Why the hostility toward Mary?

[dianaiad]

An idol can be more than a person. An idol can include an array of things: money,fame,lust,etc. If it becomes the focal point of one’s life,then it is idol worship.

True, true…but not the point.

Or perhaps it is—I was simply talking about the impression many (if not most) non-Catholics have about the Catholic veneration of Mary. To them it looks very much like idol worship.

Whether that perception is accurate or not is irrelevant…the question was, “Why the hostility toward Mary?” and the answer is…the Catholic perception of non-Catholic objections to the veneration of Mary is as inaccurate as non-Catholic perception of what that veneration actually is.

So–Catholics think that non-Catholics 'hate" Mary, and non-Catholics think that Catholics worship her inappropriately.

It’s not about Mary, herself, either way.

 

[PRmerger]

So–Catholics think that non-Catholics 'hate" Mary, and non-Catholics think that Catholics worship her inappropriately.

It’s not about Mary, herself, either way.

 

[Ginger2]

What doctrines are these, Ginger? And how do you know?

Could you please provide Scripture references for both? That is:

1. 
   *]Scriptural references to these essential doctrines
   *]Scriptural references which let us know that these are the “essential” doctrines.

1. 
   I thought I already answered this question.
   
   By definition you are not Christian if you do not believe Jesus is who he claimed to be. You may say you are Christian, but if you deny Christ, you are not.
   
   Chris·tian   /ˈkrɪstʃən/ Show Spelled
   [kris-chuhn] Show IPA
   –adjective
   1. of, pertaining to, or derived from Jesus Christ or His teachings: a Christian faith.
   2. of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to the religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ: Spain is a Christian country.
      –noun
   3. a person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity.
   4. a person who exemplifies in his or her life the teachings of Christ: He died like a true Christian.
   John 10:30, “I and the Father are one.” The Jews understood the language being spoken and therefore were able to understand exactly what Jesus meant. They responded by wanting to kill him:
   “‘We are not stoning you for any of these,’ replied the Jews, ‘but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God’” (John 10:33).
   
   To be Christian means you follow the teachings of Christ. To follow Christ you must believe what he claimed is true.
   
   Jesus is God incarnate and we know what what he taught about himself because it is found in Scriptures - plain and clear.
   
   If someone claims to be Christian, but does not believe everything Jesus taught about himself, then that person is christain in name - only.
   
   Summarized from Scriptures:
   Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.& John 1-1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
   Isa 9:6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son,
   Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. Luk 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
   
   Etc.
   
   Jesus said, He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.” Luke 24:44

 

[Ginger2]

Oh no - they’re Evangelical Christians - Calvinists, in fact. They follow the teachings of John MacArthur, one of the most respected (albeit anti-Catholic) Calvinists in the country, along with R.C. Sproul.

Where they fly off the deep end is where they claim to believe in the Hypostatic Union of Christ, yet deny that Mary carried the Christ’s Hypostatic Union (100% God and 100% man). They believe that she only carried his human nature.
That is heresy.

I don’t know who this John MacArthur is, but I think it’s possible you misunderstood what they were saying or maybe they misspoke.

If they are indeed Christian as you say, then they were trying to tell you Mary only contributed her flesh to Jesus. Which is a little silly since Catholics already know this.

 

[RBK]

For intance, I was told Martin Luther removed books from the Bible. When I researched this subject I discovered Luther presented the exact same Bible as Jerome had translated - the Latin Vulgate.

The following is just to show you I am not “lazy” as some have claimed, but do my homework to learn the facts:
Jerome appended the deuteros and wrote this comment within the pages of the Latin Vugate:
“As the Church reads the books of Judith and Tobit and Maccabees but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also it reads Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus for the edification of the people, not for the authoritative confirmation of doctrine.” Jerome(340-420) - Jerome’s preface to the books of Solomon."

I don’t have time to go through your entire post, but I grow weary at those who use St. Jerome to defend the exclusion of the deuterocanon. Please consider:

“What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susanna, the Son of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. For I was not relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they [the Jews] are wont to make against us” (Against Rufinus 11:33 [A.D. 402]). Thus Jerome acknowledged the principle by which the canon was settled—the judgment of the Church, not of later Jews.

Protestant patristics scholar J. N. D. Kelly writes (while speaking of Jerome), “For the great majority, however, the deutero-canonical writings ranked as Scripture in the fullest sense. Augustine, for example, whose influence in the West was decisive, made no distinction between them and the rest of the Old Testament . . . The same inclusive attitude to the Apocrypha was authoritatively displayed at the synods of Hippo and Carthage in 393 and 397 respectively, and also in the famous letter which Pope Innocent I dispatched to Exuperius, bishop of Toulouse, in 405” (Early Christian Doctrines, 55-56).

And the argument that the deuterocanon should be excluded because it was written in Greek is destroyed by the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. For there, the books of Tobit, Sirach and Baruch were found…the first two written in Hebrew.

 

[PRmerger]

I thought I already answered this question.

By definition you are not Christian if you do not believe Jesus is who he claimed to be. You may say you are Christian, but if you deny Christ, you are not.

Chris·tian   /ˈkrɪstʃən/ Show Spelled
[kris-chuhn] Show IPA
–adjective

1. of, pertaining to, or derived from Jesus Christ or His teachings: a Christian faith.
2. of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to the religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ: Spain is a Christian country.
   –noun
3. a person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity.
4. a person who exemplifies in his or her life the teachings of Christ: He died like a true Christian.

John 10:30, “I and the Father are one.” The Jews understood the language being spoken and therefore were able to understand exactly what Jesus meant. They responded by wanting to kill him:
“‘We are not stoning you for any of these,’ replied the Jews, ‘but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God’” (John 10:33).

To be Christian means you follow the teachings of Christ. To follow Christ you must believe what he claimed is true.

Jesus is God incarnate and we know what what he taught about himself because it is found in Scriptures - plain and clear.

If someone claims to be Christian, but does not believe everything Jesus taught about himself, then that person is christain in name - only.

Summarized from Scriptures:
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.& John 1-1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Isa 9:6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son,
Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. Luk 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Etc.

Jesus said, He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.” Luke 24:44

So what doctrines must one believe in order to be a Christian? Are there some doctrines that one can take or leave?

Originally Posted by Ginger2 View Post
.There are certain doctrines you must believe to be Christian.

The above statement presupposes that there are certain doctrines one can dismiss and still be a Christian. Are these also in the Bible?

 

[PRmerger]

Summarized from Scriptures:
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.& John 1-1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Isa 9:6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son,
Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. Luk 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

It seems peculiar that one can be a Christian and not believe that there is only One God?
And we can be a Christian and not profess that we are saved by grace?
Nor in the atoning death of Christ?
And in the Trinity?
And in the forgiveness of sins?

And, especially egregious coming from a non-Catholic Christian: no mention of being a Christian means to follow the Bible?

Etc.

Etcetera? Huh? That’s like saying “and all the rest of the stuff”.

I’m asking what all the “etc” is.

Jesus said, He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.” Luke 24:44

But not in the NT? One can be a Christian and not believe in the NT?

Do you see, Ginger, how saying there are “certain doctrines you must believe to be a Christian” cannot be supported by Scripture? That is an extra-biblical paradigm which you’ve believed, but have not found in the Bible.

One needs an outside authority to determine what these “essential doctrines” are.

 

[Ginger2]

It seems peculiar that one can be a Christian and not believe that there is only One God?
And we can be a Christian and not profess that we are saved by grace?
Nor in the atoning death of Christ?
And in the Trinity?
And in the forgiveness of sins?

And, especially egregious coming from a non-Catholic Christian: no mention of being a Christian means to follow the Bible?



I’m sure you know better. You obviously are stumped to discover the tenets of Crhristianity are indeed found in the Bible. And so youre only argument can be against my not typing out each and everyone?

Etcetera? Huh? That’s like saying “and all the rest of the stuff”.

I’m asking what all the “etc” is.

Since I do not have all my fingers, typing is very slow for me so instead of typing out a complete list you can view these tenets in the Apostle’s Creed. But please don’t come back with obsurd suggestions that we received these tenets from the RC because it is plain and clear they are taken directly from the Holy Scriptures - both old and New Testaments and only summarized by the Apostles in the Creed. Which is why my example showed the tenets foundation is first found in OT written by the JEWS!

But not in the NT? One can be a Christian and not believe in the NT?

Where do I say that??? I said these tenets are found in both New and OLd Testaments.

Do you see, Ginger, how saying there are “certain doctrines you must believe to be a Christian” cannot be supported by Scripture? That is an extra-biblical paradigm which you’ve believed, but have not found in the Bible.
I just showed you that they are indeed found and supported in the Scriptures

One needs an outside authority to determine what these “essential doctrines” are.

lol

 

[Ginger2]

The above statement presupposes that there are certain doctrines one can dismiss and still be a Christian. Are these also in the Bible?

Yes! Man-made doctrines can and should absolutely, positively be dismissed, ignore, denied… etc.

 

[Ginger2]

I don’t have time to go through your entire post, but I grow weary at those who use St. Jerome to defend the exclusion of the deuterocanon. Please consider:

How predictable for you to ignore the evidence I present to demonstrate why I believe what I believe and then simply present a quote you think proves your point.

“What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches? But **he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise **against the story of Susanna, the Son of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. For I was not relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they [the Jews] are wont to make against us” (Against Rufinus 11:33 [A.D. 402]).

Thus Jerome acknowledged the principle by which the canon was settled—the judgment of the Church, not of later Jews.

It looks to me as if you read the first line, decided it proves your point and never considered the content of what Jerome was saying.

Read it again and consider what Jerome is saying…or better yet, read the charges brought against Jerome that he is answering.

As for Rufius, he did not consider the Deuteros inspired, either. Here is a quote:
“…[the Fathers] would have read in the Churches, but not appealed to for the confirmation of doctrine…”(Rufinus, Commentary on the Symbol of the Apostles, 36-38)

 

[hansard]

She said that she"had a lot of friends that were Catholic growing up and went along to (CCD?) with them. They were doing the “Mary Thing”. When I asked her what she meant, she said “the sacrements”. I couldn’t help but notice the vemom with which she said “Mary”.

What does Mary have to do with the sacraments?
Baptism–no role
Eucharist–no role
Confession–zip
Confirmation–nope
Marriage–no
Holy Orders–nope
Last Rites–oh, maybe, as a Saint to whom one might pray (same as all the other sacraments, but, really, you can pray to Mary or not–it’s not required.)

I mean, the Church doesn’t even give any official status to Mary’s appearances (Fatima, Lourdes, etc). The Queen of Heaven speaks to the faithful over the centuries, with dire warnings, and the Church declares these to be “worthy of belief”.

This is how the Church treats the Mother of Christ, whose Perpetual Virginity, Perpetual Sinlessness and Assumption have been enshrined in dogma over these many centuries. They’ll make the ex-Cathedra statements on theological matters, but they’re remarkably–unfathomably–silent on the simple truth of what Mary said on this occasion or that.

I believe it’s called “private revelation”, and as such, is not required to be believed by the faithful. I would venture to suggest that much of the Book of Revelation would fit into the category of “private revelation”, yet the faithful are bound by it, absolutely, every word of it.

Here’s the problem with Mary: what to do with her and her “pronouncements”. If we can’t take her words seriously (as in, enshrine them as we have the person), we are left with a feel-good, platitudinous, mother-knows-best type of saint, who means virtually nothing beyond your rosary beads.

You can’t expect anyone else to take Mary seriously if we don’t.

 

[PRmerger]

Ginger, could you please respond to posts without nesting your responses?

You have to use this text feature: at the end to nest the quotes. Everything you want put in the box needs to be between these features:

and / QUOTE]

I’m sure you know better. You obviously are stumped to discover the tenets of Crhristianity are indeed found in the Bible.

Yes. That is *your *paradigm (which, incidentally, is not Scriptural). The Catholic position is that the tenets of Christianity are found in the Word of God.

And so youre only argument can be against my not typing out each and everyone?

 

[elvisman]

I don’t know who this John MacArthur is, but I think it’s possible you misunderstood what they were saying or maybe they misspoke.

If they are indeed Christian as you say, then they were trying to tell you Mary only contributed her flesh to Jesus. Which is a little silly since Catholics already know this.

Ginger - I may be many things but an idiot isn’t one of them.

These are my siblings and we’ve spoken MANY times. I know their positions and they INDEED have said that Mary gave birth to Jesus’ “human nature”. I have the pamphlet my sister wrote and that is what it claims.

Do you believe that Mary is the mother of God?

 

[elvisman]

I do “truly” understand her teachings and believe they are misguided.

And I have researched the history, thoroughly - Mostly but not limited to Catholic sources, which of course present history from a Catholic perspective. I actually read entire translations of original documents as opposed to excerpts provided by Catholics.

Sorry Ginger, but you don’t understand the Church and her doctrines.

I have called yo on MANY things you believe to be true because "that’s what you were told by Catholics."
**This is not a true knowledge but one that has been passed onto you by those who do not know their own faith. **

Hence, what you’ve “learned” from these people is little more than idle gossip.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes! Man-made doctrines can and should absolutely, positively be dismissed, ignore, denied… etc.

Fair enough.

Do you celebrate Christmas on Dec 25?

That’s pretty man-made.

Do you use a wedding ring?

That’s not in the bible either.

Have you ever been to an outdoor wedding?

That’s pretty man-made!

I’m just sayin’

The CC does not dismiss man-made traditions. Only those which contradict the Word of God.

 

[PRmerger]

Forgive my skepticism, Ginger, but I doubt that you do.

One question I ask often of ex-Catholics is this: (I ask that you answer from your own knowledge and not by doing any current research)
**
Where is Scripture in the Mass (besides the obvious Liturgy of the Word, of course!)? Where is the Mass in Scripture?**

Sorry Ginger, but you don’t understand the Church and her doctrines.

I have called yo on MANY things you believe to be true because "that’s what you were told by Catholics."
This is not a true knowledge but one that has been passed onto you by those who do not know their own faith.

Hence, what you’ve "learned" from these people is little more than idle gossip.

Indeed. I am hoping that Ginger will respond soon to my question above, based solely on her current and extensive understanding of Catholicism.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ginger2
I do “truly” understand her teachings and believe they are misguided.

And I have researched the history, thoroughly - Mostly but not limited to Catholic sources, which of course present history from a Catholic perspective. I actually read entire translations of original documents as opposed to excerpts provided by Catholics.

Present history from a Catholic perspective? It is presented in light with what the early Christians and church taught,not what they perceived. So what other perspective did the early church present? A Baptist perspective? A Methodist perspective? A Mormon perspective?

You have read entire translations of original documents as opposed to excerpts by Catholics? LOL! Sorry to rain on your parade,but the Catholic Church has read,studied, and analyzed scores of original documents for CENTURIES long before ANY Protestant church existed.

 

[Nicea325]

Indeed. In fact, those non-Catholic Christians, who (rightly) venerate the Scriptures will actually contravene the Scriptures if it means acknowledging the Catholic position. That is, they refuse to honor [BIBLEDRB]Luke 1:48[/BIBLEDRB] and call Mary the “Blessed Mother”. That’s too Catholic, even if it’s straight out of the Bible.

Their contempt for Catholicism supercedes their love of Scripture. :sad_yes:

More important, many anti-Catholics HATRED and ignorance of what the RCC teaches is greater than their love for GOD.

 

[RBK]

How predictable for you to ignore the evidence I present to demonstrate why I believe what I believe and then simply present a quote you think proves your point.

It looks to me as if you read the first line, decided it proves your point and never considered the content of what Jerome was saying.

Read it again and consider what Jerome is saying…or better yet, read the charges brought against Jerome that he is answering.

As for Rufius, he did not consider the Deuteros inspired, either. Here is a quote:
“…[the Fathers] would have read in the Churches, but not appealed to for the confirmation of doctrine…”(Rufinus, Commentary on the Symbol of the Apostles, 36-38)

How am I predictable to you? I’ve never had a conversation with you. But regardless, the bottom line is that he included the books despite the reservations he had. He submitted to the authority of the Church. Most non-Catholics I know refuse to accept the witness of the ECF’s if it contradicts their belief system, but love to invoke them when it appears that they agree with a particular belief they hold.

Do you think that Luther’s commentary on the NT books he believed should have been excluded proves that they should? You argue that Luther’s translation was the same as St. Jerome’s. That is false. Luther removed James, Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation from their normal places and relegated them to the end of the New Testament, as not being entitled to the same status as other biblical books. In his New Testament table of contents, he numbered books 1-23 and then placed the four rejected ones without numbers. Tyndale followed Luther’s order in his English translation, as did Coverdale in 1535. Jerome didn’t do that. Luther justifies his removal of several NT books with his commentary for each (excluded, or moved) book.

On the preface to the Epistles of St. James and St. Jude: “In a word, he wanted to guard against those who relied on faith without works, but was unequal to the task in spirit, thought, and words. He mangles the Scriptures and thereby opposes Paul and all Scripture. He tries to accomplish by harping on the law what the apostles accomplish by stimulating people to love. Therefore, I will not have him in my Bible to be numbered among the true chief books, though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases, for there are otherwise many good sayings in him. One man is no man in worldly things; how, then, should this single man alone avail against Paul and all the rest of Scripture?
Concerning the epistle of St. Jude, no one can deny that it is an extract or copy of St. Peter’s second epistle, so very like it are all the words. He also speaks of the apostles like a disciple who comes long after them and cites sayings and incidents that are found nowhere else in the Scriptures. This moved the ancient fathers to exclude this epistle from the main body of the Scriptures. Moreover the Apostle Jude did not go to Greek-speaking lands, but to Persia, as it is said, so that he did not write Greek. Therefore, although I value this book, it is an epistle that need not be counted among the chief books which are supposed to lay the foundations of falth.”

Preface to the Revelation of St. John: "About this book of the Revelation of John, I leave everyone free to hold his own opinions. I would not have anyone bound to my opinion or judgment. I say what I feel. I miss more than one thing in this book, and it makes me consider it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic.
First and foremost, the apostles do not deal with visions, but prophesy in clear and plain words, as do Peter and Paul, and Christ in the gospel. For it befits the apostolic office to speak clearly of Christ and his deeds, without images and visions. Moreover there is no prophet in the Old Testament, to say nothing of the New, who deals so exclusively with visions and images. For myself, I think it approximates the Fourth Book of Esdras; ** I can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it.**

So I guess the question is, who gets to decide? How do you know that every book in your Bible is inspired?

 

[PRmerger]

Where do I say that??? I said these tenets are found in both New and OLd Testaments.

Right here (bold mine). No NT in those books.

Jesus said, He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the** Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.**” Luke 24:44

I just showed you that they are indeed found and supported in the Scriptures

You have not shown any verse which answered my question #2…

Original question posted by me: Ginger, please provide:

1. Scriptural references to these essential doctrines
2. Scriptural references which let us know that these are the “essential” doctrines

.

Each and every time I ask these questions of non-Catholic Christians (and I do love to ask it! ) they always respond with a variety (although always DIFFERING from the other NCCs) of Scriptures which they perceive to be essential…(answering Question #1) yet no one has ever given me a single verse that lets us Christians know that it IS an essential (answering Question #2).