Why Do Protestants Shun Mary?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlemagne_III
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Actually you’re dead wrong on this because you choose to (mis)quote part of the verse in question. John 2:4 actually reads, " And Jesus said to her, “O woman, what have you to do with me? My hour has not yet come.” So we have here Our Lord plainly stating that this was not the time for Him to begin His public ministry, and yet, because of Mary’s direct intervention (intercession in fact), we see that He really did begin that ministry with this miracle before His time had come. The passage even says that in verse 11. ***"***This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory; and his disciples believed in him. " Obviously, the Blessed Virgin already believed because her only comment was in verse 5 when she tells the servants the same essential thing that she has said in her every apparition over the centuries. ***“Do whatever he tells you.” ***

Now you can continue to believe what you have stated to us here, but it would not be wise to do so since we see here that it contradicts the very scriptures that you will no doubt appeal to as your final and ultimate authority. Good luck with that…🤷
:clapping:
 
If you have any reservations about what the Catholic Church teaches about Mary, please read Chapter 14 “The Blessed Virgin Mary” found in The Faith of Our Fathers by James Cardinal Gibbons. You can download this book for free from gutenberg.org/ebooks/27435.

The Faith of Our Fathers: A Plain Exposition and Vindication of the Church Founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ was first published in 1876 by James Cardinal Gibbons, former Archbishop of Baltimore. With over 118 printings, it is perhaps the most successful book for explaining the basic tenets of the Catholic faith and why we hold them. It delves into the historical background of virtually everything people find hard to understand about Catholicism, such as priestly celibacy, sacred images, the Church and the Bible, the primacy of Peter, Communion under one kind, invocation of the saints, etc. Written for mixed Protestant and Catholic congregations in North Carolina and Virginia, it is accommodating to people of all faiths.
 
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’m curious where in the Bible it says that the Church would fail basically immediately after the death of the apostles (maybe even before) and it would take almost 1900 years for God to “restore” his church.
 
who says Mary is “Queen of the Heaven” … i cant remember seeing that anywhere in the scriptures… do catholics follow scriptural teaching?
Do JW’s ?
I don’t see blood transfusions being forbidden I scripture? Ingested blood from animals, yes. Animal and man are unequal. But man and man are equal. So if a human being needs blood to be put into their veins to save a life ,it is a Jewish imperative that every be done to save a person. This is toward all humans not just Jews. When it comes to saving lives,the end does justify breaking parts of the law. The Jewish rabbis never banned blood transfusions so if I’m going to listen to whether transfusions will harm your salvation I’ll take the Jewish view .I mean ,does it make sense to listen to group formed in the 19th but who’s absolutist doctrine on blood didn’t appear until the 20 th? There’s man-made tradition if there ever was one, or Jewish scholars who’ve discussing scripture for about 4000 years 🤷
Guessing games over Day of the Lord. Those are marks of false prophets. Or the other thing not mentioned , that Jesus is not the unique Son of God.
Also YHWH may not like how you mispronounce his holy name( in grave reverence the Israelites would not say the Name aloud because lost the correct pronunciation.) Reverence , to this day, you will find any rabbi who writes the Name .we push it when we use YHWH. IN MOST Jewish writing it is G_d or the Lord or Ha Shem.
So I’d suggest to look in the mirror, correct yourselves before you scare people with your bleak self serving view of the “afterlife”.
 
I found that hard to believe God inspired the Bible one should follow the Bible [and] see if the church teachings are according to the Bible… All Scripture is inspired from God.
This is an argument that Scripture is formally sufficient for salvation. This would imply that all of God’s revealed truth for the proper formation of faith is present in Scripture. We could go further saying that translations from the original would not be necessary. Every persons individual moral and ethical quandaries would be resolved in Scripture. Everything you personally need for salvation would be contained in Scripture. Sacred Traditions would not be necessary as all ‘right reasoning’ would be contained within Scripture. A Scripture that is both ‘Divine’ and formally sufficient would be worthy of worship. St. Paul tells us the Church is the Body of Christ, not the Church is the Body of BOOK or the BOOK is the Body of Christ.

A compendium containing all ‘right reasoning’ just isn’t realistic or practical. Instead, Catholics believe that the primary building blocks of True faith are contained within Scripture. This is called a martially sufficient Scripture. Thus, we have three primary principles that make up the sole infallible rule of faith, Scripture, Tradition, and Church.
Don’t you think whatever we need to know God would put in the Bible?
Actually I don’t, if every think we needed to know of God were in the Scripture there would be no need of the Holy Spirit, who would need the force of God’s spirit to guide them - they have BOOK.
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…
Yes, we can ask, and search. We’ll find they do indeed agree with Sacred Scripture. In fact the Sacred Scriptures were written by the Apostles for the authority of the Church they represented.
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…
Are planes, trains, truck, and automobiles in Scripture? We ‘know’ they exist? Because something isn’t mentioned in Scripture doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
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 of heaven… If you can show me that I’ll believe Catholics are the true religion
You’ve created a false argument. We believe what we were taught of Christ through the witnesses, the Apostles. Our teachings should indeed be based on scripture but the meaning and intent of the authors is protected remaining unchanged by the Church.

Mary is Queen of heaven because her son is King of heaven. Do you not call Jesus Christ Lord? If He is Lord who is Mary? Earthly Kings do not deny their mothers, instead she becomes his subject’s Queen Mother. Why do you think Christ would deny His Mother, have you found something scandalous hidden in her past?

JoeT
 
Hello fellow Christians. Emily and I have been ill and have spent little time keeping up with the forum. Our health is stabilizing, and so, we’re back. We’ve missed you all! Anyhow, we just saw this thread, haven’t read all the responses, but, had to jump in. Emily and I, we highly honor The Holy Mother Mary. There are many respondents of varying faiths that believe Mary was just “a young female that filled a purpose”. Well, let’s see now! SHE WAS HAILED BY THE ANGEL AS “FULL OF GRACE”, BEING PURELY CONCEIVED! SHE WAS CALLED TO BECOME “THE BRIDE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT” AND TO GIVE BIRTH TO “OUR LORD AND SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST”. THE APOSTLE PAUL CALLS HER “THE NEW EVE”. Let’s see now, did we miss anything? Yeah a few things, you can read about them in Scripture. It’s all there. OUR HOLY MOTHER, SHE NEVER DIVORCED HERSELF FROM ANY OF THESE BLESSED “THINGS”. She held true to her Callings! She never wavered! SHE WAS INDEED “THEOTOKOS, THE MOTHER OF GOD”! Yes, Emily and I dearly Love and Honor THE HOLY LIVING MOTHER OF MY LORD GOD, BLESSED MARY, EVER VIRGIN!
It’s good to be back. Our Love To All; Jim and Emily…
 
Hello fellow Christians. Emily and I have been ill and have spent little time keeping up with the forum. Our health is stabilizing, and so, we’re back. We’ve missed you all! Anyhow, we just saw this thread, haven’t read all the responses, but, had to jump in. Emily and I, we highly honor The Holy Mother Mary. There are many respondents of varying faiths that believe Mary was just “a young female that filled a purpose”. Well, let’s see now! SHE WAS HAILED BY THE ANGEL AS "FULL OF GRACE", BEING PURELY CONCEIVED! SHE WAS CALLED TO BECOME “THE BRIDE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT” AND TO GIVE BIRTH TO “OUR LORD AND SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST”. THE APOSTLE PAUL CALLS HER “THE NEW EVE”. Let’s see now, did we miss anything? Yeah a few things, you can read about them in Scripture. It’s all there. OUR HOLY MOTHER, SHE NEVER DIVORCED HERSELF FROM ANY OF THESE BLESSED “THINGS”. She held true to her Callings! She never wavered! SHE WAS INDEED “THEOTOKOS, THE MOTHER OF GOD”! Yes, Emily and I dearly Love and Honor THE HOLY LIVING MOTHER OF MY LORD GOD, BLESSED MARY, EVER VIRGIN!
It’s good to be back. Our Love To All; Jim and Emily…
👍

The bolded reminded me of the Catechism of St. Thomas Aquinas, that I like to post in these threads, as it does a nice job of putting the Angelic Salutation into proper historic, biblical perspective:

*THE ANGELIC SALUTATION

This salutation has three parts. The Angel gave one part, namely: “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee, blessed art thou among women.”[1] The other part was given by Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist, namely: “Blessed is the fruit of thy womb.”[2] The Church adds the third part, that is, “Mary,” because the Angel did not say, “Hail, Mary,” but “Hail, full of grace.” But, as we shall see, this name, “Mary,” according to its meaning agrees with the words of the Angels.[3]

“HAIL MARY”

We must now consider concerning the first part of this prayer that in ancient times it was no small event when Angels appeared to men; and that man should show them reverence was especially praiseworthy. Thus, it is written to the praise of Abraham that he received the Angels with all courtesy and showed them reverence. But that an Angel should show reverence to a man was never heard of until the Angel reverently greeted the Blessed Virgin saying: “Hail.”

THE ANGEL’S DIGNITY

In olden time an Angel would not show reverence to a man, but a man would deeply revere an Angel. This is because Angels are greater than men, and indeed in three ways. First, they are** greater than men in dignity**. This is because the Angel is of a spiritual nature: “Who makest Thy angels spirits.”[4] But, on the other hand, man is of a corruptible nature, for Abraham said: “I will speak to my Lord, whereas I am dust and ashes.”[5] It was not fitting, therefore, that a spiritual and incorruptible creature should show reverence to one that is corruptible as is a man. Secondly, an Angel is closer to God. The Angel, indeed, is of the family of God, and as it were stands ever by Him: “Thousands of thousands ministered to Him, and ten thousand times a hundred thousand stood before Him.”[6] Man, on the other hand, is rather a stranger and afar off from God because of sin: “I have gone afar off.”[7] Therefore, it is fitting that man should reverence an Angel who is an intimate and one of the household of the King.

Then, thirdly, the Angels far exceed men in the fullness of the splendor of divine grace. For Angels participate in the highest degree in the divine light: “Is there any numbering of His soldiers? And upon whom shall not His light arise?”[8] Hence, the Angels always appear among men clothed in light, hut men on the contrary, although they partake somewhat of the light of grace, nevertheless do so in a much slighter degree and with a certain obscurity. It was, therefore, not fitting that an Angel should show reverence to a man until it should come to pass that one would be found in human nature who exceeded the Angels in these three points in which we have seen that they excel over men–and this was the Blessed Virgin. To show that she excelled the Angels in these, the Angel desired to show her reverence, and so he said: “Ave (Hail).”

“FULL OF GRACE”

The Blessed Virgin was superior to any of the Angels in the fullness of grace, and as an indication of this the Angel showed reverence to her by saying: "Full of grace." This is as if he said: “I show thee reverence because thou dost excel me in the fullness of grace.”

The Blessed Virgin is said to be full of grace in three ways. First, as regards her soul she was full of grace. The grace of God is given for two chief purposes, namely, to do good and to avoid evil. The Blessed Virgin, then, received grace in the most perfect degree, because she had avoided every sin more than any other Saint after Christ. Thus it is said: “Thou art fair, My beloved, and there is not a spot in thee.”[9] St. Augustine says: “If we could bring together all the Saints and ask them if they were entirely without sin, all of them, with the exception of the Blessed Virgin, would say with one voice: 'If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.’[10] I except, however, this holy Virgin of whom, because of the honor of God, I wish to omit all mention of sin.”[11] For we know that to her was granted grace to overcome every kind of sin by Him whom she merited to conceive and bring forth, and He certainly was wholly without sin.
…*

Direct link:

cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/aquinas/apray-hm.htm

Primary portal:

cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/aquinas/aindex.htm
 
Church Militant,

re: “Now you can continue to believe what you have stated to us here…”

OK, thanks.
😃 Of course that means that you are willing to ignore the fact that your stated position has been shown to be in error.

Doesn’t that require an honest person to reassess what they believe?
 
“That she held (and there is every reason to believe she still holds) a special power is evident by her persuading Jesus, against his will, to change water into wine at the wedding feast at Cana. If she can intercede for the good of the wedding guests, why should she not be able to intercede for our good today? Is she not still the mother of Jesus? And is she not still our mother, as she was given by Jesus to be the mother of John at the foot of the cross.”
I like your comments, but I’m not sure I agree fully with your response here Charlemagne III. The text in John does not support Mary persuading Jesus against His will. He knew exactly what would occur here, and wanting to celebrate the wedding with others, he would take this opportunity to start His public ministry…demonstrating to friends and the few disciples he had at Cana…that He had control over nature. Mary’s request was not out of line by any means, but Jesus’ response to her was, “Woman, what have I to do with you, my time as not yet come”, may mean “My work in this world is on another track now, and I will take care of this issue at the appropriate time”. Mary understood this, and then told the servants to do whatever He said, when the time was right. It seems there was a relationship change of some sort here. He responds to Mary, “Woman”, not “Mother”. He is now starting to fulfill the role of Messiah, beginning here that which was promised since the foundation of the world by God the Father (2Tim 1:8-9, Titus 1:2). In Mark 3 we see a similar scene when He responds to Mary’s response to see Him.
Jesus did not need Mary to point anything out to Him concerning the lack of beverage at the wedding feast. He knew what He was going to do, and did it on His timetable. His response sounds to us somewhat disrespectful, but He is telling His mother that He is about to embark on what was foreordained long before his birth.

Respectfully, Gail
 
I don’t think you understand why the Bible was written.
The Bible wasn’t written - it was compiled to contain the books, the gospels, and the epistles which the Catholic Church determined were inspirationally written through the Holy Spirit. The NT texts were written to confirm the teachings of the apostles and their faithful associates in the wake of false teachings by disloyal members of different factions who disrupted church unity and threatened to reduce the one Apostolic Church into independent opposing sects as we have in Protestantism. The gospels and epistles were written, therefore, to confirm the apostolic traditions of the Church which all the faithful should acknowledge in unity of faith and profess with one accord under the central apostolic teaching authority.
Look at the Christians after him.They used the scriptures.
The Christians of the nascent and early churches also held fast to the traditions that were handed down to them from the apostles (cf. 1 Cor. 11:2; 2 Thess. 2:15).
Jesus 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.
Jesus replied as he did because the devil was quoting the scriptures to distort the meaning of God’s written word. To enlighten the Jews who had failed to grasp the full meaning of God’s unwritten word in the medium of the Judaic oral tradition, Jesus had this to say: " You have heard that it was said to the ancients, 'Do not murder, and whoever murders is condemned to judgment.'But I am **saying **to you, that everyone who will be angry against his brother without cause is condemned before the judge, and everyone who will say to his brother, ‘I spit on you’, is condemned before the assembly, and whoever will say ‘You fool.’ is condemned to the Gehenna of fire." (Mt 5:21-22). You won’t find these words of Jesus, at least not explicitly, written in the OT. Originally, these exact words were spoken by Jesus, and the meaning of his words held traditional value in the Church before Matthew wrote his gospel. By that time Tradition itself served as the basis for our Lord’s teaching. Tradition was the OT brought to light. Without Tradition Scripture would be obscured in darkness.
During his public ministry, Jesus told his followers that according to the Scriptures, the Son of man must suffer, die, and be raised from the dead. (Mt.16:21)
Jesus is alluding to passages in the OT that prophetically point to his passion, death and resurrection which the Jews never perceived as Messianic. And what is written in the OT first belonged in the Judaic oral tradition. He could just as well have said, ‘You have heard what it was said to the ancients, …’.
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.)
Without the Lord speaking to them, and our Lord speaking to us through the apostolic teaching authority of His Church, the Scriptures cannot be fully opened up to us. God’s infallible written word becomes our own fallible word once we presume to judge for ourselves what it is God has revealed to us. We can learn a good lesson from the Ethiopian eunuch (cf. Acts 8:30-31).
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… "
The word of God is both written (Scripture) and unwritten (Tradition)

For good news came to us just as to them; but the message which they heard did not benefit them, because it did not meet with faith in the hearers. For we who have believed enter that rest, as he has said,“As I swore in my wrath, They shall never enter my rest,’” … Therefore since it still remains for some to enter that rest, and since those who formerly had the good news proclaimed to them did not go in because of their disobedience, God again set a certain day, calling it “Today.” … “Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts." … Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will perish by following their example of disobedience. For the word of God is alive and active… Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, … Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account.
Hebrews 4, 1-11
You following the teachings of the church? Is the church following the teachings of the Bible?
We have the Bible because of the Catholic Church. 🤷

PAX
:heaven:
 
They are not familiar with the Rosary and the fifth Glorious Mystery, Mary is crowned Queen of Heaven and Earth. She is the mother of all men and the mediatrix of all virtues.
 
[All Scripture is inspired from God… Don’t you think whatever we need to know God would put in the Bible?
Scripture is materially sufficient, but formally insufficient as a medium of divine revelation. Much content is ambiguous - i.e., Genesis 3:15; Isaiah 7,14; Psalm 132:8; Songs 4:12; 2 Kings 19-20; John 2:2-5; 19:26-27; Revelation 12 - and much that God desires we know lies implicitly in His written word. This is why we mustn’t read the Scriptures merely in the literal sense. Often it is necessary to read the Bible in the spiritual (analogical, anagogical, and moral) sense to better comprehend what God has willed to reveal to His Church through the declaration of the Holy Spirit.
Hence, I ask, do Catholics teachings originate with the Bible?
Since Pentecost, the teachings of the Catholic Church have originated through the declarations of the Holy Spirit (cf. Jn 16:12-13) pertaining to the mighty deeds of God in salvation history. On the other hand, Protestant doctrines originate with the Bible, since Holy Writ had already existed by the time of the 16th century. Marian doctrines were taught long before the Church decided which books of the Bible were genuinely inspired. Until the late 4th century, many 1st and 2nd century texts - i.e., The Didache, The Gospel of Barnabas, The Shepherd of Hermes, Cement’s Epistle to the Corinthains, Ignatius of Antioch’s Letter to the Ephesians, etc. - were read during Christian gatherings of worship, though none of them would eventually be included in the canon of Scripture. Sacred Tradition was the basis on which Church teachings rested. And as long as these texts confirmed what the Church traditionally taught with clarification they were accepted as a means for instruction. The authors of these works may not have been divinely inspired with the same quality as those of the NT, but they were certainly guided by the Holy Spirit, whom Jesus promised would be with his Church “forever” (cf.Jn 14:16). Jesus did in fact promise to send the Paraclete. But there is not even the slightest hint in the Scriptures that he would be sure to provide us with a holy book. He established his Church to serve as the final teaching authority with the guaranty of the Holy Spirit.
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?
They did put in the Bible, only you fail to see it. Again, Scripture is materially sufficient, but formally insufficient. Protestantism is in a state of perpetual demolition and has been right from the start because the Bible has been substituted for the Church as the final rule of faith.
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
Please see my blog feature article.

christianforums.com/blogs/u278345-e30891/

PAX
:heaven:
[/quote]
 
Revelation 12 should be “scripturally sufficient” to prove Our Lady as the Queen of Heaven. The other example should be understanding that in the tradition of the Israelites, the Queen of the Kingdom was dependent on her son being the king. For example, Bathsheba wasn’t Queen of Israel due to her marriage to King David (for he had several wives/concubines), but because she was the mother of King Solomon. By denying Mary as the Queen of Heaven, you open a bigger can of worms and deny that Jesus is God for she also Theotokos (God-Bearer). I believe then, you would fall into the heresy of the Ebionites. 😉
 
Catholicism has always held a special place of veneration (not worship) for the importance of Mary in Christian theology.

When, why, and who were the first Protestants to begin the shunning of Mary in their theology?
I don’t know that they shun Mary so much, but rather don’t see her as special, and as even interfering.

For instance, many believe she had other children and was a woman just as any other woman.
And they don’t believe in her virginity after birth since they believe she had other children.
Full of grace as said of Elizabeth and John the baptist as well as Zachary.
Many don’t believe in the saints in heaven, Mary included. They are asleep, dead, but not in heaven.
And some refuse to accept her as the mother of God even tho she was the mother of Jesus, who is God.
And there is a strong tradition carried down thru time to disbelieve what the Catholics believe.
And then there are statues and icons they are hung up on.
There is only one highpriest…Jesus, and anyone else is not needed.

I believe there may be a few more assertions, but those are enough to eliminate Mary from the scene.
 
I don’t know that they shun Mary so much, but rather don’t see her as special, and as even interfering.

For instance, many believe she had other children and was a woman just as any other woman.
And they don’t believe in her virginity after birth since they believe she had other children.
Full of grace as said of Elizabeth and John the baptist as well as Zachary.
Many don’t believe in the saints in heaven, Mary included. They are asleep, dead, but not in heaven.
And some refuse to accept her as the mother of God even tho she was the mother of Jesus, who is God.
And there is a strong tradition carried down thru time to disbelieve what the Catholics believe.
And then there are statues and icons they are hung up on.
There is only one highpriest…Jesus, and anyone else is not needed.

I believe there may be a few more assertions, but those are enough to eliminate Mary from the scene.
shun
SHən/Submit
verb
persistently avoid, ignore, or reject (someone or something) through antipathy or caution. “he shunned fashionable society”
synonyms: avoid, evade, eschew, steer clear of, shy away from, fight shy of, keep one’s distance from, give a wide berth to, have nothing to do with; More

Perhaps you read more into ‘shunning’ than is necessary.

…and while it does not apply to all protestants, it is clear that there is a generally protestant aversion to all things Mary, perhaps out of their natural disdain for all things Catholic (or perhaps out of fear of being perceived as sympathetic to Catholicism–much like ‘homophobia’ manifests as a fear of being perceived as homosexual, by virtue of being sympathetic to homosexuals, rather than actual fear of homosexuality, or homosexuals).

Protestants tend to be dualists–so they tend to see Marian devotion as antagonistic to devotion to Christ–as a binary opposite, rather than complementary. And so, many ‘shun’–or avoid, or ignore, or significantly downplay–the Blessed Virgin Mary’s role in the Salvation Narrative–even to the point of impugning her perpetual virginity, immaculate conception, assumption, sinlessness, and other such virtues, that were all but taken for granted by the early church.

But yes, ‘shun’ works just fine in the OP/thread title.
 
I can’t speak for all Protestants, but as a Lutheran, we do honor Mary as other saints. We just avoid what we see as worship. And when you consider the worship-like activities centered on Mary, as in the picture below, maybe you can understand why we are hesitant in that particular area:
 
I can’t speak for all Protestants, but as a Lutheran, we do honor Mary as other saints. We just avoid what we see as worship. And when you consider the worship-like activities centered on Mary, as in the picture below, maybe you can understand why we are hesitant in that particular area:
I understand. I also see this as a private devotion, that leaves the participants responsible for the interior seperation between high veneration of His mother with intentions to give glory to God and a very possible idolatry.

Its a complicated subject for me. I lean towards your sentiments, yet respect that we can have a pure devotion to Mary and allow images/icons/statues to bring our minds and senses closer to Attention on Him.
 
I can’t speak for all Protestants, but as a Lutheran, we do honor Mary as other saints. We just avoid what we see as worship. And when you consider the worship-like activities centered on Mary, as in the picture below, maybe you can understand why we are hesitant in that particular area:
I see no problem with the picture. 😃

(btw: is that Seville, Spain?–NM: I ran my cursor over the image, and saw that it’s Guatamala. Either way, all I see there is devout piety, based on similar such processions that I’ve witnessed, and/or participated in, first hand).
 
I’m sure the ones in the picture wouldn’t either. :sad_yes:
…and why pray tell, should they?

They are expressing their devotion to the Virgin Mary–as the mother and disciple of Christ, Mother the God, the Theotokos–the singularly magnificent person deemed worthy to host THE WORD OF GOD INCARNATE, insider her; the singularly most important person in Yeshua’s life, for the first 30 years of His human existence! The singularly greatest example and guide, to following Christ!

All for HIS Honor and Glory!

As so many Saints before them–folks like St. John the Evangelist, St. Irenaeus of Lyons, St. Polycarp, St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Ambrose of Milan, St. Augustine of Hippo, Pope Leo the Great, St. Anthony of Padua, St. Francis of Assisi, St. Dominic, St. Bernard of Clairvaux, St. Teresa of Avila, St. John of the Cross, St. Ignatius of Loyola, St. Petrus Canisius, St. Joan of Arc, St. Louis de Montfort, St. Alphonsus Liguori, St. Maximillian Kolbe, St. Therese of Lisieux, Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta, Pope John Paul II, Pope Francis…

That’s pretty good company, objectively (if you’re Christian, anyway).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top