Why Do Protestants Shun Mary?

[GaryTaylor]

Cherry picked verse from scripture provide no Biblical typology no continuity front-back on Christs Kingdom. Its more of a pick a verse to argue against any point. Similar to what Islam does. For example where does Jesus say He is God-explicitly? Its arguing Christianity backwards. Even the devil quoted the Bible. The cherry picked verse is analogous to a bowl of notes that do not make music.

Further its apparent anyone can read anything out the Bible clearly as indicated. Who has the authority to interpret, that seems to be an issue with islam also, lead to barbaric terrorism. Because “their” interpretation was deemed “right”.

 

[ajecphotos]

I see no problem in asking Mary to pray for us. After all she is the mother of Jesus!! How can people say that as far as they are concerned she is ‘dead!’ Do they honestly think that the Son of God would let his Mother disappear into dust for eternity? His dearly beloved Mother!!

I believe that she is very much ‘alive’ in Heaven and works tirelessly for us her earthly children!!

 

[thistle]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Because of the teaching on this^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

“For there is one God, and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus”
(Douay-Rheims Bible in 1Tim2:5)

Actually shunning is not the correct term, we choose not to worship her. I know RC teaching states it is not worship, but when the frequency and fervency of the focus on Mary is as it is reflected in modern Roman Catholicism, it is seen for all practical purposes as worship. As others have stated, we honor her as the woman chosen by God to carry His Son, but that is generally where it stops.

That is total nonsense. Catholics do NOT worship Mary. Only the ignorant would think that happens!! Why do non-Catholics think they know what we believe better than we do??

 

[GaryTaylor]

Me too, however, I do not see where the Bible explicitly states such thing, just as I do not see where the Bible has any verse where Jesus Christ explicitly states He is God, seems to me there is a protestant double standard in various areas of protestant realms. Just saying, you can’t help but notice.

Or would it be safe to say you can logically arrive at these conclusions? Who has the final authority in determining? Someone must have a consistent narrative minus glaring double standards.

 

[ajecphotos]

Me too, however, I do not see where the Bible explicitly states such thing, just as I do not see where the Bible has any verse where Jesus Christ explicitly states He is God, seems to me there is a protestant double standard in various areas of protestant realms. Just saying, you can’t help but notice.

Or would it be safe to say you can logically arrive at these conclusions? Who has the final authority in determining? Someone must have a consistent narrative minus glaring double standards.

He does state ‘I AM’

 

[GaryTaylor]

He does state ‘I AM’

Of course He does, but it rather misses the point which I have to believe you do see?

 

[Eruvande]

I concur with the comment that there are people who think they know the Catholic teachings better than the Catholics. It’s like saying ‘I know what you SAY you believe about Mary, but it doesn’t fit with my definition of your behaviour so I’m just going to ignore what you say’.

Mary is special. She was born with a special purpose. I am so glad to say that she is no longer an irrelevance to me. She isn’t God, so NO I do NOT worship her, but I do hold her in high, precious esteem as the one who brought forth Jesus Christ. Because of her obedience, I love Him with all my heart.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I concur with the comment that there are people who think they know the Catholic teachings better than the Catholics. It’s like saying ‘I know what you SAY you believe about Mary, but it doesn’t fit with my definition of your behaviour so I’m just going to ignore what you say’.

Mary is special. She was born with a special purpose. I am so glad to say that she is no longer an irrelevance to me. She isn’t God, so NO I do NOT worship her, but I do hold her in high, precious esteem as the one who brought forth Jesus Christ. Because of her obedience, I love Him with all my heart.

I hear you, all I’m saying is there is a sequence of events from the 1st ecumenical council through the 4th and in the end of the sequence the NT-Bible is canonized. They arrived at the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, the Trinity, the Nature of Christ and the Mother of God or Theotokos. This my brother is basic Christianity. I’m just saying this is what made people Christians in belief. Had this not been true we wouldn’t even calling ourselves Christians.

To me it seems there is a specific doctrinal-Biblical understanding which simply can’t be denied. Specifics are denied with no continuity of understanding to the Incarnation-Nature of Christ specifically.

 

[rstrats]

GaryTaylor,

re: “Immature argument…”

How so? What is immature about saying that I am not aware of any scripture when I’m not?

re: “…that avoids the Trinity and Incarnation…”

What does a trinity and incarnation have to do with the Messiah’s attitude with regard to His mother?

re: “…and has led to ‘another Christ’…”

I’m simply quoting ageed upon scripture.

re: “Had the Church not defended and defined, you would be quoting Arius in relation to the Bible or ‘another Christ’”.

I don’t understand your point.

re: “Cherry picked verse from scripture provide no Biblical typology no continuity front-back on Christs Kingdom.”

Cherry picking seems to imply that there are other scriptures that explain the cherry picked ones. If you know of any that do that, how about identifying them?

re: “Its more of a pick a verse to argue against any point.”

And you can pick one to counter the cherry picked one.

 

[GaryTaylor]

GaryTaylor,

re: “Immature argument…”

How so? What is immature about saying that I am not aware of any scripture when I’m not?

re: “…that avoids the Trinity and Incarnation…”

What does a trinity and incarnation have to do with the Messiah’s attitude with regard to His mother?

re: “…and has led to ‘another Christ’…”

I’m simply quoting ageed upon scripture.

re: “Had the Church not defended and defined, you would be quoting Arius in relation to the Bible or ‘another Christ’”.

I don’t understand your point.

re: “Cherry picked verse from scripture provide no Biblical typology no continuity front-back on Christs Kingdom.”

Cherry picking seems to imply that there are other scriptures that explain the cherry picked ones. If you know of any that do that, how about identifying them?

re: “Its more of a pick a verse to argue against any point.”

And you can pick one to counter the cherry picked one.

I’m talking about the continuity of scripture and all of them used to arrive at- Homoousios which became a consistent mark of Nicene orthodoxy-Christianity and preceded any canonization of scripture… The Nature of Christ, Incarnation. There is no other understanding, do you have one in historical continuity? There may be one today, I haven’t heard it. This is completely neglected. How do you arrive at historically right from neglecting the above?

What does a trinity and incarnation have to do with the Messiah’s attitude with regard to His mother?

I don’t know, why did you bring it up? I would suggest, being God is perfect, His attitude toward his mother is perfect. Are you saying Jesus Christ isn’t God thus perfection and treated His mother indifferently as to prove He isn’t God? Where does scripture say that?

“Had the Church not defended and defined, you would be quoting Arius in relation to the Bible or ‘another Christ’”.

This is what defined Christianity- Homoousios - through the Church. The nature of Christ-Incarnation-God. If there is another understanding of this point by whom did it come and when and by what authority?

I’m simply quoting ageed upon scripture.

And my point is agreed upon by whom? By whos authority and interpretation? Or is this like Isis has the authority to interpret the Quran?

 

[Mousey]

I’m not aware of any scripture where the Messiah pays any special homage to His mother. In fact He seems to be somewhat put off when her name comes up.

John 2:1-4 - - 2 And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there: 2 And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage. 3 And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine. 4 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.

Jesus was “put off”? We see Mary’s powerful influence with Jesus. It was not His time yet He performs His first recorded miracle at the behest of His mother. Such compliance To Mary’s wishes seems like special homage and not putting off at all of a loving Son.

 

[Mark121359]

Ah yes! Well, what do you know! Another Mary isn’t so important thread. Judging by some of the comments on here, I guess St. Louis-Marie Grignion de Montfort, St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori, St. Maximilian Kolbe, St. Bernard of Clairvaux, St Thérèse of Lisieux and a whole host of others would be considered heretics nowadays what with their intense devotion and love for this Good Mother. Wow! Bl. John Duns Scotus…what in the world were you thinking with your defense of Mary’s Immaculate Conception? Sorry about my rant Mom Mom…you’re tops in my books!

Peace, Mark

 

[rcwitness]

Sorry about my rant…
Peace, Mark

Inevitable in threads about Mary. I wish I could say that those who “profess” a devotion to Mary gave me the impression that they were like her.

 

[ChurchSoldier]

That is total nonsense. Catholics do NOT worship Mary. Only the ignorant would think that happens!! Why do non-Catholics think they know what we believe better than we do??

Just going by what I see.

Thanks for the comment.

 

[ChurchSoldier]

Me too, however, I do not see where the Bible explicitly states such thing, just as **I do not see where the Bible has any verse where Jesus Christ explicitly states He is God, **seems to me there is a protestant double standard in various areas of protestant realms. Just saying, you can’t help but notice.

Or would it be safe to say you can logically arrive at these conclusions? Who has the final authority in determining? Someone must have a consistent narrative minus glaring double standards.

There is a place in John 10 where Jesus says that He and the Father are one (v. 30) and then in 33 this dialogue takes place: 33 The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.”

So while the words He said were that He and the Father were one, it appears to have clearly communicated the message to those around Him that He was claiming to be God.

I like what you said about out of context verse theology btw. I think a lot of folks do use the technique to make a point rather than discern proper doctrine.

PAX

 

[rcwitness]

Quote:
Originally Posted by thistle View Post
That is total nonsense. Catholics do NOT worship Mary. Only the ignorant would think that happens!! Why do non-Catholics think they know what we believe better than we do??
Just going by what I see.

Maybe you should say, Catholicism condemns the worship of Mary?

 

[benotagoat]

Mary is a lot more than being just you and me. She is the very first fruit, the very first Catholic, and the very first of the faithful. If she were sinful like us then we’ve got a dilemma we can’t run from, Jesus Christ is not God. It could be said that Christ took on the flesh of sin, nursed on sin, and raised in sin.

Adam’s one voluntary act of disobedience had the effect the whole of mankind deprived of salvation as God’s justice; a punishment, which was a physical death and a privation of God’s love in soul of all born of Adam. Punishment is a physical and spiritual death characterized by the Jews as banishment from Eden, or banishment from “Abraham’s bosom” (Luke 16:22). This is the place where Adam and Eve communed with God, Adam spoke to God and God spoke to Adam, like Moses, they spoke “face to face”. Prior to the fall, Adam having freewill was one with God (oneness such expressed in John 6:57 and John 17:21-22). “God saw all the things that he had made, and they were very good.” God did not, and does not, make evil. Expulsion from Eden is God’s justice for original sin; a privation from an abiding in God and God abiding in us.

Original Sin is that men are born without the fear of God and without trust in God, is to be entirely rejected, since it is manifest to every Christian that to be without the fear of God and without trust in God is rather the actual guilt of an adult than the offence of a recently-born infant, which does not possess as yet the full use of reason, as the Lord says “Your children which had no knowledge between good and evil,” Deut 1:39. (Johann Eck, The Confutatio Pontificia)

If we have Mary understand that Mary was anything less than Immaculately conceived you have the Incarnate Life of the flesh of sinful women and thus God born of sin. God repulses sin, sin does not enter his sight. If Mary were to sin after Christ was born, then sin would not only be in the sight of God but joined to Him by virtue of the flesh.

Consequently, the Blessed Mary must be Immaculate as imperative to Christian faith (beyond Papal decree), for any Christian faith that confesses the Holy Trinity. As you know, the Holy Trinity is three Persons in the one essence of God. God has the nature of God the father and the Holy Spirit has the nature of the Spirit of God. Christ is One of Person with two natures, God and Man. Christ is God (uncreated) and we know Jesus was born of woman, i.e. man. Thus the Person of Jesus Christ is wholly God and wholly man, God/man. The prophecies of the Old Testament require the Messiah to be God (uncreated) and the prophecies require him to be born of woman (creature). The ONLY way Christ can be wholly God, and perfectly a whole man is to be born of the flesh of a woman who is the new Eve – sinless, i.e. the Immaculate Mary. Thus to deny the Blessed Virgin Mary as Immaculate is to deny Christ as either God or man and fails to acknowledge Him as Theandros.

JoeT

She was not the first catholic , she was the first Christian . There was no Catholic church
at that time .

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Just going by what I see.

What you should see is what is in the Catechism below. The Church has never taught worship or adoration of Mary, but rather devotion, which is altogether different.

**DEVOTION TO THE BLESSED VIRGIN

971 “All generations will call me blessed”: "The Church’s devotion to the Blessed Virgin is intrinsic to Christian worship."515 The Church rightly honors "the Blessed Virgin with special devotion. From the most ancient times the Blessed Virgin has been honored with the title of ‘Mother of God,’ to whose protection the faithful fly in all their dangers and needs. . . . This very special devotion . . . differs essentially from the adoration which is given to the incarnate Word and equally to the Father and the Holy Spirit, and greatly fosters this adoration."516 The liturgical feasts dedicated to the Mother of God and Marian prayer, such as the rosary, an “epitome of the whole Gospel,” express this devotion to the Virgin Mary.**

I’ve never heard a Protestant refer to Mary as Blessed Mary, or Blessed Virgin Mary, or Blessed Mother. So does this mean that Mary’s biblical prophecy only refer to Catholics?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

She was not the first catholic , she was the first Christian . There was no Catholic church
at that time .

When, in your opinion, did the Catholic Church begin?

Not to derail the thread.

 

[rcwitness]

She was not the first catholic , she was the first Christian . There was no Catholic church
at that time .

Both are adjectives. The noun Catholic was introduced by Ignatius as common place around 110 AD.

Neither were in existence during Christ’s lifetime. Christian was first used to name the followers of Jesus. Catholic was used to distinguish universal/orthodox Christianity.

Mary was both in essence and faith.