what is the REAL reason why protestants reject mary?

[Dorothy]

For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 1 tim 2:5

Yes, mary is blessed. She is the mother of the flesh and blood of jesus. She is not the mother of god. God created mary not the other way around. When i am standing before the great white judgement I will have my faith in jesus christ not mary.

I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.

The reason Mary is called the Mother of God by Catholics is because it is an acknowledgment that she gave birth to the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, and Jesus has two natures, a divine nature and a human nature, and He is one Person, God. Heresies were born because of an improper belief in the Incarnation. Mary didn’t just give birth to the man Jesus - the belief had to be correctly defined.

Of course God created Mary! We are not saying that she preceded God!

 

[Dorothy]

Do you really think we, who don’t believe she was born sinless or was assumed into heaven malign her? Is this what you are saying?

I don’t believe that you malign her, just that you have a different understanding about her.

I see Mary as a clear pane of glass (no smudges) that lets the Light of the Holy Trinity shine through clearly. She is nothing, and has nothing without God, and she knows it! (true humility).

“My soul does magnify the Lord…”

 

[tequilamac]

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.

The fact that you do not understand that people go to heaven sometimes is really not my problem. I wrote what I wrote as a response to your claim that there is no evidence from early on that Christians believed in the Assumption. I guess I don’t understand what you mean by assumption. What we mean by assumption is that God took Mary to Heaven. Now you might dispute that. Perhaps Protestants don’t go to heaven ever. I don’t know. First- I posted a prayer to St. Joseph from 50AD. This prayer in Catholics terms would indicate they believed in 50AD that Joseph went to Heaven. I then posted a prayer to Mary from 250AD and told of the activity surrounding her from 33 AD to 250AD. This activity and the prayers to her indicated that the earliest Christians believed that Mary went to Heaven and was living with God.
Now your response is that I posted poetry to Mary. No. What I posted is clear evidence that the earliest Christians believed in the assumption of Mary into Heaven. They believed that Joseph went to Heaven. And were in close enough proximity to Christ in Heaven to intercede for us- ask Him to help us. As a general rule, Catholics do not paint pictures of people on walls that they think went to Hell. As a general rule, Catholics do not write prayers to those they think went to Hell. Yes the activities and prayers to Mary and Joseph in 33Ad to 250 Ad indicate a belief in the immaculate conception and assumption.
Now I understand that protestants think the earliest Christians were confused. And stayed confused until Martin Luther who straightened everybody out by believing exactly the same thing as the early Chirstians. Which now all Protestants reject. So now since Protestants reject the teachings of the earliest Christians that Mary was taken into Heaven and that Joseph was taken to Heaven, and Protestants alos reject the beliefs of Luther, I really don’t know that there is much point to posting answers. But I still do.


As far St. Augustine goes- are you always arrogant and presumptious? You have no idea what I think of Augustine. And it is a protestant thing I guess to assume you know what I am thinking about someone we never discussed.

As Catholics we are not allowed to operate as Protestants therefore I cannot do as you told me I should do. We are not allowed to believe and act as if everyone around us for the last 2000 years and presently is fallible and we ourselves, as individuals are the only infallible authority. That is a confessable trait that we call pride. We pray for the gift of humility which means that it is sort of necessary for us to believe that at times other Catholics might have been smarter than us, even in 50AD.

We do not have a religious system that allows us to believe that each person everywhere is infallible. Which is what Protestants believe. With the exception of Catholics of course. When a person rejects the Church’s rightful authority and the Pope’s rightful authority and determines to go alone, to interpret all scripture alone, rejecting other’s interpretations, then he is declaring that all others are fallible and his own thoughts are the only reliable ones. Which is of course what Protestants do. And we cannot do that. Sorry.

 

[Reformed1]

The fact that you do not understand that people go to heaven sometimes is really not my problem. I wrote what I wrote as a response to your claim that there is no evidence from early on that Christians believed in the Assumption. I guess I don’t understand what you mean by assumption. What we mean by assumption is that God took Mary to Heaven. Now you might dispute that. Perhaps Protestants don’t go to heaven ever. I don’t know. First- I posted a prayer to St. Joseph from 50AD. This prayer in Catholics terms would indicate they believed in 50AD that Joseph went to Heaven. I then posted a prayer to Mary from 250AD and told of the activity surrounding her from 33 AD to 250AD. This activity and the prayers to her indicated that the earliest Christians believed that Mary went to Heaven and was living with God.
Now your response is that I posted poetry to Mary. No. What I posted is clear evidence that the earliest Christians believed in the assumption of Mary into Heaven. They believed that Joseph went to Heaven. And were in close enough proximity to Christ in Heaven to intercede for us- ask Him to help us. As a general rule, Catholics do not paint pictures of people on walls that they think went to Hell. As a general rule, Catholics do not write prayers to those they think went to Hell. Yes the activities and prayers to Mary and Joseph in 33Ad to 250 Ad indicate a belief in the immaculate conception and assumption.
Now I understand that protestants think the earliest Christians were confused. And stayed confused until Martin Luther who straightened everybody out by believing exactly the same thing as the early Chirstians. Which now all Protestants reject. So now since Protestants reject the teachings of the earliest Christians that Mary was taken into Heaven and that Joseph was taken to Heaven, and Protestants alos reject the beliefs of Luther, I really don’t know that there is much point to posting answers. But I still do.


As far St. Augustine goes- are you always arrogant and presumptious? You have no idea what I think of Augustine. And it is a protestant thing I guess to assume you know what I am thinking about someone we never discussed.

As Catholics we are not allowed to operate as Protestants therefore I cannot do as you told me I should do. We are not allowed to believe and act as if everyone around us for the last 2000 years and presently is fallible and we ourselves, as individuals are the only infallible authority. That is a confessable trait that we call pride. We pray for the gift of humility which means that it is sort of necessary for us to believe that at times other Catholics might have been smarter than us, even in 50AD.

We do not have a religious system that allows us to believe that each person everywhere is infallible. Which is what Protestants believe. With the exception of Catholics of course. When a person rejects the Church’s rightful authority and the Pope’s rightful authority and determines to go alone, to interpret all scripture alone, rejecting other’s interpretations, then he is declaring that all others are fallible and his own thoughts are the only reliable ones. Which is of course what Protestants do. And we cannot do that. Sorry.

You seem to have a rather large chip on your shoulder.

 

[tequilamac]

You seem to have a rather large chip on your shoulder.

A typical Protestant response to being confronted with a Catholic truth they have no explanation for rejecting.
Grow up.

 

[Reformed1]

The fact that you do not understand that people go to heaven sometimes is really not my problem. I wrote what I wrote as a response to your claim that there is no evidence from early on that Christians believed in the Assumption. I guess I don’t understand what you mean by assumption. What we mean by assumption is that God took Mary to Heaven. Now you might dispute that. Perhaps Protestants don’t go to heaven ever. I don’t know.

I think I see what part of your problem is, you apparently don’t udnerstand your own faith.

Go to ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P12MUNIF.HTM and review what your pope defined as dogma 'cuz it isn’t quite as simple as believing Mary is in heaven.

 

[Reformed1]

A typical Protestant response to being confronted with a Catholic truth they have no explanation for rejecting.
Grow up.

Read the link I gave you. Apparently the doctrine of the assumption is not limited to just Mary’s soul being in heaven.

I guess I would have a chip on my shoulder too if I were Catholic and a typical protestant knew more about my faith than I did.

 

[Axion]

(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.

Indeed. And the praise is actually directed to Jesus himself as much as Mary.

If the woman had said “ Blessed is the ground that carried you and the air which you breathe." Who would she have been praising more: the ground, the air, or Jesus?

When Jesus alters the focus, He is not downgrading Himself or His mother, he is concentrating us on doing what he says.

Similarly, Look at this passage:

John 4.31 Meanwhile, the disciples urged him, “Rabbi, eat.” 32 But he said to them, “I have food to eat of which you do not know.” 33 So the disciples said to one another, “Could someone have brought him something to eat?” 34 Jesus said to them, "My food is to do the will of the one who sent me and to finish his work.
Is Jesus here rebuking food, and telling us to starve ourselves? That’s what you’d have to believe if you followed the same interpretation as some try to use on the Mary passage.

No. Jesus is not condemning food. He is redirecting people to the core of his mission - doing the will of God. He is making no comment about food - or about Mary.

 

[Axion]

Read the link I gave you. Apparently the doctrine of the assumption is not limited to just Mary’s soul being in heaven.

I guess I would have a chip on my shoulder too if I were Catholic and a typical protestant knew more about my faith than I did.

You’re being silly. Tequilamac said MARY is in heaven. He didn’t limit it to just her soul.

Original Christianity teaches that mary was taken, body and soul into heaven, just like Elijah and Enoch - and Moses, whose heavenly presence is acknowledged in the New Testament although unmentioned in the Old.

 

[Reformed1]

You’re being silly. Tequilamac said MARY is in heaven. He didn’t limit it to just her soul.

Original Christianity teaches that mary was taken, body and soul into heaven, just like Elijah and Enoch - and Moses, whose heavenly presence is acknowledged in the New Testament although unmentioned in the Old.

How does a prayer to Mary or a picture in the catacomb or a poem reflect a belief of anything other than Mary’s soul being in heaven? There is no hint in any of the evidence that tequilamac presented of the assumption is there?

Now, who is the one being silly?

 

[dessert]

Yes I own two rosaries. One I bought in Nuernberg at a shop run by nuns. I have said the rosary even now as a liturgical clergyman (non Roman Catholic). I say it in the sense of the Communion of Saints as supported by the Book of Revelation. As an addition to the side note, I used to teach catechism classes when I was Roman Catholic.

I disagree with some Roman Cath practices and doctrines but have tremndous respect fro the church. I really am listening to EWTN and have books by Fr, Groeschel.

RevDrNorth

When you were RCC ?so you aren’t now?
As a side note you are also excused, from being a RCC, if you are not going to stand up for our Mother of God, so are you really listening? I do like EWTN but there is more to that than just having books and what is your indesciviveness?
The Fathers of the RCC have great respect and show it to Mary and the is the most impressive respect that I see as the respect they show to the nuns and sissters of our faith as Jesus showed to Mary as very reverenced of God. It sounds like because you feel you can’t except all the doctrine you would feel you shouldn’t proclaim cathholic. That is BS or an excuse for not committing thus I said you are trying to be just on the fence or I guess luke warm. I don’t have a statue of Mary in my home but I do love her so much I spell her name with a capital M. Thank you for her respect and I appreciate your reply. return from the desert

"Jesus, I give myself to you. I come to you to receive all you want to give me. I won’t focus on what I can bring you today. Instead I will focus on receiving your love and your guidance."word among us publ.

 

[Dorothy]

You’re being silly. Tequilamac said MARY is in heaven. He didn’t limit it to just her soul.

Original Christianity teaches that mary was taken, body and soul into heaven, just like Elijah and Enoch - and Moses, whose heavenly presence is acknowledged in the New Testament although unmentioned in the Old.

I’m sure he meant that she was in heaven body and soul, but he didn’t articulate that clearly. I can see where the misunderstanding came about.

 

[dan85]

I am sorry, I dont believe that mary was the mother of God. I love her though just as I love King David, Abraham, Adam, and all the other earthly ancestors of jesus christ. Saying that mary is the mother of god sounds like your saying that mary is the creator of god. If you want to pray to mary, thats fine, but dont expect her to stand up before god on your behalf. Mary has saved noone from eternal damnation. Only jesus christ has the power to do that. This is what I believe.

 

[jmcrae]

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.

That book may well be very convincing, but it’s not listed in the canon of Scripture, and is therefore forbidden to Protestants as a means of arriving at a doctrinal belief, under the precept of Sola Scriptura (which is “Scripture Alone” as the source of doctrine - the early Reformers rejected the interpretations of the Early Church Fathers because they were not found in the Scriptures themselves - and if you’re not allowed to use the interpretations of the Early Church Fathers, then why on earth would you accept the much later and much more speculative interpretations of latter-day scholars? After all, the Early Church Fathers sat in the classrooms and churches of the Apostles, hearing and memorizing their teachings, observing first-hand how they celebrated the Sacraments, and praying with them, and under their leadership.)

 

[Reformed1]

That book may well be very convincing, but it’s not listed in the canon of Scripture, and is therefore forbidden to Protestants as a means of arriving at a doctrinal belief, under the precept of Sola Scriptura (which is “Scripture Alone” as the source of doctrine - the early Reformers rejected the interpretations of the Early Church Fathers because they were not found in the Scriptures themselves - and if you’re not allowed to use the interpretations of the Early Church Fathers, then why on earth would you accept the much later and much more speculative interpretations of latter-day scholars? After all, the Early Church Fathers sat in the classrooms and churches of the Apostles, hearing and memorizing their teachings, observing first-hand how they celebrated the Sacraments, and praying with them, and under their leadership.)

You misunderstand sola scriptura.

The issue I have with some of your traditions that your church has seen fit to declare as dogma is that many of them seem rather late developing and if they would have been taught by the apostles it would seem that they would have surfaced earlier than they did.

 

[jmcrae]

You misunderstand sola scriptura.

The issue I have with some of your traditions that your church has seen fit to declare as dogma is that many of them seem rather late developing and if they would have been taught by the apostles it would seem that they would have surfaced earlier than they did.

Would God be God if a few semi-literate fisherman could understand Him in the first generation? It took the Church 300 years to “get” the Trinity, but it doesn’t contradict anything that the Apostles gave us. (The Apostles themselves didn’t know anything about the Trinity, as I’m sure you must realize.)

It’s the same with the rest of the teachings of the Church - it takes a really long time to understand some things, especially things as complex as the Eucharist, or Mary’s role, but nothing we have contradicts anything that the Apostles gave us - and what we have now is built upon the foundations that they laid for us - and prohibitions against abuse of the Eucharist, and prayers to Mary for intercession, go back to the first generation of the Church - they’re both 1500 years older than the 5 Solas, or the TULIP doctrine.

 

[Reformed1]

Would God be God if a few semi-literate fisherman could understand Him in the first generation? It took the Church 300 years to “get” the Trinity, but it doesn’t contradict anything that the Apostles gave us. (The Apostles themselves didn’t know anything about the Trinity, as I’m sure you must realize.)

It’s the same with the rest of the teachings of the Church - it takes a really long time to understand some things, especially things as complex as the Eucharist, or Mary’s role, but nothing we have contradicts anything that the Apostles gave us - and what we have now is built upon the foundations that they laid for us - and prohibitions against abuse of the Eucharist, and prayers to Mary for intercession, go back to the first generation of the Church - they’re both 1500 years older than the 5 Solas, or the TULIP doctrine.

While I can see a scriptural basis for say the trinity, I just can’t see some of the other things such as the assumption.

 

[Truthstalker]

Would God be God if a few semi-literate fisherman could understand Him in the first generation? It took the Church 300 years to “get” the Trinity, but it doesn’t contradict anything that the Apostles gave us. (The Apostles themselves didn’t know anything about the Trinity, as I’m sure you must realize.)

It’s the same with the rest of the teachings of the Church - it takes a really long time to understand some things, especially things as complex as the Eucharist, or Mary’s role, but nothing we have contradicts anything that the Apostles gave us - and what we have now is built upon the foundations that they laid for us - and prohibitions against abuse of the Eucharist, and prayers to Mary for intercession, go back to the first generation of the Church - they’re both 1500 years older than the 5 Solas, or the TULIP doctrine.

Your first paragraph is a great argument against Tradition - God, being God, was then smart enough to make sure all the important information was written down, as oral transmission is inadequate.

Your second paragraph is also a great argument for the Reformation. It took 1500 years for the church to figure out TULIP and Sola Scriptura. The idea of development of doctrine works in both directions.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Dan-

You need to do a bit of research on what “Mother of God” means. Even Prostestants acknowledge this doctrine which was developed - not invented - in response to the heresy of Arianism more than a thousand years ago.

If Mary is not the Mother of God, then Jesus must not be God, because Mary was his mother.

Think this through carefully.

 

[mikeledes]

None of what you say helps you case at all, but I suspect you know that.

The point was to debunk your notion that it has to be explicitly stated in Scripture in order to be true. The Immaculate Conception may not be explicitly in Scripture, but it is there. Whether you want to accept it or not, it’s a different story. And by what authority do you declare a true marriage to be an exchange of vows before a designated authority (religious or civil)? By what authority do you believe abortion is the equivalent of murder and masturbation is sinful? On what authority do you base these teachings, teachings that are not found explicitly in the Bible?

God Bless,
Michael