Why the hostility toward Mary?

[elvisman]

You have misunderstood what I am saying.

When a Catholic or a Protestant makes a claim to convince me of something and using a quote to do so, I look up the original document (if there is an English translation available) and read it to see if the quote to see if it was accurately portrayed or if it was taken out of content.

For example: Catholics claim Martin Luther said Faith is all that is needed for salvation and works mean nothing. But when I read Luther’s writings I discovered that is a false assumption.

1st Luther taught, “…Thus, it is just as impossible to separate faith and works as it is to separate heat and light from fire!”
“An Introduction to St. Paul’s Letter to the Romans,”
Luther’s German Bible of 1522
by Martin Luther, 1483-1546

2nd, Catholics say Luther added a word to the Bible to create a new doctrine
If this were true, why don’t Protestant Bibles contain that “added” word?

• because he didn’t add a word. Translating from one language to another in a coherent matter requires using appropriate grammar for that specific language.

**Had it not been for Luther’s contemporaries, he would have KEPT the word *“alone”. ***Had it not been for them - he also would have removed a few books from the NT such as Hebrews, James and Revelation because he felt they were NOT inspired.

**This is what Luther REALLY said concerning the Church’s objections to his adding the word “alone” - speaking from his own authority, not God’s.
Pure, unadulterated Spiritual PRIDE:

“If I, Dr. Luther, had thought that all the Papists together were capable of translating even one passage of Scripture correctly and well, I would have gathered up enough humility to ask for their aid and assistance in translating the New Testament into German.”

“If your Papist wishes to make a great fuss about the word “alone” (sola), say this to him: ‘Dr. Martin Luther will have it so and he says that a papist and an *** are the same thing’.”

“Please do not give these asses any other answer to their useless braying about that word “sola” than simply ‘Luther will have it so, and he says that he is a doctor above all the papal doctors’."

“I know quite well how much skill, hard work, understanding and intelligence is needed for a good translation. They know it less than even the miller’s donkey for they have never tried it.

“You tell me what a great fuss the Papists are making because the word alone is not in the text of Paul…say right out to him: ‘Dr. Martin Luther will have it so,’…I will have it so, and I order it to be so, and my will is reason enough. I know very well that the word ‘alone’ is not in the Latin or the Greek”

 

[PRmerger]

It seems you care not to answer the question about Scripture in the Mass?

One is left to wonder if this is because you were indeed poorly catechized about your faith?

And just 'cause I’m in a charitable mood I’m going to go ahead, for all the non-Catholic lurkers on the thread, and answer this question for Ginger.

The Mass is just chock full o’ Scripture. Practically every single utterance by the priest, and by the faithful, is taken from Scripture.

Ex-Catholics are absolutely clueless about this fact and their lack of an answer demonstrates this rather nicely.

HOWEVER, the abysmal catechesis that these ex-Catholics received is, IMHO, NOT THEIR FAULT. It is the fault of our Church, which did not feed its flock. Thanks be to God, the hierarchy are taking back the reins and catechesis is flowering.

So, on to “where is Scripture in the Mass”…

Just taking a random part of the Liturgy of the Eucharist:

Lord, you are holy indeed, the fountain of all holiness. [BIBLEDRB]2 Macc. 14:36[/BIBLEDRB]
Let your spirit come upon these gifts (water and wine) to make them holy, so that they may become the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. Before he was given up to death, [BIBLEDRB]Phil 2:8[/BIBLEDRB]

a death he freely accepted, [BIBLEDRB]John 10:17-18 [/BIBLEDRB]

he took bread and gave you thanks. He broke the bread, gave it to his disciples, and said: Take this all of you, and eat it: this is my body which will be given up for you. When supper was ended, he took the cup. Again he gave thanks and praise, gave the cup to his disciples, and said: Take this, all of you, and drink from it: this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven. Do this is memory of me. [BIBLEDRB]Mark 14:22-25 [/BIBLEDRB].

So there you have it!

See here for more.

 

[elvisman]

I seem to have lost my place and can’t find the other question I wanted to respond to,…

But I did find something on this page:

It just so happens I have a life away from my PC. I need to work to pay my bills and simply can’t spend all my talking with Catholics.

Once I have made my point there really isn’t anything more for me to say.

You haven’t made any point other than dropping some erroneous information and false charges and left MANY unanswered questions in your wake.

 

[JonNC]

=elvisman;7116896]Had it not been for Luther’s contemporaries, he would have KEPT the word *“alone”. *Had it not been for them - he also would have removed a few books from the NT such as Hebrews, James and Revelation because he felt they were NOT inspired.

In the German, “allein” is still in Romans 3:28 in Luther’s Bible translation. It isn’t in any English translation because it isn’t necessary.

The books you mention had been disputed from the time of Eusebius, which he termed “Antilegomena”. Luther’s issue with them is based on this dispute. Based on this, he placed them together, and remarked in his preface to Hebrews, “Up to this point we have had to do with the true and certain chief books of the New Testament. The four which follow have from ancient times had a different reputation.”

**This is what Luther *REALLY ***said concerning the Church’s objections to his adding the word “alone” - speaking from his own authority, not God’s.
Pure, unadulterated Spiritual PRIDE:

“If I, Dr. Luther, had thought that all the Papists together were capable of translating even one passage of Scripture correctly and well, I would have gathered up enough humility to ask for their aid and assistance in translating the New Testament into German.”

“If your Papist wishes to make a great fuss about the word “alone” (sola), say this to him: ‘Dr. Martin Luther will have it so and he says that a papist and an *** are the same thing’.”

“Please do not give these asses any other answer to their useless braying about that word “sola” than simply ‘Luther will have it so, and he says that he is a doctor above all the papal doctors’."

“I know quite well how much skill, hard work, understanding and intelligence is needed for a good translation. They know it less than even the miller’s donkey for they have never tried it.

“You tell me what a great fuss the Papists are making because the word alone is not in the text of Paul…say right out to him: ‘Dr. Martin Luther will have it so,’…I will have it so, and I order it to be so, and my will is reason enough. I know very well that the word ‘alone’ is not in the Latin or the Greek”

Yes, Luther was, at times, bombastic, and prone to extreme hyperbole. Considering the times, he was not unlike some of his attackers. An excuse for this type of talk? No.
And it certainly not does not reflect the current relationship between Lutherans and Catholics.

Jon

 

[JulieAA]

Satan must be smiling (that is, if he is able) that there is so much division among the brothers and sisters. We are one body, with Jesus Christ as the Head as Father Corapi explained last evening. Let’s put aside the “pride and arrogance” aside (we know where that comes from anyway) and search for what brings us together.

To get back to the original question…why the hostility toward Mary…most likely because of the misunderstandings of many. My husband, an evangelical, was raised believing that all Catholics “adore” rather than “honor” Mary. Mary is our mother and shows us the way to her Son. To quote Father Corapi, “if Mary was good enough for Jesus, she is good enough for me as well”. By the way, many non-catholics are not aware that Martin Luther had a very close relationship with the Blessed Mother, but somehow that never comes up.

 

[Roy5]

Okay, I know this may be repetitious, as so much at CAF can be, but let me try to sum up where most Protestants are when it comes to Mary. There are many exceptions, of course, because one of the basic principles of Protestantism is individual interpretation of scripture. But here goes…

Protestants are not hostile toward Mary! They can be strongly opposed to what they view as a Catholic over-emphasis on Mary, often at what they see as at the expense of Jesus. So frequently it appears as though Mary is seen as equal to Christ, a co-redeemer. Being the Queen of the Universe, the Queen of Heaven, and assigned scores of other grand titles is rejected by Protestants as too close to idol worship, especially since statues of Mary seem to be in about every Catholic Church, often wearing a crown. The Ten Commandments do say something about graven images, and there are Protestants who worry that such statues, before which people kneel and pray, border on idolatry. 

 Protestants - generally - regard Mary with reverence, and when they have a nativity play at Christmas the role of Mary is prized. She obviously is the most important member of the cast. They also focus on Mary on Good Friday, when many Protestant churches hold ecumenical services (today Catholic churches sometimes participate, since Vatican II). One clergyperson will preach on "John, behold your mother...."

  It is Mary as perceived by Catholicism that Protestants usually find objectionable. They might divide on some questions. For example, did she have other children? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Not all that important. They simply feel that Catholicism has kept adding doctrines elevating Mary to a goddess status with the Immaculate Conception (1864?), the Assumption (1950), etc. They especially take exception to the idea that Mary lived a sinless life. That seems to take from her humanity. And doesn't the Bible clearly state that "all have sinned and fallen short...."? (Rom. 3:23) 

 The most powerful argument against the Catholic perception of Mary (in my view) is rarely cited by Protestants. St. Paul wrote many letters, advising the early churches re doctrine and much else, and not once does he mention Mary. If Mary were supposed to be given such an elevated status, why didn't he tell them so?

  I personally find that the only two times Mary appears in the gospels between the temple experience (Jesus, age 12) and the crucifixion, Jesus seems to have made rather little of her rather than magnify her. Check these verses out again (Matt. 12:46-50; John 2:4.) Then, too, if Mary never could sin, hm, I am troubled that she and Joseph traveled a day's journey from Jerusalem before even noticing that they had left Jesus, their only child, back in the Holy City. Let's face it: I think you and I would have been sure that our child would have been with us before we began that 80-mile return trek to Nazareth. 

  But hostility toward Mary? No! But disagreement over the role of Mary.

 

[mark_a]

Excuse me. I do not use Roman as a slur. It is what we called ourselves when I was growing up. I was Roman Catholic.

I sometimes forget to preface every single response with “From my own experience”. I don’t know you and I am sorry I offended you.

Statements like this and much worse are par for the course on this Forum and then you wonder why so many Protestants here seem to dislike you???

They do?? I haven’t had one Protestant here say they dislike me. Would you please let me know which ones?

However, I might be able to shed some light in this area as I made a new friend as a child and one day she told me she couldn’t play with me anymore because I was Roman Catholic and we killed Jesus. I didn’t understand until much later that she was associating the Catholic Churcu with the Roman Empire who crucified our Lord.

And ya don’t recon they heard this in their church?

 

[elvisman]

Satan must be smiling (that is, if he is able) that there is so much division among the brothers and sisters. We are one body, with Jesus Christ as the Head as Father Corapi explained last evening. Let’s put aside the “pride and arrogance” aside (we know where that comes from anyway) and search for what brings us together.

To get back to the original question…why the hostility toward Mary…most likely because of the misunderstandings of many. My husband, an evangelical, was raised believing that all Catholics “adore” rather than “honor” Mary. Mary is our mother and shows us the way to her Son. To quote Father Corapi, “if Mary was good enough for Jesus, she is good enough for me as well”. By the way, many non-catholics are not aware that Martin Luther had a very close relationship with the Blessed Mother, but somehow that never comes up.

Julie - the Church’s position is not that all Christians comprise the Mystical Body of Christ. Those outside the Church are seperated brethren - but they are outside the Body of Christ.

 

[Izdaari]

In spite of opinions to the contrary, it is the definition. One first has to conform to revealed truth, then deviate from that truth to be classed as a heretic. Before a non-Catholic can use the term “heresy” with any credulity, there must be an objectively stated and universal protestant truth to be both adhered to and deviated from. I know of no such thing. Simple difference of opinion and the lack of cohesive doctrine is what drives the (non)denomination-building machine of our age.

The insularity and arrogance of some Catholics is mind-boggling. I hope you don’t expect to win over any Protestants this way. :sad_bye:

 

[elvisman]

Okay, I know this may be repetitious, as so much at CAF can be, but let me try to sum up where most Protestants are when it comes to Mary. There are many exceptions, of course, because one of the basic principles of Protestantism is individual interpretation of scripture. But here goes…

Protestants are not hostile toward Mary! They can be strongly opposed to what they view as a Catholic over-emphasis on Mary, often at what they see as at the expense of Jesus. So frequently it appears as though Mary is seen as equal to Christ, a co-redeemer. Being the Queen of the Universe, the Queen of Heaven, and assigned scores of other grand titles is rejected by Protestants as too close to idol worship, especially since statues of Mary seem to be in about every Catholic Church, often wearing a crown. The Ten Commandments do say something about graven images, and there are Protestants who worry that such statues, before which people kneel and pray, border on idolatry.

Protestants - generally - regard Mary with reverence, and when they have a nativity play at Christmas the role of Mary is prized. She obviously is the most important member of the cast. They also focus on Mary on Good Friday, when many Protestant churches hold ecumenical services (today Catholic churches sometimes participate, since Vatican II). One clergyperson will preach on “John, behold your mother…”

It is Mary as perceived by Catholicism that Protestants usually find objectionable. They might divide on some questions. For example, did she have other children? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Not all that important. They simply feel that Catholicism has kept adding doctrines elevating Mary to a goddess status with the Immaculate Conception (1864?), the Assumption (1950), etc. They especially take exception to the idea that Mary lived a sinless life. That seems to take from her humanity. And doesn’t the Bible clearly state that “all have sinned and fallen short…”? (Rom. 3:23)

The most powerful argument against the Catholic perception of Mary (in my view) is rarely cited by Protestants. St. Paul wrote many letters, advising the early churches re doctrine and much else, and not once does he mention Mary. If Mary were supposed to be given such an elevated status, why didn’t he tell them so?

I personally find that the only two times Mary appears in the gospels between the temple experience (Jesus, age 12) and the crucifixion, Jesus seems to have made rather little of her rather than magnify her. Check these verses out again (Matt. 12:46-50; John 2:4.) Then, too, if Mary never could sin, hm, I am troubled that she and Joseph traveled a day’s journey from Jerusalem before even noticing that they had left Jesus, their only child, back in the Holy City. Let’s face it: I think you and I would have been sure that our child would have been with us before we began that 80-mile return trek to Nazareth.

But hostility toward Mary? No! But disagreement over the role of Mary.

**I feel that there is hostility in your statements above.
Why? Because you misrepresent the Marian Doctrines.

Many Protestants believe that these doctrines were “invented” when they were declared. Not so.

These are beliefs of the historical Christian faith that were declared when challenges arose. For example - the Church has believed in Mary’s Assumption from the beginning. There is a Tradition dating back to the 3rd century that that the Apostles were present during her Assumption. The fact that it was dogmatically defined in 1950 doesn’t mean that the belief didn’t exist before then.

The garden-variety objections you raise have been debunked to death, including Rom. 3:23 - but many of you refuse to listen - even when the evidence is overwhelming. * That’s why there is a perception of hostility.*

 

[JonNC]

Julie - the Church’s position is not that all Christians comprise the Mystical Body of Christ. Those outside the Church are seperated brethren - but they are outside the Body of Christ.

Hi elvis, I’m curious how you interpret this, in light of your above statement.

818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

-The Catholic Catechism

Thanks,
Jon

 

[JonNC]

They do?? I haven’t had one Protestant here say they dislike me. Would you please let me know which ones?

I like you, mark. :yup:

Jon

 

[Nicea325]

It is Mary as perceived by Catholicism that Protestants usually find objectionable. They might divide on some questions. For example, did she have other children? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Not all that important. They simply feel that Catholicism has kept adding doctrines elevating Mary to a goddess status with the Immaculate Conception (1864?), the Assumption (1950), etc. They especially take exception to the idea that Mary lived a sinless life. That seems to take from her humanity. And doesn’t the Bible clearly state that “all have sinned and fallen short…”? (Rom. 3:23)

I find the above rather arrogant. A a mere creature is basically saying God is not capable of preventing one human being from original sin? Indeed the notorious passage:

All have sinned and fallen short.

Does that include Jesus,since he was 100% human?

 

[JonNC]

  It is Mary as perceived by Catholicism that Protestants usually find objectionable. They might divide on some questions. For example, did she have other children? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Not all that important. They simply feel that Catholicism has kept adding doctrines **elevating Mary to a goddess status **with the Immaculate Conception (1864?), the Assumption (1950), etc. They especially take exception to the idea that Mary lived a sinless life. That seems to take from her humanity. And doesn't the Bible clearly state that "all have sinned and fallen short...."? (Rom. 3:23)

There were parts of your post that I agreed with. The part I highlighted I do not.

Jon

 

[mark_a]

I like you, mark. :yup:

Jon

Thanks Jon, I remember you. If I remember correctly, I aspire to your charitable maturity.

 

[Javl]

Okay, I know this may be repetitious, as so much at CAF can be, but let me try to sum up where most Protestants are when it comes to Mary. There are many exceptions, of course, because one of the basic principles of Protestantism is individual interpretation of scripture. But here goes…

Protestants are not hostile toward Mary! They can be strongly opposed to what they view as a Catholic over-emphasis on Mary, often at what they see as at the expense of Jesus. So frequently it appears as though Mary is seen as equal to Christ, a co-redeemer. Being the Queen of the Universe, the Queen of Heaven, and assigned scores of other grand titles is rejected by Protestants as too close to idol worship, especially since statues of Mary seem to be in about every Catholic Church, often wearing a crown. The Ten Commandments do say something about graven images, and there are Protestants who worry that such statues, before which people kneel and pray, border on idolatry.

I find that this opposition is either because of a mis-understanding or a mis-interpretation of the Catholic emphasis on the Veneration of Mary. First off, this is a continuation of the high regard the early Christians had for Mary. If Mary were your mother and honored because of you and your accomplishments wouldn’t you be pleased and honored by such adulation for your mother? I know I would. As Jesus’ mother, don’t you think that He would be pleased the way we honor His mother so? All the titles given her are our weak effort to show our love and appreciation for her submitting to God to be Jesus’ mother. It’s the least we can do. Remember also, Martin Luther was an ardent devotee of Mary.

As for the statues, do you carry a picture of your mother in your wallet? The statues in a Catholic Church serve the same purpose. There was no photography way back then. The only way we had to remember most people was by statues. So, today, this is, again, a carry over from the early days.

Protestants - generally - regard Mary with reverence, and when they have a nativity play at Christmas the role of Mary is prized. She obviously is the most important member of the cast. They also focus on Mary on Good Friday, when many Protestant churches hold ecumenical services (today Catholic churches sometimes participate, since Vatican II). One clergyperson will preach on “John, behold your mother…”

  It is Mary as perceived by Catholicism that Protestants usually find objectionable. They might divide on some questions. For example, did she have other children? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Not all that important. They simply feel that Catholicism has kept adding doctrines elevating Mary to a goddess status with the Immaculate Conception (1864?), the Assumption (1950), etc. They especially take exception to the idea that Mary lived a sinless life. That seems to take from her humanity. And doesn't the Bible clearly state that "all have sinned and fallen short...."? (Rom. 3:23)

As long as “sola scriptura” is in use there will always be objections, mis-interpretations, etc. And as for Catholicism adding doctrines, this is not so. The Church and its councils cannot make up and add new doctrines and dogmas. All it can do is to define, explain, or expand upon those that have been taught by Jesus and the Apostles, and held by all believers from the beginning. It does so to defend the faith against heresies and to unify the faith and beliefs. If it were not so we would have more of a mess than we have now with over thirty thousand different Protestant denominations.

The most powerful argument against the Catholic perception of Mary (in my view) is rarely cited by Protestants. St. Paul wrote many letters, advising the early churches re doctrine and much else, and not once does he mention Mary. If Mary were supposed to be given such an elevated status, why didn’t he tell them so?

Yes, this is so. But we also don’t know if he mentioned her in any of the many other letters he wrote or authored which were not included in the Bible. After all, it was Jesus that he concentrated on.

I personally find that the only two times Mary appears in the gospels between the temple experience (Jesus, age 12) and the crucifixion, Jesus seems to have made rather little of her rather than magnify her. Check these verses out again (Matt. 12:46-50; John 2:4.) Then, too, if Mary never could sin, hm, I am troubled that she and Joseph traveled a day’s journey from Jerusalem before even noticing that they had left Jesus, their only child, back in the Holy City. Let’s face it: I think you and I would have been sure that our child would have been with us before we began that 80-mile return trek to Nazareth.

In those days ( as it is among the Orthodox Jews of today ) men and women did not mingle together. When groups would travel, eat, etc., they would do it separately. This was the custom. Therefore, children would usualy travel with either group. Since Jesus was near the age of reason ( Bar mitzvah, 12 years ) he would have traveled with the men, but there was no reason that he could not have been with the women and taken care of the younger children. So, Neither Mary or Joseph would, or could, be really concerned. This was not as big a deal as you make it out to be.

But hostility toward Mary? No! But disagreement over the role of Mary.

Again, mis-understanding. Shalom haMeshiach, Chevarim.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[elvisman]

Hi elvis, I’m curious how you interpret this, in light of your above statement.

-The Catholic Catechism

Thanks,
Jon

Hey Jon - t****hanks for the reply.
The statement you posted speaks to the reality of Baptismal Regeneration - Trinitarian Baptism, that is. We have no difference of opinion there.

Where it gets dicey for the Ptotestant is in the refusal of the Curch.
Therfore - I would anser your question with the following statements from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? 335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body: **

---

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it. 336

---

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church. (invincible Ignorance)

The Church bteaches that those Christians outside it are separated from the Body of Christ.

 

[mark_a]

The most powerful argument against the Catholic perception of Mary (in my view) is rarely cited by Protestants. St. Paul wrote many letters, advising the early churches re doctrine and much else, and not once does he mention Mary. If Mary were supposed to be given such an elevated status, why didn’t he tell them so?

Maybe because John did it in his gospel and in Revelation.

But hostility toward Mary?
And sometimes it’s difficult for Catholics to differentiate between anti-Mary Protestants and non-anti-Mary Protestants. Sometimes we lump y’all together.

Maybe it would help if on this forum if Protestants could describe themselves in their profile as anti-Mary or non-anti-Mary.

 

[Prtapia001]

Hi

Firstly Christians or members of independent churches believe that if it’s not in the bible they will not believe or practice. This is where the conflct is. They believe in scriptures alone, us Catholics do not believe that scriptures alone is enough. There’s no passage in the bible that says the bible alone is the only way to eternal life. The bible says the scriptures can help in teaching and the church is needed to be the teacher. The church was established by Christ before the bible was ever written.

Catholics believe that Mary remained a virgin even after the birth of Christ. The other Christians believe that Christ had other brothers and sisters. I believe it was how they literally interpreted the words brothers in some of the bible passages.

We don’t have to argue about this with our fellow Christians. We can or may enlighten them about our beliefs. I have quoted some text from the Catholic apologetics website. I also recommend this website for more enlightening readings:

---

"Mary the Mother of Jesus: Saint
Catholic Christians look to the development over time of Biblical faith. This follows from Jesus’ promise to send the Holy Spirit to reveal more things than He would tell His Apostles. This deepening of understanding God’s Truth is evidenced in the definitions of the truth about the Trinity and the natures of Christ in the early Church councils.

Catholics also believe that the Bible does not record all the revealed Word of God. The Word of God in paradosis or tradition under the guidance of the Holy Spirit cannot contradict anything in the Bible, nor be absent from the constant faith of the believing Church.

Some understanding of the truth of God passed on by the believing Church (paradosis, tradition) later defined as revealed truth concerns Mary, the mother of Jesus.

Catholics believe, as did the Protestant Reformers, that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus. Catholics believe the truth of the Bible that the Redemption of Jesus freed all believers from the original sin of Adam and its consequence, death.

On the basis of Bible truths from Genesis to Revelation, Catholics believe that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was the first to believe, and the first to reap both benefits from her Son’s Redemption.

Mary’s freedom from original sin is called her Immaculate Conception; her immediate entrance into Heaven at the completion of her life is called her Assumption. "

---

"Objections to Continued Virginity
There are some very common objections to the belief that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus. The first considers the “brothers” of Jesus from the Gospels.

Mt 12:46-50; Mk 3:31; Lk 8:19
While he was still speaking to the crowds, his mother and his brothers (adelphoi) appeared outside, wishing to speak with him. (Someone told him, “Your mother and your brothers (adelphoi) are standing outside, asking to speak with you.”) But he said in reply to the one who told him, “Who is my mother? Who are my brothers (adelphoi)?” And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers (adelphoi). For whoever does the will of my heavenly Father is my brother (adelphos), and sister (adelpha), and mother.”
Mk 6:3
Is he not the carpenter, the son of Mary, and the brother (adelphos) of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters (adelphai) here with us?
First it is important to note that the Bible does not say that these “brothers and sisters” of Jesus were children of Mary.

Second, the word for brother (or sister), adelphos (adelpha) in Greek, denotes a brother or sister, or near kinsman. Aramaic and other Semitic languages could not distinguish between a blood brother or sister and a cousin, for example. Hence, John the Baptist, a cousin of Jesus (the son of Elizabeth, cousin of Mary) would be called “a brother (adelphos) of Jesus.” In the plural, the word means a community based on identity of origin or life. Additionally, the word adelphos is used for (1) male children of the same parents (Mt 1:2); (2) male descendants of the same parents (Acts 7:23); (3) male children of the same mother (Gal 1:19); (4) people of the same nationality (Acts 3:17); (5) any man, a neighbor (Lk 10:29); (6) persons united by a common interest (Mt 5:47); (7) persons united by a common calling (Rev 22:9); (8) mankind (Mt 25:40); (9) the disciples (Mt 23:8); and (10) believers (Mt 23:8). (From Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, Thomas Nelson, Publisher.)

A second objection to Mary’s virginity arises from the use of the word, heos, in Matthew’s gospel.

Mt 1:25
He (Joseph) had no relations with her until (heos) she bore a son, and he named him Jesus.
The Greek and the Semitic use of the word heos (until or before) does not imply anything about what happens after the time indicated. In this case, there is no necessary implication that Joseph and Mary had sexual contact or other children after Jesus.

A third objection to the perpetual virginity of Mary arises from the use of the word, prototokos, translated “first-born” in Luke’s gospel.

Lk 2:7
(Mary) gave birth to her firstborn son (prototokos). She wrapped him in swaddling clothes and laid him in a manger …
The Greek word prototokos is used of Christ as born of Mary and of Christ’s relationship to His Father (Col 1:25). As the word does not imply other children of God the Father, neither does it imply other children of Mary. The term “first-born” was a legal term under the Mosaic Law (Ex 6:14) referring to the first male child born to Jewish parents regardless of any other children following or not. Hence when Jesus is called the “first-born” of Mary it does not mean that there were second or third-born children. "

 

[Roy5]

One mistake posters often make. They debate as though Protestants were a unified group, while in fact they have many different views.

Most of my Protestant friends are liberal Protestants in the sense that they are full of doubts re certain scriptures. For example, did God order Saul to slaughter every last Amalekite, the same God who gave us the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount ('love your enemies')? Not likely. In the gospels did Jesus oust demons from mental cases and send them into pigs who then hurled themselves over a cliff? Maybe. But maybe not. When it comes to Paul writing to Timothy that a woman should never teach a man "or usurp authority over a man, but to be in silence" - well, most major Protestant denominations ordain women. Etc. 

 When it comes to Mary, these liberal Protestants are not hostile to Mary, but many simply suspect that many Catholic doctrines and practices re Mary to be pagan accretions - certain not from Judaism but borrowed from the ancient religions of Egypt, Greece and Rome. There were a variety of virgin goddesses in the ancient world who bore gods. 

  But, again, this is not hostility toward Mary but rejection of much of Mariology as practiced within segments Catholicism. I have found Catholics who have many of the same misgivings, battling to remain Catholic but quietly objecting to the emphasis on Marian apparitions, for example. They are concerned that Catholicism have plenty of room for different concepts of Mary without being judged as heretics. 

  Conservative Protestants are apt to be more outspoken against Catholic beliefs. largely because they are inclined to be more adamant when it comes to doctrines. While liberal Protestants treat other religions with respect, whether Catholicism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism or islam, evangelical Protestants tend to share with Catholics the idea that there is only one truth and that is what they embrace.

  I come from a mixed Catholic/Protestant heritage, but I find liberal Protestantism  appealing, though it leaves a lot of questions unanswered or 'up to us individually'. I'm not sure the human mind can know and/or absorb the ultimate realities. This reflects their sense that God is so awesome and mammoth and infinite that we cannot begin to understand him/her.