Why the hostility toward Mary?

[guanophore]

On a related note, why does the word “Roman” in Roman Catholic sometimes sound like a slur when used by non-Catholic Christians?

Thank you,
Sharen

There is another thread running right now that is addressing this topic.

 

[Adam_Warlock]

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.

<----- Non-anti-Mary somewhat-Protestant

 

[guanophore]

I don’t think people hate her, as in, her the historical Virgin Mary. I think many people simply dislike the status or power some Roman Catholics (and even Eastern Orthodox) give her. Some people just overreact to it and therefore their responses come across as extreme.

I don’t think it is possible for any humans to give Mary more status and power than God has already, do you? He has done great things for her, and He has caused her soul to magnify Him, so that all who look through her, see Him larger!

 

[Reuben_J]

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

Those who maintain that they have no hostility towards Mary are merely speaking for their specific and perhaps similar groups.

In fact there is no contest regarding the veracity of the topic of this thread. There are Christians who are hostile towards Mary and who have hurt and devastated innocent Catholics by their venom in their unwanted remarks against our belief. I have heard numerous stories of this nature from my fellows Catholics besides hearing for myself similar hostility.

 

[Adam_Warlock]

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

I’ll get us started. <----- non-anti-Mary non-but-sorta-more-or-less-Protestant

 

[hansard]

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.

Excellent post. This sheds much light on the differences between the churches, including a few things that had always troubled me.

 

[Z_Ninja]

Really! You are friends with a JW!!! And does your JW friend know you believe in the Trinity?

Oh… concerning your friend with the filthy mouth, you first said you don’t know what he is - then you feel justified arbitrarily asigning a “baptist” title to him. For all you know he isn’t Christian at all. In fact, I’m certain he isn’t!

yup, that may have started the conversation, as far as a group of us being of different religions.

as for my other “friend”, i was making an assumption based on what he was telling me. He says he was Christian. No offense to any Baptists out there.

 

[dianaiad]

yup, that may have started the conversation, as far as a group of us being of different religions.

as for my other “friend”, i was making an assumption based on what he was telling me. He says he was Christian. No offense to any Baptists out there.

If he says he is, he is. He may not be a very good Christian, but then–are any of us really good Christians?

 

[Z_Ninja]

If he says he is, he is. He may not be a very good Christian, but then–are any of us really good Christians?

I believe he is. My only issue is what he said knowing full well that I am Catholic. He may have said it just to get a rise or reaction out of me, but there are other ways of pushing buttons. Insulting my beliefs is surely not the best way.

And only God is truly good.

 

[JonNC]

=elvisman;7118935]Hey Jon - thanks 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.

Thanks, Elvis. I agree with this. I’ll come back to Baptismal regeneration in a moment.

**Where it gets dicey for the Ptotestant is in the *refusal ***of the Curch.

**
Would you say, then, that as long as I remain Lutheran, I am refusing the Church?

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: ****
Yes. It might depend on the definition of “The Church”. You would define it, would you not, as consisting only of the institutional Catholic Church, that is, those in communion with the Bishop of Rome?
A Lutheran, such as myself, would define the Church as the congregation of believers, where the word is preached and the sacraments administered. Further, the Church is the whole of those believers, the communion of saints. To which, I might add, the Catholic Church is a significant and indeed important part.

B]

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
Does this affirm, in your mind, what I have offered as your definition of “The Church”?

---

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

On invinsible ignorance, I have been told by some Catholics here that, and n-C’s go, I have a fairly good grasp, generally, of Catholic teaching. DOes this mean that, the more I learn, my chances for salvation are correspondingly reduce?

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

And yet the catechism says that through my Baptism, I am incorporated into His body, or words to that effect. There appears somewhat contradictory. How does one reconcile that?
Which brings me back to Baptismal regeneration, is there an implication here that my Baptismal regeneration means, in the end, nothing if I am not in communion with the Bishop of Rome?

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

On invinsible ignorance, I have been told by some Catholics here that, and n-C’s go, I have a fairly good grasp, generally, of Catholic teaching. DOes this mean that, the more I learn, my chances for salvation are correspondingly reduce?

On the contrary, Jon. The more you learn the chances of your salvation are correspondingly increased.

[BIBLEDRB]Matt 7:7[/BIBLEDRB]

I am certain that the more you seek–and the humility you present here is a grace that can only lead you to Truth–the more you shall find.

 

[JonNC]

On the contrary, Jon. The more you learn the chances of your salvation are correspondingly increased.

[BIBLEDRB]Matt 7:7[/BIBLEDRB]

I am certain that the more you seek–and the humility you present here is a grace that can only lead you to Truth–the more you shall find.

Thanks for your kind words. Is that corresponding increase dependent on my coming into communion with the Bishop of Rome?

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

Thanks for your kind words. Is that corresponding increase dependent on my coming into communion with the Bishop of Rome?

Jon

I respectfully submit that your question could be likened to a lover asking his beloved, “Do I have to marry you in order to enjoy the marital embrace?”

 

[JonNC]

I respectfully submit that your question could be likened to a lover asking his beloved, “Do I have to marry you in order to enjoy the marital embrace?”

Hmmm, an interesting response.

By the way, I like your signature.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

Hmmm, an interesting response.

And?

By the way, I like your signature.

Jon

:tiphat:

 

[JonNC]

And?

And, while scripture is clear about marriage and intimacy, I would contend it is not so regarding the nature of the Church -that is, a limitation of it to the institutional Catholic Church, those in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

I love popcorn!

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

And, while scripture is clear about marriage and intimacy, I would contend it is not so regarding the nature of the Church -that is, a limitation of it to the institutional Catholic Church, those in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

But, you are a champion of Scripture and Tradition, yes? So Scripture being “not so (clear) regarding the nature of the Church” ought not be a limitation to you.

I love popcorn!

Jon

I put popcorn on the list of “things that smell a lot better than they taste”, unless one finds salty styrofoam appealing.

 

[JonNC]

=PRmerger;7123889]But, you are a champion of Scripture and Tradition, yes? So Scripture being “not so (clear) regarding the nature of the Church” ought not be a limitation to you.

I don’t know about a champion, but I certainly have a great deal more respect and reliance on Tradition than some other n-C’s. So, yes, “not so clear” is not a stumbling block for me. So, let me add, that the early councils are more clear, and I would tend to side with the view of the Bishop of Rome’s jurisdictional as being that of the west, and he is “first among equals”.

I put popcorn on the list of “things that smell a lot better than they taste”, unless one finds salty styrofoam appealing.

lol Salty and buttery!

Jon

 

[Roy5]

Today I was watching EWTN and they had a feature on Our Lady of Loreto. I had seen Bob and Penny Lord speak on the subject before.

  The story, as many of you know, is that the house of Mary and the Holy Family in Nazareth was miraculously moved by angels, first apparently to Albania or Croatia until the Muslims invaded that area. Then, on Dec.10, 1294 (if I have the story right) shepherds reported seeing a house in the sky, flying across the Adriatic, supported by angels. They saw Our Lady and the Baby Jesus seated on top of the house. The first place in Italy didn't work out, so the Aangels moved the house another time, finally to place it in Loreto, Italy. It has become a popular pilgrimage site, and I believe John Paul II visited it

  No need to debate this matter, but it isn't easy for reasonable people in the 21st century to accept such a story as fact. These stories, of which there are many, make many people skeptical of various claims re Mary, miracles associated with her, her apparitions, etc.  

  Some may say that Catholics are not required to believe such tales. I hope not. But it is such folklore as this that makes Catholicism appear to many to be seriously infected by old superstitions.

  I would not want to show any disrespect to Mary, the mother of Christ. Still, the church needs to marginalize these stories that, in my mind, undermine the the church's credibility. And I also feel that they do an injustice to Mary as well as well as to truth.

 

[Cat_Herder]

I would not want to show any disrespect to Mary, the mother of Christ. Still, the church needs to marginalize these stories that, in my mind, undermine the the church’s credibility. And I also feel that they do an injustice to Mary as well as well as to truth.

Yes, they are private revelation and no, we are not required to believe them.

But OTOH, perhaps those who find these stories to be off-putting or fantastic are afflicted with anti-miracle-osis. Which is probably why these are, by and large, the same people who detract the Eucharist, the other great pillar of the Church.

The events behind Marian apparitions like Guadalupe and Fatima are, frankly, hard to dismiss even for the most rabid sceptic. The tilma is there, the conversions really happened, and the the events were well witnessed.