciplies, which was an overemphasis on Mary at the expense of obeying Him. The later reformers looked at what the Bible said about Mary and rejected Marian devotion on Biblical grounds.

QUOTE]

The entire discussion is irrational. I can clearly state that.

Our traditions and doctrine concerning Mary date as far back as the foot of the Cross.

The earliest prayer known by any any any Christian group besides the Our Father is the prayer to St. Joseph in 50AD. The prayer is based on the assumption that Joseph is a saint living in Heaven.

After that we have Sub Tuum Praesidium A prayer for help to Mary also known by all Christians everywhere by 250AD. None of this did Luther reject. **This is where our traditons of Mary and the saints arose. This period of time between 33Ad and 250AD. **

All of our traditions began in this time frame before the first Bible was even completely canonized.

All other traditions and dogma whether it be the Immaculate Conception or the naming of a Cathedral such St. Mary Major or something are a result of what was taught by the apostles and *their disciples *from 33 AD to 250 AD.

We have increasing expressions and actions which become more obvious and more frequent.

Nevertheless, they are all simply expression of that which was already formed between 33AD to 250 AD.

Why do I repeat that? Why is that important?

Because no one ever, not Calvin, not Luther, not the Orthodox, not the Byzantine, not the Anglicans, have ever disputed any of the traditions and teachings developed in the period 33Ad and 250 AD. Why?

Because Zwingli, and Calvin, and Luther as well as us, are all indebted to those who lived in that time frame and developed this dogma.

To throw it out as modern Protestants do would have horrified Luther and Calvin completely.

Because all of their basic theology came from and for the most part was in harmony with that which was taught originally then. do you see what I mean?

We have the early ones in common. When you call (because you do not have the Catholic theological background that Luther and the others had and yes they were very well schooled in Catholicism, all of them, some of them such as Luther having been priests themselves,) when you state this as all wrong, no way to go, the wrong stuff or superstitious nonsense, or misinterpretation, you throw the theological basis of your own Protestant religions in the trash.

You sort of without realizing it commit a sort of spiritual suicide or catch 22.

the only theology any of the early Protestants had was Catholic theology.

Luther threw out the Real Presence in his Eucharist not because he had theological objections, but because he had been excommunicated from the Real Presence.

He tried hard to make amends with the Pope but there was no going back. Therefore, he developed a parallel but not similar Eucharist and prayed hard.

His Eucharist is our Eucharist except for the fact that he was excommunicated. It would be like John Kerry being excommunicated for pro choice activities and so he begins consecrating bread in his living room.He has no other choice except a complete retraction do you see.

So when modern day Protestants like yourselves who simply and bluntly lack the knowledge of Catholicism that your Protestant fathers had reject Catholic dogma and doctrine and teachings that arose from our earliest days, you reject your selves.

And yet you cannot see it. there is ultimately no where else to go for truth. One either accepts the Church or is ex communicated. Once ex communicated one is on one’s own. Which Luther knew.

It was not until he was no longer allowed to teach, preach, consecrate the Host, hear confessions or in any way approach the laity that he threw his hands in the air. Not because he thought the theology was wrong.

But because his anger at the abuses he saw of the laity made him imprudent and he lost his temper. And was promptly excommunicated. It is one thing to claim that priests are abusing laity. It is another to claim the Church theologically wrong.

Luther was not claiming the Church theologically wrong until he was no longer welcome in it. so Protestants these days, who simply do not know Catholicism as well as Luther did, being a priest, do not realize that ultimately their objections bring them to a vast hole, a vacuum.

Because ultimately as they reject the theology of the Church, all they are rejecting is their own religion which was formed from it.

 

[Truthstalker]

Odell,

If someone asked me why Chinese men wore their hair in long pigtails, and I explained, to help you, that it was customary, it was a source of pride and important to their culture, etc., and you replied that I should cut mine off, because men should not have long hair, I would be surprised. We were talking about the Chinese, and my hair is short. I am trying to explain a certain theological position that seems very foreign to Catholics. You seem to think that I because I present the material, I necessarily believe it. In your response there is a lot of “you are wrong” - often without backup. I am presenting material you should understand if you wish to know why Protestants think a certain way - you should not just immediately correct what you see as error.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Truthstalker wrote:

“The later reformers looked at what the Bible said about Mary and rejected Marian devotion on Biblical grounds.”

Are you sure of this? Take a look at these quotes from Martin Luther:

On the Immaculate Conception of Mary

“It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary’s soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God’s gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin.”

“… she is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin. … God’s grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil. … God is with her, meaning that all she did or left undone is divine and the action of God in her. Moreover, God guarded and protected her from all that might be hurtful to her” (Luther’s Works, American edition, Vol. 43, p. 40, ed. H. Lehmann, Fortress, 1968).

On the Perpetual Virginity of Mary

“Christ our Savior was the real and natural fruit of Mary’s virginal womb. … This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that” (“On the Gospel of St. John”: Luther’s Works, Vol. 22. p. 23, ed. Jaroslav Pelican, Concordia, 1957).

“Christ…was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him…I am inclined to agree with those who declare that ‘brothers’ really mean ‘cousins’ here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers.”

“A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ…”

“Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity…When Matthew says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her…This babble…is without justification…[he who disagrees] has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom.”

On the Assumption of Mary

“There can be no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in heaven. How it happened we do not know. And since the Holy Spirit has told us nothing about it, we can make of it no article of faith . . . It is enough to know that she lives in Christ.”

On Mary, the Mother of God

“… she is rightly called not only the mother of the man, but also the Mother of God. … it is certain that Mary is the Mother of the real and true God” (“Sermon on John 14:16”: Luther’s Works [St. Louis], ed. Jaroslav Pelican, Concordia. Vol. 24. p. 107).

“Men have crowded all her glory into a single phrase: The Mother of God. No one can say anything greater of her, though he had as many tongues as there are leaves on the trees” (From the Commentary on the Magnificat).

Here are quotes from Calvin, Zwingli and others:

John Calvin

“Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s ‘brothers’ are sometimes mentioned.”

“The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband…No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words…as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called ‘first-born’; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin…What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us…No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.”

“Under the word ‘brethren’ the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity.”

Huldreich Zwingli

“I have never thought, still less taught, or declared publicly, anything concerning the subject of the ever Virgin Mary, Mother of our salvation, which could be considered dishonourable, impious, unworthy or evil…I believe with all my heart according to the word of holy gospel that this pure virgin bore for us the Son of God and that she remained, in the birth and after it, a pure and unsullied virgin, for eternity.”

Heinrich Bullinger

“The Virgin Mary…completely sanctified by the grace and blood of her only Son and abundantly endowed by the gift of the Holy Spirit and preferred to all…now lives happily with Christ in heaven and is called and remains ever-Virgin and Mother of God.”

John Wesley

“I believe…he [Jesus Christ] was born of the blessed Virgin, who, as well after as she brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin.”

+++

Truthstalker, I’m not trying to take a cheap shot, but it appears that somebody along the line must have “protested” against the original “protesters”, 'cause nobody told me any of this when my Baptist mama was raising her boy…

 

[Reformed1]

Again I point you in the direction of that which you asked for:
Chronological Table of Marian EventsURL for this page is udayton.edu/mary/resources/Timetable.htm

54-60 First allusion to Mary in Paul’s Letter to the Galatians (4:4 “God sent his son born of a woman”)
65 Mary mentioned twice in Mark’s Gospel
70-100 Matthew’s Gospel, Luke Acts and John’s Gospel show Mary’s presence in the life of Jesus and the early Christian Community
90-100 Mary and the Church are both symbolized in the image of the woman in the Book of Revelation (chapter 12)
ca. 110 Ignatius of Antioch makes references to Mary as Virgin and Mother.
150-165 Justin Martyr brings the comparison between Eve and Mary (Eve-Mary-Parallel)
150-202 Irenaeus of Lyons points to Mary’s role in redemption (Mary is causa salutis and advocata Evae)
late 2nd C. Early paintings of Mary in the catacombs
200-350 Composition of the prayer Sub tuum praesidium – the oldest Marian prayer
217 Founding of Santa Maria in Trastevere, Rome
300 Introduction of the Akathistos Hymn in the East
306-373 Ephrem of Syria, known for his poetic writings about Mary
350 Earliest recorded invocation of Mary by St. Justina

Now so what you are saying is that all of these guys from 54AD through 350AD were what: heretics? false Christians? confused? You might want to be careful how you answer that simply because these guys above are several of the founding fathers of Christianity after the Apostles and Luther based much of his theology upon them. What Protestants adhere to after Christ begis here. so if these guys above are heretics, well, so are you. Not just Catholics. this is the problem with denying the early catholic Church. Luther did not dream up his theology out of a vacuum. He was schooled in all of this above and more and accepted it. so when Protestants attack Catholics for their traditions, they simply attack themselves. Which Luther knew full well and retained to his death devotion to the Virgin Mary.

Your list doesn’t mean anything to me because I don’t have any idea what the list is supposed to prove. There is nothing of any substance until you get to Justin Martyr and even then since you don’t give a text, it’s kind of hard to know what Justin Martyr was getting at. All I have is “Justin Martyr brings the comparison between Eve and Mary (Eve-Mary-Parallel)”. Can you give me the name of the work that is referenced in your list?

You go on to list someone that wrote poetry about Mary…okay, but I don’t know what I’m supposed to make of that either.

Your list goes on to mention paintings of Mary that were found in the catacombs. So? I’m not sure what this means. Does this somehow prove the assumption or indicate a general belief in the assumption?

Nothing in your list seems to indicate a belief in the immaculate conception or the asumption of Mary.

So, although I may be completely wrong, your list doesn’t seem to prove anything.

As to your question on how I view the church fathers, I view them as should, you as fallible men. You no more agree with everything Augustine, for example, wrote than I do.

You either assume I know to much and can understand what your list is supposed to prove or you need to do a better job explaining yourself.

 

[RevDrNorth]

i always wondered this. if you look at the earliest writings of the reformers, they gave mary the proper honor she deserves. luther even upheld many of the catholic marian doctrines. At what point did the protestants start to demonize marian devotion? do you think they had some other alterior or political motive other than the “its not in the bible” argument?

Could it be that perhaps God punished them for thier rebelion by hardening their hearts to his mother in order to limit their graces?

I think they looked at the excesses that amounted to Mary Worship and supersitition and were repulsed.

There are many things that set them off: Mary Queen of Heaven smacks of the pagan diety; co redemptrix unbiblical; and seeing Catholics parading statues of Mary through the streets and attaching money to the statue (Third World) looks pagan. At any rate, that is partially why. It is the excesses and diefication done by some to the exclusion of Christ that set Protestants off.

RevDrNorth