Why Do Protestants Shun Mary?

[SjMelnychuk]

Im saying the reception of the Holy Spirit through Jesus is the New Covenant.

The reception of the Holy Spirit being the New Covenant?

I get this concept but believe it’s a doctrinal error.

Take this and eat, this is my body… This is my blood, the blood of the New Covenant.

The Old Covenant = Sacrificial Lamb = foreshadows Jesus
The Ark carried the Old Covenant

The New Covenant = The fulfillment of what the OT foreshadowed = Sacrificial Lamb = Jesus.

The Ark of the Old Covenant foreshadows Mary
The Ark of the New Covenant = Mary conceives Jesus in her womb, gives birth to Sacrificial Lamb who is Jesus with His blood poured out as the Sacrificial Lamb His blood becoming the blood of the New Covenant.

Jesus is not the Holy Spirit. To say otherwise would be to agree in the “oneness theology” that has long been said to be heretical teaching concerning the Triune Nature of God. So how can you say the New Covenant is the reception of the Holy Spirit when it’s ALL ABOUT Jesus and His blood shed as the Sacrificial Lamb?

The New Covenant is not so much the person of Jesus, as the Covenant that He brought for us.

Methodology is EXTREMELY important. What’s the Center of every Mass? Is it not Eucharistic adoration, the receiving of the blessed host in our Eucharistic Lord? Don’t we eat the blood and body of Jesus in our Eucharist? To fully get this is required to fully understand how and why Mary is the Ark of the Covenant and Crowned Queen of Heaven.

What I believe about the Eucharist is an endless treasure! In this context that we’re discussing, is that we receive the Word made flesh just as Mary had.

As I said before, I don’t deny a mystical connection which is a mystery however, the title of the Ark of the Covenant is Mary. What kind of Catholic are you? It doesn’t sound like you follow the teachings of the Catholic Church. It sounds like you’re basing your beliefs on some weird / foreign revelation that I’ve never heard.

Why are our bodies the temple of the Holy Spirit? Because we we eat the blood and flesh of our Lord in the blessed host the Eucharist. This is a divine mystery but not to be the doctrinal basis on the believer being the Ark of the New Covenant but speaks to a greater mystery to what connection there is as being the body of Christ, in community with one another. Just because there is a divine and mystic connection doesn’t mean we take the place of Mary as Ark of the Covenant. It’s a divine mystery.

 

[ChosenOne7]

who says Mary is “Queen of the Heaven” … i cant remember seeing that anywhere in the scriptures… do catholics follow scriptural teaching?

 

[GaryTaylor]

who says Mary is “Queen of the Heaven” … i cant remember seeing that anywhere in the scriptures… do catholics follow scriptural teaching?

The answers are in the thread, take a few moments and read it. Before there was a NT there was a Church. Its not all in the Bible which the Bible itself states. Thus whatever conclusions are reached with no authority of the Church to interpret scripture is reduced to mere human opinion, and usually by those not in communion with the Church from where the scriptures originated by those IN the Church IN communion. to which protestants have no choice but to agree.

And the answer is yes, the Catholic Church “is” the authority to interpret scripture. Pretty much self evident historically. What does scripture tell us of the incarnation and nature of Jesus Christ?

So who said she isn’t? Those with an opinion of what they think the scripture are stating. Yes, thats the problem and in particular with the Incarnation. We have opinioned ourselves into other than the first 4 ecumenical councils which is the basis of Christianity. What we have here is a “novelty” based on opinion.

All defined doctrines due to the same existing issue today.

 

[ChosenOne7]

I found that hard to believe God inspired the Bible one should follow the Bible an see if the church teachings are are according to the Bible… All Scripture is inspired from God… Don’t you think whatever we need to know God would put in the Bible? Hence I ask does Catholics teachings originate with the Bible yes you can say the church teachings but then one could ask does the church teachings agree with the bible teachings… Like everything else you believe is in the Bible accept about veneration of Mary or Mary being the Queen of heaven or even praying to Mary… If that was really important would God then not inspire the men he used to write the Bible to put that in the Bible? Why should our teachings not be based on the Bible… So the question still remains where in the Bible does it say Mary is the queen on heaven… If you can show me that I’ll believe Catholics are the true religion

 

[ChosenOne7]

Did Jesus or his diciples pray to Mary?

 

[SjMelnychuk]

who says Mary is “Queen of the Heaven” … i cant remember seeing that anywhere in the scriptures… do catholics follow scriptural teaching?

Read previous comments to find your answer because this is answered quite extensively.

 

[SjMelnychuk]

I found that hard to believe God inspired the Bible one should follow the Bible an see if the church teachings are are according to the Bible… All Scripture is inspired from God… Don’t you think whatever we need to know God would put in the Bible? Hence I ask does Catholics teachings originate with the Bible yes you can say the church teachings but then one could ask does the church teachings agree with the bible teachings… Like everything else you believe is in the Bible accept about veneration of Mary or Mary being the Queen of heaven or even praying to Mary… If that was really important would God then not inspire the men he used to write the Bible to put that in the Bible? Why should our teachings not be based on the Bible… So the question still remains where in the Bible does it say Mary is the queen on heaven… If you can show me that I’ll believe Catholics are the true religion

I say again, scriptural evidence is discussed at length…read the comments in the thread but for redundancy sake Revelations, Ark of the Covenant in labor, being Crowned with 12 Jewels. Jesus = New Covenant. OT foreshadows NT. Therefore Maryis Ark of the New Covenant since she conceived and gave birth to our new covenant Jesus… Therefore picture of pregnant woman in child birth being Crowned Queen of Heaven is Mary. All you need is a really good exegetical study of both OT and NT and to know what the Church has historically taught. I don’t know about others, but if I want to know what the Early Church believed I look at the Early Church Father’s. What are you going to believe, ancient Christian doctrine or new doctrine born out of the Reformation? If the Early Church that Jesus establish didn’t teach the doctrine then it’s a different doctrine. Anyways, for greater detail read through this thread.

 

[SjMelnychuk]

Did Jesus or his diciples pray to Mary?

Jesus gave His Mother to the Church when he was on the Cross. Mary nurtured the infant Church as she nurtured the infant Jesus. Mary out lived most if not all the Apostles. Then following the Apostles if we want to gain perspective of how the early Church viewed Mary… Why would Jesus and the Apostles be praying to Mary when Mary physically walked with the Apostles and the infant Church? It is better to ask if the Early Church Fathers prayed to Mary and the answer to that question would be YES!

So in that case you would refer to the Early Church Fathers when it comes to what happened with Mary following the deaths of the Apostles. Tradition teaches that her body did not see decay and that she was assumed into Heaven. Praying to Saints and Mary was an ancient practice established in the early years of the Churches infancy. And Sacred Scripture in the earliest canonized Sacred Scripture by the Catholic Church you see Catholic Tradition enforced. I know little so perhaps more educated Catholics can give further detail. I have yet to actually read the full Catholic Edition of Sacred Scripture so I’m going by the few things I’ve heard from other Catholics I’ve come in contact with over the years…at any rate, if you want to know what the early Church did, the way the Church Jesus established worship and the view of praying to Saints and Mary than reading the writings of the Early Church Fathers is strongly recommended.

As for praying to Saints and Mary, that was established by the time the Apostles Creed was established. In the Apostles Creed we see Communion of Saints. Communion of Saints is part of the reason we as Catholics will ask the Saints and Mary to intercede for us.

 

[rcwitness]

I said it before and I’ll say it again, Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant unless I see otherwise …unless I see the CCC directly state that both the Church and Mary are considered to be the Ark of the New Covenant but as I see it, only Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant.

SjMelnychuk, I want to be very clear with you because I dont believe we are in opposition. I do believe Mary to be the Ark of the New Covenant in a unique, singular, and chronologically first way. This is why she is a mother to all Christians. Perhaps my mistake was to suggest that the Church is predominantly the Ark of the New Covenant. I interpreted that from the footnotes of the RSVCE. It it more likely the other way around. But nevertheless, her role as Ark of the Covenant is not independant of the Churchs`, but shared. Im saying that Mary and the Church are the Ark of the New Covenant.

CCC
967 By her complete adherence to the Father’s will, to his Son’s redemptive work, and to every prompting of the Holy Spirit, the Virgin Mary is the Church’s model of faith and charity. Thus she is a “preeminent and… wholly unique member of the Church”; indeed, she is the “exemplary realization” (typus)510 of the Church. (2679, 507)

In his encyclical letter “Redemptoris Mater” Pope John Paul II wrote:

1. Thanks to this special bond linking the Mother of Christ with the Church, there is further clarified the mystery of that “woman” who, from the first chapters of the Book of Genesis until the Book of Revelation, accompanies the revelation of God’s salvific plan for humanity. For Mary, present in the Church as the Mother of the Redeemer, takes part, as a mother, in that monumental struggle; against the powers of darkness"(138) which continues throughout human history. And by her ecclesial identification as the “woman clothed with the sun” (Rev. 12:1),(139) it can be said that “in the Most Holy Virgin the Church has already reached that perfection whereby she exists without spot or wrinkle.”

The reception of the Holy Spirit being the New Covenant?
I get this concept but believe it’s a doctrinal error.
Take this and eat, this is my body… This is my blood, the blood of the New Covenant

Im not neglecting the Covenant supper when I make the comment that the reception of the Holy Spirit is the New Covenant. But more in context of Galatians 4

4 But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. 6 **And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” **7 So through God you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son then an heir.

The Spirit of His Son cleans and prepares us to receive His Body. Sounds a bit like what it did for our Mother, right?

What’s the Center of every Mass? Is it not Eucharistic adoration, the receiving of the blessed host in our Eucharistic Lord? Don’t we eat the blood and body of Jesus in our Eucharist? To fully get this is required to fully understand how and why Mary is the Ark of the Covenant and Crowned Queen of Heaven.

And how the Church is given the Eucharist through the descending of the Holy Spirit transubstantiating the bread and wine, like He did with the flesh of Mary, no?

What kind of Catholic are you? It doesn’t sound like you follow the teachings of the Catholic Church. It sounds like you’re basing your beliefs on some weird / foreign revelation that I’ve never heard.

Because?

Just because there is a divine and mystic connection doesn’t mean we take the place of Mary as Ark of the Covenant. It’s a divine mystery.

Not taking the place of, no.

28 But he said, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”

I think what we should agree on is that Mary was like the Ark, uniquely, when she carried the Word made flesh into the world just as the Ark of the Old Testament carried the Presence of the Lord to the Temple. And that the Church does this same thing with the Eucharist which Christ gave to His Apostles, continually. A distinction I make is to refrain from placing Mary as a high Priestess (not that im saying you do).

 

[SjMelnychuk]

Rcwitness- Yes I see your point. I’ve been saying that Mary isn’t “like” the Ark of the New Covenant but that SHE IS the Ark of the New Covenant. What I am also saying is that there is a mystery in our connection in this but the fulfilment of what it is to be the Ark of the New Covenant. Mary is FULLY the Ark of the New Covenant and we share in it through the mystical body of Christ and most profoundly in the Eucharist. We share in this because our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit.

I guess the best way albeit a poor description that kinda lacks is that in a secondary way we share in what Mary FULLY is. There’s a slight difference of focus here. In Revelations this does most definitely speak of Mary being Crowned Queen of Heaven but we too are co-heirs with Christ. It’s not easily explained as it’s a mystery and as mysterious as the concept of the Triune nature of God. No earthly way of describing such a union because we don’t have an earthly way close enough TO describe it but we try like St Patrick with the 3 leaf Clover and like with water H2O ice, liquid, gas the essence is the same yet different. Much like Mary being FULLY the Ark of the New Covenant and Queen of Heaven and what we participate in as the temple of the Holy Spirit. It is more accurate to say Mary IS the Ark of the New Covenant, an example to us so that we can be “like” the Ark of the New Covenant. Mary is holy and pure without original sin but we are also Saints in Christ, called to Sainthood, we’re all sanctified and being sanctified … The now but not yet Kingdom of God.

We are almost saying the same thing here … ALMOST. Pretty darn close but still no cigar. I don’t see that what I am saying to be in opposition though to what you posted re: the CCC. I believe Mary is lifted higher than all of us, she’s worthy of our veneration but none of us aught to be venerated though we venerate the Saints so essentially we too become Saints, venerated in the communion of the Saints as royal co-heirs with Christ. Like I said, a mystery …

 

[rcwitness]

Rcwitness- Yes I see your point. I’ve been saying that Mary isn’t “like” the Ark of the New Covenant but that SHE IS the Ark of the New Covenant. What I am also saying is that there is a mystery in our connection in this but the fulfilment of what it is to be the Ark of the New Covenant. Mary is FULLY the Ark of the New Covenant and we share in it through the mystical body of Christ and most profoundly in the Eucharist. We share in this because our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit.

I think there is debth here that is hard for me to express, and that we are both looking at the truth of things a little differently. I would say that Mary WAS the literal Ark alone, and is the mystical Ark, and continues to participate, as the unique Mother of Christians, in her eternal bond with Christ in heaven. The Church, whether the first Apostles and disciples or you and I all these generations seperated from them, also became the Ark of the Covenant through the same faith which our mother had. To seperate her from the whole Church is wrong too. She is part of the Church. Thats probably the view which I stress upon.

We are almost saying the same thing here … ALMOST. Pretty darn close but still no cigar. I don’t see that what I am saying to be in opposition though to what you posted re: the CCC. I believe Mary is lifted higher than all of us, she’s worthy of our veneration but none of us aught to be venerated though we venerate the Saints so essentially we too become Saints, venerated in the communion of the Saints as royal co-heirs with Christ. Like I said, a mystery …

Yes, Mary`s unique role can be very mysterious! I was not trying to prove you wrong with that CCC quote. Rather to defend the position that Mary was acting as and used by the Lord as a member of faithfull Israel and of the Church. So to put her outside the Church as the Ark of the New Covenant is not doing the New Covenant justice either.

Saints are venerated after their death and approval by the Church. Yet saints are ministered to and served by the genuine faithfull here and now. The least in heaven had in some way been used as an instrument for the work of Jesus. I recently saw some anti Catholic web page claiming Mary received no special treatment from the Lord and Scripture showed she sinned! They then claimed Jesus gave praise to John the Baptist but none for her. I say, that during John`s life, Jesus seemingly gave John no special treatment either. He was left to wait his excecution alone in a dungeon. While Jesus took in Apostles not as worthy as John! Yet, after giving John such a high praise, Jesus said the least in the kingdom is greater than him. We recognize Mary as the greatest in the kingdom because of both how much the Lord gave to her and that she kept it with a holy reverence never defiling that grace.

Interestingly, I noticed now, that this encyclical (w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031987_redemptoris-mater.html) begins, very intentionally with the passage I quoted from Paul. I did not even see it before. But the encyclical is a very profound work about Mary. Its long, so I need to devote some time to reading it all some day.

P.S. Remember, Mary (though the Marian dimension is greater than the Petrine) was unable to offer a Mass, being a woman! Neither are we told that Mary strengthened the Apostles faith while Jesus was in the grave. Her silence in the matters of the Church is a testimony to her very private and intimate role in the Church and devotion to Jesus.

 

[Goya]

I found that hard to believe God inspired the Bible one should follow the Bible an see if the church teachings are are according to the Bible… All Scripture is inspired from God… Don’t you think whatever we need to know God would put in the Bible? Hence I ask does Catholics teachings originate with the Bible yes you can say the church teachings but then one could ask does the church teachings agree with the bible teachings… Like everything else you believe is in the Bible accept about veneration of Mary or Mary being the Queen of heaven or even praying to Mary… If that was really important would God then not inspire the men he used to write the Bible to put that in the Bible? Why should our teachings not be based on the Bible… So the question still remains where in the Bible does it say Mary is the queen on heaven… If you can show me that I’ll believe Catholics are the true religion

Well…if the Bible was all we needed to know…why didn’t God mention THAT…in the Bible itself???

Why did Christ bother with Apostles, if the entirety of His Faith, could be reduced to a book?

Better still…why didn’t Christ bother writing anything down at all (other than in the sand, with a stick…), if His intent, was to reduce His Faith, to a book?

If the Bible was all the we needed to know…don’t you think that Christ Himself, would have prophesied something along those lines???

Christ doesn’t even make the slightest mention of scripture that will come into being, let along scripture that will not just serve as master over the Church HE established and left to us…but render it completely superfluous, obsolete, and fractured-nay, incurably SPLINTERED–as Protestantism has proven 10,000 times over (and counting), such a system would inevitably yield.

Your own logic face plants, when you apply your own arbitrary, Martin Luther manufactured doctrine to it. :doh2:

:angel1:

 

[Goya]

@ RC Witness & SJMelnychuk:

Good stuff gentleman; very thought provoking exchange. :clapping:

 

[ChosenOne7]

I don’t think you understand why the Bible was written… Jesus didn’t say that but look at his example, look at the examples of Christians after him… They used the scriptures… When we use the Bible today we are following there example by using the scriptures… Because the new testament was not written when Jesus was on earth he repeatedly preached from the hebrew scriptures that’s why when Satan tempted him all 3 times he replied “it is written”…Paul followed the standard set by Jesus, who used the Scriptures as the basis for his teaching. During his public ministry, for example, Jesus told his followers that according to the Scriptures, the Son of man must suffer, die, and be raised from the dead. (Matt. 16:21) After his resurrection, Jesus appeared to his disciples. Surely that alone would show that he had spoken the truth. Yet, Jesus gave them more. Concerning what he said to certain disciples, we read: “Commencing at Moses and all the Prophets he interpreted to them things pertaining to himself in all the Scriptures.” With what result? The disciples exclaimed: “Were not our hearts burning as he was speaking to us on the road, as he was fully opening up the Scriptures to us?”—(Luke 24:13, 27, 32.) The message of God’s Word has power, Heb. 4:12 says that "the word of God is alive and it exerts power and is sharper than any two edge sword… " Christians today thus base their teachings on that Word, as did Jesus, Paul, and the other apostles.You choose to listen to men who were not inspired to write anything from God, you choose to listen to men that has put there own view points on things… What is really interesting is how the scriptures links up with each other like even though the OT was written yeeaars before the NT many of the things that the apostles preached was not different to what the prophets preached… So I still believe ones teachings today should atleast be linked up to scriptures in the Bible… Then you ask me why did Christ bother with diciples if you read the Bible you will find that answer in it you should study the word not just believe what you are being told… Think about this Jesus was a preacher the Bible puts alot of emphasis of Jesus an his ministry, how he preached from city to city from house to house… I still say any Christian Denomination should be following the Bible or the scriptures… You following the teachings of the church is the church following the teachings of the Bible?.. Uve read the thread, I havnt seen any scriptural evidence pertaining to us venerating anything to Mary… You giving me things what other people has said or what you been taught or what you read up from writers that put there meaning to things

 

[Goya]

I don’t think you understand why the Bible was written…

 

[Goya]

Then you ask me why did Christ bother with diciples if you read the Bible you will find that answer in it you should study the word not just believe what you are being told…

Actually, the question was why did Christ bother with APOSTLES. The Apostles, we know by name; there 12; then minus Judas, then plus Mathias (=authority for substitution), then plus St.Paul (=authority–or precedence–for expansion). The disciples were a much larger group, which included the Apostles (overlapped).

If you read YOUR bible, rather than blindly subscribing to what your protestant preaches indoctrinated you to believe about them, you would note that there’s a difference.

…which begs the question…why?

What was the significance of this distinction, if Christ intended no authority structure?

Think about this Jesus was a preacher the Bible puts alot of emphasis of Jesus an his ministry, how he preached from city to city from house to house…

And it includes a lot of emphasis on authority and structure. e.g.–the Apostles didn’t teach, when they had Christ; but after he ascended to Heaven, He empowered THEM to preach, after the Pentecost–to the disciples; and to those whom they sought to make disciples.

I still say any Christian Denomination should be following the Bible or the scriptures…

Sure…and while they’re at it…let them respect what Christ did (in leaving us His Church, structure, and authority), rather than forming their own, and disregarding all of that.

You following the teachings of the church is the church following the teachings of the Bible?.. Uve read the thread, I havnt seen any scriptural evidence pertaining to us venerating anything to Mary… You giving me things what other people has said or what you been taught or what you read up from writers that put there meaning to things

Then you’ve read the thread about as poorly as you read your Bible.

Respectfully.

 

[rcwitness]

So the Church says that the Marian dimension is greater than the Petrine dimension.

Yet, we certainly cant pit them against one another. Mary had no part in the priestly dimensions of the Church. In fact, I think that she was subject to the authority of the ordained priesthood.

As I mentioned before, Mary was unable to serve a Mass to the faithfull. She also was not shown as the one who would stregthen the others. We do not read in Scripture that Mary encouraged the Apostles that Jesus would rise again as He had told them. This was not her role. We also have good reason (Id say more than not) to believe she was not at the Last Supper.

I think this is important to balance a seeming understanding of Mary as being the all providing member of the Church. The Church was not founded on Mary. It was founded on Peter and the Apostles. Yet, Mary ushered (or Mothered) in the Word through the grace and faith given to her. She was the Ark of the Covenant. And when the Lord was matured in manhood, He was petitioned by His mother to reveal Himself to the people, and share His life with the world. When He began His ministry, He delivered the New Covenant from the Father to His people. This was the good news and the Gospel that Jesus preached. And the grace of this New Covenant flowed from the passion of His death and resurrection. The grace of the New Covenant first overshadowed Mary at her Immaculate Conception, and then took the flesh of man from her in order to bear the whole Law of God for the sake of man`s salvation.

Jesus then gave to His Apostles full ministry of His New Covenant, primarily in preaching infallibly and the Eucharist, also in the administry of the other Sacraments. The Church was given the authority to Baptize, to feed the Body and Blood of the Covenant, and to Reconcile brothers to God!

What was inside the Ark of the Old Covenant? The Law of the Commandments, the Bread of Heaven (Manna) and the Priestly staff of Aaron.

Maybe we could look at it as Mary was the Ark of the New Covenant alone, and she co-operated with the Father when she implored the Lord to give to the people?

She asked the Lord to reveal Himself at the wedding of Cana and in doing so was asking Him to share His life, that He already shared with her. So He then began to collect His 12 Apostles in whom He would place the things of the Ark into. Or in other words, He would do what He completed when He gave the Ark to the Apostle at the foot of the cross! Interestingly enough, it was not Mary who took John into her house, but John who took Mary into His house.

In this way, I agree with you SjMelnychuk, Mary is the true Ark of the Covenant and the Church is the Temple which contains the Ark. And both edify one another. And now in a mystical, but real way, all Christians nurture, minister and assist the birth and growth of all the children of God.

 

[zz912]

I don’t think you understand why the Bible was written…

What is your answer to why the Bible was written?

Also, could you answer why the Bible was compiled together, since it is 66/73 separate books/letters/poems/etc?

 

[fasolislithuan]

Is not “Sub tuum praesidium” (before 250 A.D), a prayer to the Blessed Virgin Mary even older than the Bible canon (at the end of the 4th century)?

Sub tuum praesidium
confugimus,
Sancta Dei Genitrix.
Nostras deprecationes ne despicias
in necessitatibus nostris,
sed a periculis cunctis
libera nos semper,
Virgo gloriosa et benedicta.

Beneath your compassion,
We take refuge, O Mother of God:
do not despise our petitions in time of trouble:
but rescue us from dangers,
only pure, only blessed one.

In the original greek of this hymn already appears the Mary’s title** Theotokos **(Mother of God) that many protestants deny. That’s at least 140 years before the establishment of the Bible canon. That’s not weird, because the official formulation of the Sacred Trinity and the doctrine of homousios is also previous to the Bible canon (in the First Council of Nicaea, 325 A.D.). The Sacred Trinity theology is linked to the mistery of incarnation, And this mistery is incomprehensible without accept Virgin Mary as Theotokos.

 

[Nelka]

1 Kings 2:20 She said, ‘I have one small request to make you; do not refuse me.’ ‘Mother,’ the king replied, ‘make your request, for I shall not refuse you.’

If Solomon can say this to his mother than why can’t Jesus say the same?