Why the hostility toward Mary?

[Reuben_J]

Summary re Mary?

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.

Roy, there is evidence among Catholics that indeed some Protestants are hostile towards Mary. I believe you when you couldn’t’ find one who is actually hostile. Problem with Protestants is the labeling – we cannot nail you unless we are specifically zooming to a denomination. In fact I tell you that there so many Protestants who indeed do honor Mary.

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.

I am just musing on this. I am not good in Marian theology; others can do better. I only want to show you that an average Catholic (like me) can see that you (Protestants) have misrepresented Mary here:

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.

As a Catholic sees this, you start on a wrong premise – that everything must be explicitly defined in the Bible. So Catholics will tell you, no, you would not find it in there being stated explicitly. Likewise you would not find the Trinity too.

Some of the reasons Mary being sinless is because she is the new Ark of the Covenant.

1. 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…”.

That verse is a fallacy too; otherwise you have to include babies and the handicapped to have sinned.

1. 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?

A young boy missing in a large crowd – I do not think it is a sin of the parents. A boy being boy, and Jesus surely here had an agenda of his own (to be in the temple). No parents can really control it if a boy wants to do his things.
If you infer that it is a sin of the parents when their child misbehaves or playing truant, then no parents would be the exception here. That’s not fair, and I am sure you agree.

1. 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”?

This verse does not say that Mary had sexual relation after the birth of Jesus. By using the word ‘till’ does not necessarily mean the opposite happens after it. Anyway you have to use this verse against the part when Mary said, ‘How can this be since I know a man not”, implying that she is a virgin for life (in Jewish culture).

1. 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)?

Firstborn is merely first child. The so-called ‘brothers’ of Jesus are actually his cousins as Hebrew does not have a word for cousin.

1. 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?

Mathew and Luke are showing that Jesus came from the Davidic line without being scientific; thus fulfilling the prophecy that he is the Messiah.

1. 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…”

Roy, are you kidding? Only two appearances? The term ‘woman’ in Hebrew is not dismissive unlike how we use it today. In fact in their context it is respectable, giving honor to her as a woman. We may like to cross reference this to the woman in Genesis, in John at the cross and in Revelation 12.

 

[Reuben_J]

1. 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.

I am unable to comment on this in the way it makes sense to you. My personal take is that the epistles being pastoral letters are addressing the needs of the early Christians. If Mary is not referred to, most probably the early Christians had no problem regarding her position in the Church. If you look at the painting in the catacomb in Rome, Mary was prominently depicted and played a major part in early Christian belief.

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

Again, it does not necessarily in the scripture. When a dogma is defined by the Pope it does not mean that it was not there before; the definition arise because of the needs in the present circumstances, especially if it is to clarify heresy.

God bless.

 

[Reuben_J]

A young boy missing in a large crowd – I do not think it is a sin of the parents. A boy being boy, and Jesus surely here had an agenda of his own (to be in the temple). No parents can really control it if a boy wants to do his things.
If you infer that it is a sin of the parents when their child misbehaves or playing truant, then no parents would be the exception here. That’s not fair, and I am sure you agree.

to muse further …

A crowd in Jerusalem in the 1st century can hardly be like the hustle and bustle of the street of London today. Most probably parents then would not worry too much that their children getting lost as there are relative and places of ineterest where they could be were not that many. Then there might be Jesus cousins who tagged along or maybe he was with them; aunt Elizabeth is not far away and surely the knowledge of their coming to Jerusalem would not be missed and relative would eagerly awaiting them.

Joseph could have possibly said, ’ Ah, the boy, let him have fun with the cousins or perhaps having the time of their lives at the fair …’

But alas, since young, Jesus had shown a tendency that he is not an ordinary boy … .

 

[dianaiad]

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,

Yes…and because of Christ, every single person will be resurrected; will be ‘made alive.’

We do not blame Adam and Eve for our own propensity to sin; that just comes with having free will. The ability to choose is utterly worthless if there aren’t choices available. Some of those choices will be bad ones, and some of us will make those bad choices. All of us will make bad choices from time to time. It’s part of growing up.

The point is to learn from those choices, to repent of the bad ones and learn to make good ones; that’s what Christ did for us. His Atonement did two things: He conquered death by making it possible for us all to be resurrected. His Atonement has paid for all our sins, if we accept it–if we repent and live in faith.

In other words, we don’t blame Adam and Eve for the choices WE freely make. That’s not fair…and it’s passing the buck. They sinned–they made their choice and by so doing brought both life, and more importantly, physical death, into the world. Jesus atoned for their sin and 'bought us with a price…" and because of Him, we will all all live again. All of us.

We are responsible only for those decisions that WE make…and we can’t blame anybody else–not Adam and Eve, and not God.

God, I believe, has given us the greatest gift of all; His Son, Who paid an incredible price to save us. It is now up to us to accept that gift.

 

[dianaiad]

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?

We believe that baptism is A; required. and is, B for the remission of our personal sins (since Jesus took care of original sin with His Atonement)

We renew our baptismal covenants when we take the Sacrament (communion) worthily. We are forgiven our sins as we repent of them. This is what I believe.

 

[dianaiad]

Love you for that! <kiss!> <kiss!>

Then, you, like the CC, understand that the “all” in “all have sinned” is a qualified all, and does, indeed, include exceptions.

Ok…as I mentioned, you made your point.

But…where anywhere is Mary made one of those exceptions?

 

[PRmerger]

Ok…as I mentioned, you made your point.

Ay-yi-yi! I was only responding to YOUR comment, after you acknowledged that I made my point. That is, your “however” point.

Ok, (grin) you made your point.

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.

But…where anywhere is Mary made one of those exceptions?

There’s billions of exceptions, according to Mormon theology, but the Mother of God couldn’t be one of them?

Regardless, the verse does not say “all have sinned except Jesus”, and you allow for his exception.

I’m just sayin’ that using Romans 3:23 as a proof text against Mary’s IC falls short.

 

[Ashurie]

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 have for a while now, ever since I found her chapel in a Catholic Cathedral in the city I now live. I began visiting often and just sitting there, then I started to you know talk to her like I would to my mum. It was the ArchAngels who introduced me to Mary…

 

[Janet1983]

Hey, there now, Janet!

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

I wasn’t offended by you. All I did was thanking Diana for her efforts. I don’t always agree with you and I don’t always agree with her.
As a matter of fact Diana and me had very intense (and sometimes heated) debates in the past.
Therefore I indeed feel very honored that she so graciously stood up for me.

BTW: I don’t think there is anything wrong with questioning things that I once just took for granted as a Catholic teaching. I admit that I do not have the full knowledge of everything that is going in within the Catholic Church. I know for a fact that the catechesis in Germany is not halfway as good as it might be in the United States. Essentially however, my knowledge surpassed that of my peers. I do not mean to brag, I am just stating facts as I had a very intense interest in the subject of Catholic religious education in school and for a while I had intended to study the subject and become a teacher or a parish worker (which requires a master’s degree… the job description includes working hand in hand with the local priest, due to a lack of local priests and a massive number of burnt out men as a result).

 

[PRmerger]

Ah, I see where the stumbling block is. You have a grave misunderstanding about the CC’s teaching on sex.

Y’see, there is nothing sinful about sex between a man and a wife.

This seems to imply that you believe the CC believes sex between a husband and wife is sinful?

In fact, it’s a commandment–and has been since day one.

In fact, the CC elevates it to a SACRAMENT. Yep–sex is Holy. Sex is Divine. Sex is a foretaste of the SUBLIME union we will achieve one day in heaven with our Beloved.

In fact, because of this, ALL children conceived in wedlock as the result of a man and wife willingly engaged in this act are 'concieved without sin–" because the parents didn’t commit one by engaging in the process by which that conception took place.

Mary “conceived without sin” doesn’t mean anything about her parents’ sinning during intercourse. It means: from the moment of her conception (inception/creation) she was without sin.

It wasn’t the *act *of conceiving which was “without sin”.

 

[dianaiad]

Ay-yi-yi! I was only responding to YOUR comment, after you acknowledged that I made my point. That is, your “however” point.

There’s billions of exceptions, according to Mormon theology, but the Mother of God couldn’t be one of them?

Regardless, the verse does not say “all have sinned except Jesus”, and you allow for his exception.

I’m just sayin’ that using Romans 3:23 as a proof text against Mary’s IC falls short.

It’s not that she couldn’t…it’s that there’s no indication at all that she was. She COULD have been pretty much anything. However, simply because she ‘could be,’ doesn’t mean that she was…either sinless, or never tempted, or perpetually virgin, or assumed into heaven without physically dying, or any number of things that have been claimed for her.

 

[freerf]

It’s not that she couldn’t…it’s that there’s no indication at all that she was. She COULD have been pretty much anything. However, simply because she ‘could be,’ doesn’t mean that she was…either sinless, or never tempted, or perpetually virgin, or assumed into heaven without physically dying, or any number of things that have been claimed for her.

I agree.

BUT, the Catholic Church is not bound to Sola-Scriptura in a any way that requires them to “prove” via scripture that what they say is true. You are asking them to do something that is not required.

Many Catholic teachings on Mary are faith-based or tradition-based and not directly scripture-based. For example, with Mary, the Assumption and the Coronation.

This is why you guys keep chasing each other’s tails. Catholics: you don’t need to prove scripture makes it so, you merely need to show that scripture in no way contridicts it, and that it is consistent with Tradition, apostolic history, etc.

Protestants/ LDS: If you believe sola scriptura, obviously you’ll find a lack of compelling evidence. The root question for you is the validity of sola scriptura.

 

[Cat_Herder]

It’s not that she couldn’t…it’s that there’s no indication at all that she was. She COULD have been pretty much anything. However, simply because she ‘could be,’ doesn’t mean that she was…either sinless, or never tempted, or perpetually virgin, or assumed into heaven without physically dying, or any number of things that have been claimed for her.

Except that the Bible does actually claim all of those things for her.

 

[dianaiad]

I agree.

BUT, the Catholic Church is not bound to Sola-Scriptura in a any way that requires them to “prove” via scripture that what they say is true. You are asking them to do something that is not required.

Many Catholic teachings on Mary are faith-based or tradition-based and not directly scripture-based. For example, with Mary, the Assumption and the Coronation.

This is why you guys keep chasing each other’s tails. Catholics: you don’t need to prove scripture makes it so, you merely need to show that scripture in no way contridicts it, and that it is consistent with Tradition, apostolic history, etc.

Protestants/ LDS: If you believe sola scriptura, obviously you’ll find a lack of compelling evidence. The root question for you is the validity of sola scriptura.

You also have a good point…and I don’t have a problem with why CATHOLICS believe all this about Mary, except of course that they claim that public revelation ceased, so that any new doctrine outside of scripture would have to, it seems to me, find more support from within the bible than it actually has. Still, since I AM LDS, I certainly can’t quarrel with the idea that doctrine can come from extra biblical sources.

IT’s just that, when we all get together to talk about such things, we are all sorta stuck with those things we all agree are ‘true.’ and that pretty much means–what’s in the bible. I can just see the raised eyebrows, for instance, if I attempted to prove, to you guys some doctrine we believe and you don’t–by using the Book of Mormon as a prooftext.

That one would fly about as well as my son jumping off a cliff without his hang-glider. So…I have no problem with Catholics who say “we believe this because of that…”, ‘that’ being extra-biblical Holy Tradition. The problem comes when they expect me to agree with the validity of that extra biblical source, as if, of course, I would accept it as authoritative.

I haven’t been able to figure that one out at all; shoot, if I thought that Catholic Holy Tradition was authoritative, I’d be a Catholic, not a Mormon!

 

[dianaiad]

Except that the Bible does actually claim all of those things for her.

With all due respect, Cat Herder, no. It doesn’t.

 

[Cat_Herder]

You also have a good point…and I don’t have a problem with why CATHOLICS believe all this about Mary, except of course that they claim that public revelation ceased, so that any new doctrine outside of scripture would have to, it seems to me, find more support from within the bible than it actually has.

Have you read my post above?

The concept of public revelation ceasing means no new doctrines. But the whole point is that the Marian dogmas were believed in apostolic times. They are not “new.”

 

[Cat_Herder]

With all due respect, Cat Herder, no. It doesn’t.

Who is the Woman of Genesis 3:15 and Revelation 12, then?

 

[dianaiad]

Who is the Woman of Genesis 3:15 and Revelation 12, then?

Actually, the only woman being referred to in that entire chapter is…Eve. Jesus is the direct descendent of Eve, too. It is her seed being discussed…that is, finally, Jesus.

As to the woman in Revelations…if that is referring to Mary, why the time flashing? First there is Mary, in great pain, about to be delivered of the Christ child, and they have the war in heaven AFTER this event?

As far as I am aware, no Christian group figures that the war in heaven came after the birth of Jesus. (shrug)

However, let’s suppose that this chapter does refer to Mary. (I believe that this chapter refers to the Second Coming, not the first, by the way) How does it show that she was the result of an immaculate conception (specifically, unlike everybody else) and how does it show that she was sinless, or assumed into heaven?

As I read this chapter, I am struck by how well it describes the apostasy of the early Christian Church, actually, followed by a rather detailed animadversion against the earthly kingdoms that succeeded the Romans.

What I do not see is any indication that Mary was so very different from ordinary human women as you claim she was. In fact, I have to ask: how could Jesus be 100% human if the woman to whom He was born was so obviously NOT human? According to you, she didn’t share any of the things that make the rest of us human; no original sin, no temptation/sin, she didn’t die, she didn’t have other children…you describer her almost as a displaced deity, not the human woman who was to be the contributor of Jesus’ 100% human part.

I honor and respect her because she was a fully human, just like the rest of us, a woman who rose to the biggest occasion ever presented one of us. She is an example of the sort of faith we are not only expected to have, but CAN have. If, in order to do what she did, one MUST be born without sin (well, OK, so that one is covered for all of us) remain entirely without sin because one is never tempted (lack of concupiscence), and never dies, then what hope have we?

Not an ounce. That’s how much hope we have.

However, if Mary was just a faithful Jewish girl like many other faithful Jewish girls, chosen because she proved through her short life that she had the character to overcome the temptations she was given, and the simple faith to accept what God wanted to give her, then there is hope. If Mary was a loving, faithful, simple and great mother for Jesus throughout her life, humbly accepting both the joys and pains of raising her Son, overcoming the sort of horrors that most of us can’t imagine–then there is hope.

…and that is not hostility toward Mary. That’s utmost respect and admiration.

 

[JackVk]

Actually, the only woman being referred to in that entire chapter is…Eve. Jesus is the direct descendent of Eve, too. It is her seed being discussed…that is, finally, Jesus.

As to the woman in Revelations…if that is referring to Mary, why the time flashing? First there is Mary, in great pain, about to be delivered of the Christ child, and they have the war in heaven AFTER this event?

Remember, God is not confined by time and space. In heaven, it happened all at once.

 

[dianaiad]

Remember, God is not confined by time and space. In heaven, it happened all at once.

This is irony, right?