Why the hostility toward Mary?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sharen
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
But then why did he say One Baptism for the forgiveness of sins. While I agree that in Adam we all die, in Christ we are born again (Baptism).

Why did the Apostles teach that in order to have eternal life we must be baptised? What is Baptism to you?
For the LDS, baptism is one of several endowments or ordinances (their term for sacraments) that are necessary to achieve the highest heaven. It’s all or nothing.

Whereas orthodox Christianity holds that each Sacrament has its purpose and Baptism is the baseline for incorporation into the Body of Christ and thus for salvation. The other Sacraments are additive, although the Eucharist is necessary to maintain salvation and Reconciliation is needed in the event of mortal sin.
 
But then why did he say One Baptism for the forgiveness of sins. While I agree that in Adam we all die, in Christ we are born again (Baptism).

Why did the Apostles teach that in order to have eternal life we must be baptised? What is Baptism to you?
It is required. All must be baptised in order to be saved–but that is US using our faith for a necessary ordinance.

that verse wasn’t referring to baptism, but to physical death–and the result of original sin. Baptism, for us, is for the remission of OUR sins, not for the washing away of original sin. Which, by the way, is why we do not baptise infants. They don’t require it. Only those who CAN sin need it.

Of course, that’s pretty much everybody who understands the difference between right and wrong.
 
I wouldn’t even call that hostility (I mean towards the Catholic teaching). We just disagree.
I agree with you…most of the time. The OP is right about one thing, though; there are plenty of Protestants who have a very hostile attitude toward Catholic beliefs ABOUT Mary; anti-Catholicism is rife, nasty, pervasive and–Marian doctrine/dogma is a favorite target.

People can be very nasty.
 
I wouldn’t even call that hostility (I mean towards the Catholic teaching). We just disagree.
Well, the thing is that the Blessed Virgin is not a dogma. She is a person. People can be offended.
 
Well, the thing is that the Blessed Virgin is not a dogma. She is a person. People can be offended.
Well, I don’t see MARY posting on this forum expressing her disaproval. The thing is, m’friend, that disagreeing with, and even being hostile to, your beliefs ABOUT her is not the same thing as being hostile toward her.

Not even remotely so.

After all, is the fact that you disagree with my beliefs about her being disrespectful of her?

No?

Then how can disagreement with your beliefs about her be disrespect toward her?
 
I agree with you…most of the time. The OP is right about one thing, though; there are plenty of Protestants who have a very hostile attitude toward Catholic beliefs ABOUT Mary; anti-Catholicism is rife, nasty, pervasive and–Marian doctrine/dogma is a favorite target.

People can be very nasty.
Yes, that they can.
Maybe it’s just my upbringing that keeps me from being hostile towards these teachings and dogmata… I am not anti-Catholic, but I do disagree with some of the dogmata that are prevalent within the Church… I am a former Catholic, but that doesn’t make me hostile towards anything.
Though I also wonder whether somebody who was truly hostile towards the Catholic Church would remain a member in this board in the long run without getting banned or leaving.
Well, the thing is that the Blessed Virgin is not a dogma. She is a person. People can be offended.
I agree that people can be offended. I am not hostile towards Mary, nor am I hostile towards Catholic dogmata concerning Mary. I just disagree with some (not all) of them.
 
Well, I don’t see MARY posting on this forum expressing her disaproval. The thing is, m’friend, that disagreeing with, and even being hostile to, your beliefs ABOUT her is not the same thing as being hostile toward her.

Not even remotely so.

After all, is the fact that you disagree with my beliefs about her being disrespectful of her?

No?

Then how can disagreement with your beliefs about her be disrespect toward her?
Well, after Calvary, God does not smite Atheists and pagans. He has the right to do it, being the Author of Life. But He does not do so because of the Divine Mercy of His Son.

However, sin still offends God and the New Testament makes this clear throughout.

Mary can also be offended. Being without sin, she bears it patiently just as Jesus does for those who persist in their sin.

So I think you need to explain how it is possible to offend God, but not Mary.
 
Many ideals are hard to understand. Obviously I lean in the direction of the pre V-II Church. But for me thats learned behavior. And thats what follows us in life.

Myself I have no contempt for anyone. Especially individuals who come from other walks of faith.

I assure you no-one ever was as hard headed as I in comprehending Our Lady. Matter of fact I refused to for many years.

The place I come from in personal thinking being as skeptical as I am. Is to conclude when we can’t agree on a answer, is to stick with the Church teachings. In my opinion thats what makes perfect sense to me and what I do.

At last at the end of the day I would never tell any Christian they can’t find Heaven without the Blessed Mother. I see Mary as one who converts Souls to Christ at a alarming rate.

I uphold the extreme side of debate on purpose. Because so few chose to today. And because of what I have witnessed in life through converstion of Souls by the Holy Spirit though Her.

I do believe in the Immaculate Conception, and the Assumption, and Coronation.

I also have many questions more than answers now with Mormon teaching which isn’t my area of interest, thus a total lack of understanding. But I find the no-sin at birth a twist on the Crucifixtion interesting. Another topic another time I suppose.

Thanks for posting the link Diana I want to read it though I"m muliti tasking here at the moment.

God Bless ALL of you.
 
Well, after Calvary, God does not smite Atheists and pagans. He has the right to do it, being the Author of Life. But He does not do so because of the Divine Mercy of His Son.

However, sin still offends God and the New Testament makes this clear throughout.

Mary can also be offended. Being without sin, she bears it patiently just as Jesus does for those who persist in their sin.

So I think you need to explain how it is possible to offend God, but not Mary.
How can believing what one honestly feels is the truth about her be offensive TO her?
 
Thanks for posting the link Diana I want to read it though I"m muliti tasking here at the moment.

God Bless ALL of you.
Well, it’s a very short bit I’m linking you to, Gary; there are only thirteen articles of faith; fourteen sentences (the last one has two). --not coming even close to the Catholic catechism in length or comprehensive treatment of LDS belief. 😉

So don’t feel as if I’m sending you to a seminary class. It’s very short. Really. 😉
 
It is required. All must be baptised in order to be saved–but that is US using our faith for a necessary ordinance.

that verse wasn’t referring to baptism, but to physical death–and the result of original sin. Baptism, for us, is for the remission of OUR sins, not for the washing away of original sin. Which, by the way, is why we do not baptise infants. They don’t require it. Only those who CAN sin need it.

Of course, that’s pretty much everybody who understands the difference between right and wrong.
Oh. See for us it is necessary for the forgivess of sins. Now here is what I do not understand. Here is what the CC teaches.

Following St Paul the Church has always taught that the overwheliming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their concection with Adams sin and the fact the he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted a sin which is death of the soul. ( Countcil of Trent: DS 1514)

Now according to the CCC 403 Because of the certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not commited personal sin.

Now how does your Church get around the scripture that states The day you eat of the tree of knowledge you shall die? How do they deny the scripture thats says the sin of Adam becomes the sin is all his decendants? (The whole human race is in Adam)

And where are you taught our sufering is from? The Church teaches by their Sin Adam and Eve brought suffering into the world. ANd Physical death because of it is inevitable. Now if this sin does not exist as you claim where did it come from then? Because if you are correct then we should not have this fallen state. How do you explain it then? Because even a infant who cannot sin can die,
 
It is required. All must be baptised in order to be saved–but that is US using our faith for a necessary ordinance.

that verse wasn’t referring to baptism, but to physical death–and the result of original sin. Baptism, for us, is for the remission of OUR sins, not for the washing away of original sin. Which, by the way, is why we do not baptise infants. They don’t require it. Only those who CAN sin need it.

Of course, that’s pretty much everybody who understands the difference between right and wrong.
While I agree with you that Original sin is a result of Physical death, Baptism is a result of Eternal life. By Baptism while physical death remains eternal life begins. How does your Church claim you gain eternal life if not through Baptism?

And if it was not referring to Original sin, but actual sin, what happens when you commit actual sin? Do you have to be baptized again then?:confused:
 
Summary re Mary?
Code:
I come from a mixed Catholic/Protestant family and over many years have tried to reconcile these two great faiths, try to resist prejudices as expressed by either 'camp'.

To begin with, as other have said again and again, I have not found any Protestant hostility toward Mary. The prized role in a nativity play is that of Mary among Protestants. Ministers (sometimes joined by priests) hold Good Friday services at which someone always preaches on "John, behold your mother...."

 The problem, of course, is that Catholics and Protestants see Mary differently. Permit me to sum up some of the common Protestant objections to the Catholic view of Mary.

 1. Yes, Mary is blessed among women, as the Bible says. But where is there any suggestion of her immaculate conception? That doctrine was not defined until about 1870, during the Papacy of Pius IX, and many Protestant scholars believe that Mariology became more and more dominant in Catholicism starting with the 3rd century, influenced by various cults of the ancient world.

  2. Where is there evidence that Mary lived a sinless life? Surely, there should be some reference to this in scripture. But scripture says that "all have sinned and fallen short....". 

 3. If Mary did not err (sin?), why did she and Joseph travel a day's journey from Jerusalem, not even realizing that their only son (and child?) was not with them?

 4. If Mary was a perpetual virgin, what about Luke 1:25 - "and Joseph knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son, and Joseph called his name Jesus"?

 5. And why use 'firstborn', as though there was a 'secondborn' etc., especially since elsewhere in the gospels brothers of Jesus are mentioned (such as Matt. 12:46)?  

 6. Oh, off the subject a bit, I always have been perplexed ar to why the genealogies of Jesus, in Matthew and Luke, tracing him back to David, both provide the family tree of Joseph  and not Mary. Why? And have you noticed how much those two genealogical accounts are in conflict with one another? Matt, 1:1-16 and Luke 3:23-38. And the years between Abraham and Adam (in Luke) are suspect when we compare them to what science and history tell us. How do Biblical literalists, Protestant and Catholic, explain such contradictions?

 7. Why does Jesus even seem somewhat dismissive of Mary in her only two appearances in the gospels between the visit to the temple and the crucifixion - Matt. 12:46-50 and John 2:4? "Who is my mother...?" "Woman, what have I to do with you...."

 8. Why, in all of his letters, doesn't St. Paul once mention Mary? He was the key evangelist and adviser to the early churches, instructing them in the major beliefs of Christianity, but writes not a word about Mary? The same is true of other epistle writers in the New Testament. Some find references to Mary in Revelation, but that is highly controversial. Anyone who can provide a seriously authoritative interpretation of Revelation merits some major award. 

 9. Why isn't the assumption of Mary mentioned in scripture and not defined until Pius IX in 1950?

 This is not to show disrespect for Mary. But to Protestants Mariology has escalated to the point where it seems independent of scripture.

  Can't Christians honor and love Mary without making her the 'Queen of the Universe", designating her as Our Lady of nations, professions, the seas and mountains, the air and much more, crowning her statues, and in many other ways seeming to worship her? The claim is made that she is not worshiped, but when the 'Hail Mary' is the most popular prayer among Catholics it seems reasonable that non-Catholics will wonder. True, the first part of that prayer was stated by Elizabeth, but the rest is not from scripture.

  Having said all this, I personally don't care that Catholics and Protestants differ on Mary. I believe in 'big tent' Christianity were the faithful with various views are welcome. God is interested in our hearts - our faith, our love of him and one another - and not in our creeds or church affiliations. I know that millions of Catholics have been raised to venerate Mary and they find enormous comfort in this. Fine. And Protestants are raised to appreciate Mary but not venerate her. Fine, also. 

  God bless all his children, of every creed, color and country. May religion become a bridge rather than a barrier. I'm sure Christ would favor that.
 
Publisher,

The remark about the wives of the apostles becoming as sisters is attributed to the vegan, Clement of Alexandria…one who is considered an early church father, his writings between 150 to 215 a.d. He said the wives were as sisters in order to minister to the housewives.

He was a true vegan as well saying, “It is better to be happy than to have your bodies act as graveyards for animals.” He claimed St. Peter, St Phillip, and St. Matthew were all vegans…

Some of his doctrines were questionable so I didn’t see ‘St’ before his name.
 
Ok, (grin) you made your point.
Love you for that! <kiss!> <kiss!>
However, we contend that it means “all who are capable of sinning have sinned.” Which is a little more consistant than exempting one person…who isn’t referred to in that verse. 😉
Then, you, like the CC, understand that the “all” in “all have sinned” is a qualified all, and does, indeed, include exceptions.
 
Excuse me, Gary, but where in the bible does it say that you sin? Where in the bible does it say that any of the many millions of people on the planet have sinned? Does the bible have to actually come out and say that each and every person ever born has sinned, and name them by name?

The thing is, the unusual thing would be that someone did NOT sin…and that would have been worthy of mention…rather like the modern newspapers now would not report ‘dog bites man…’ because that is the expected natural thing. The headline WOULD read 'man bites dog."

So, my friend, that there is no mention of Mary sinning in the bible is not proof that she did not sin. Only a statement in there that said 'Mary lived a sinless life" would be proof of that one.

Lack of proof that she sinned is not proof of her sinless state. It’s not even an indicator. Or a hint, one way or the other.
As far as the Bible on sin? Romans 3:23 States… “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of the Lord.”

As far as Our Lady, that been gone over several times in the previous posts. No need to rehash.

Thats an interesting link also Diana. Sounds very Christian to me. So the Baptism as explained is similar to Catholic no?

Anyway were talking two very differnt Church teaching here. The Catholics being “Original Sin”

Catholics believe that every human being after the fall “Adam and Eve”, including Mary ,was subject to being brought into this world with orginal sin and needs to be saved, however Mary was saved from all sin, including orginal sin from the first moment of her conception. The following is an imperfect analogy. Imagine I am parachuting and falling through the air into quicksand. Suddenly, a gust of wind comes along and blows me away from the quicksand. I would say that at the moment of conception all human beings fall into a pit of quicksand called original sin. But in Mary’s case God intervened and protected her from this at the moment of her conception by the merits of Jesus. She had no power or merit of her own that prevented her from falling into the quicksand of original sin. It was Divine Mercy which was preparing a place for the Incarnation. God was preparing an Ark of the Covenant to carry the Word of God. St. Teresa of Avila said:

I could have fallen like Mary Magdalene, but your forgiveness of me was greater than hers because you prevented me from falling.

This is a very good explanation of the Immaculate Conception. Mary was redeemed by God from the moment of her conception so that she never fell into sin. Catholics believe that Mary was saved by God from sin, but in a preventative way.

But I get where your at, different teaching my friend different teachings and interpretation of Bible.
 
I wasn’t raised under any religion - was Christened under the Anglican Church however - my parents are skepics. But I have found my own spirituality, and even though I do not “belong” to any religion per se, I have found comfit in “talking” (prayer) to Mary. It has been a huge comfit esp. since I have moved out of my mum’s home, and living in another state.
 
I wasn’t raised under any religion - was Christened under the Anglican Church however - my parents are skepics. But I have found my own spirituality, and even though I do not “belong” to any religion per se, I have found comfit in “talking” (prayer) to Mary. It has been a huge comfit esp. since I have moved out of my mum’s home, and living in another state.
Is this something you have done now for some time? Sounds like its deepened your faith?

What is it she is telling you or communicating? Interesting and I’m glad your finding your Spiritual self.
 
I feel honored by your gracious defense of my person on this matter. Thank you very much.
Hey, there now, Janet!

I sense a little bit of “I’m offended that someone has said I did not know the Catholic faith”.

Here’s why I say that you did not know the faith you left:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5960738&postcount=17

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6343735&postcount=30

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6119888&postcount=1851

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5750451&postcount=10

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5582293&postcount=661

No need to be offended, 'kay?

It’s not meant with any malice. It’s just a fact. 🤷

Most likely, it’s not even your fault. The CC has done an abysmal job providing catechesis for her flock.
 
Well, i’ve read many, many posts and still have not one inkling as to why one *must *believe Mary to be sinless, immaculately conceived, etc. I understand the logical progression from some plausible suppositions here, but every one requires a leap of faith at some point. That’s ok. Nothing wrong with that necessarily, provided it further’s Christ’s cause. im just not convinced it does. apparently, many of you are. so, God bless.

And, again I’ll restate, that after 10 years (or so) as a non-denominational (or Protestant to you Catholics) I’ve encountered hostility to Mary many times. Even bringing her up is often taboo. It’s annoying. Best thing to do is smile and walk away, and continue being the best most loving Catholic you can be.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top