Catholics, Protestants, and Immaculate Mary

The Catholic Thing ^ | December 8, 2012 | David G. Bonagura, Jr.

[NYer]

Do Catholics worship Mary? This question is as old as the Protestant Reformation itself, and it rests, like other disputed doctrinal points, on a false premise that has been turned into a wedge: the veneration of Mary detracts from the worship of Christ.

This seeming opposition between Mary and Christ is symptomatic of the Protestant tendency, begun by Luther, to view the entirety of Christian life through a dialectical lens – a lens of conflict and division. With the Reformation the integrity of Christianity is broken and its formerly coherent elements are now set in opposition. The Gospel versus the Law. Faith versus Works. Scripture versus Tradition. Authority versus Individuality. Faith versus Reason. Christ versus Mary.

The Catholic tradition rightly sees the mutual complementarity of these elements of the faith, as they all contribute to our ultimate end – living with God now and in eternity. To choose any one of these is to choose them all.

By contrast, to assert that Catholics worship Mary along with or in place of Christ, or that praying to Mary somehow impedes Christ’s role as “the one mediator between God and men” (1 Tim 2:5) is to create a false dichotomy between the Word made flesh and the woman who gave the Word his flesh. No such opposition exists. The one Mediator entrusted his mediation to the will and womb of Mary. She does not impede his mediation – she helps to make it possible.

Within this context we see the ancillary role that the ancilla Domini plays in her divine Son’s mission. Mary’s is not a surrogate womb rented and then forgotten in God’s plan. She is physically connected to Christ and his life, and because of this she is even more deeply connected to him in the order of grace. She is, in fact, “full of grace,” as only one who is redeemed by Christ could be.

The feast of Mary’s Immaculate Conception celebrates the very first act of salvation by Christ in the world. Redemption is made possible for all by his precious blood shed on the cross. Yet Mary’s role in the Savior’s life and mission is so critical and so unique that God saw it necessary to wash her in the blood of the Lamb in advance, at the first moment of her conception.

Called (from the series Woman) ©2006 Bruce Herman

  [oil on wood, 65 x 48”; collection of Bjorn and Barbara Iwarsson] For more information visit http://bruceherman.com

This reality could not be more Biblical: the angel greets Mary as “full of grace” (Luke 1:28), which is literally rendered as “already graced” (kecharitōmenē). Following Mary, the Church has “pondered what sort of greeting this might be” for centuries. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception, ultimately defined in 1854, is nothing other than a rational expression of the angel’s greeting contained in Scripture: Mary is “already graced” with Christ’s redemption at the very moment of her creation.

Because God called Mary to the unique vocation of serving as the Mother of God, it is not just her soul that is graced, as is the case for us when we receive the sacraments. Mary’s entire being, body and soul, is full of grace so that she may be a worthy ark for the New Covenant. And just as the ark of the old covenant was adorned with gold to be a worthy house for God’s word, Mary is conceived without original sin to be the living and holy house for God’s Word.

Thus Mary is not only conceived immaculately, that is, without stain of sin. She also is the Immaculate Conception. Her entire being was specifically created by God with unique privilege so that she could fulfill her role in God’s plan of salvation. “Free from sin,” both original and personal, is the necessary consequence of being “full of grace.”

Protestants claim that veneration of Mary as it is practiced by Catholics is not biblical. St. Paul encouraged the Corinthians to “be imitators of me, as I am of Christ” (1 Cor 11:1). Paul is not holding himself up as the end goal, but as a means to Christ, the true end. And if a person is imitated, he is simultaneously venerated.

If we should imitate Paul, how much more should we imitate Mary, who fulfilled God’s will to the greatest degree a human being could. Throughout her life she humbled herself so that God could be exalted, and because of this, Christ has fulfilled his promise by exalting his lowly mother to the seat closest to him in God’s kingdom.

Mary is the model of humility, charity, and openness to the will of God. She allows a sword to pierce her heart for the sake of the world’s salvation. She shows us the greatness to which we are called: a life free from sin and filled with God’s grace that leads to union with God in Heaven. She is the model disciple, and therefore worthy of imitation and veneration, not as an end in herself, but as the means to the very purpose of her – and our – existence: Christ himself.

God’s lowly handmaiden would not want it any other way.

[Natural Law]

"Nice way to avoid stating that whatever Stan starts; he can surely end."

I don't know who Stan is or what he has to do with this discussion, but I do know what Jesus said about the impossibility of Satan doing good works. If you want to dispute that take it up with the original author. I will follow His teachings and not play in your little gotcha game of pin-the-heresy-on-the-Catholic.

Peace be with you.

[WVKayaker]

"Every one to whom much is given, of him will much be required; and of him to whom men commit much they will demand the more."

Luke 12:48- ὁ δὲ μὴ γνούς, ποιήσας δὲ ἄξια πληγῶν δαρήσεται ὀλίγας. παντὶ δὲ ᾧ ἐδόθη πολύ, πολὺ ζητηθήσεται παρ’ αὐτοῦ, καὶ ᾧ παρέθεντο πολὺ περισσότερον αἰτήσουσιν αὐτόν.

Maybe I miss something in the Greek, but exactly where does it talk about MEN committing to men?

A more literal translation can be found in the NIV...

But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.

A. The speaker is God, in residence on Earth, as Jesus, His Son.

B. He is speaking to his disciples, in front of a multitude, explaining basic truths.

C. Once again, Peter misses the point...(12:41)

D. Once again, the RC theology/historicity centers on men...

From Darby's Bible Synopsis...

... Let us here, in a note, sum up the contents of these two chapters, that we may better understand the instruction they contain. In the first (12) the Lord speaks, in order to detach the thoughts of all from this world to the disciples, by directing them to Him who had power over the soul as well as the body, and encouraging them with the knowledge of their Father's faithful care, and His purposes to give them the kingdom; meanwhile they were to be strangers and pilgrims, without anxiety as to all that happened around them to the multitude, by shewing them that the most prosperous man could not secure one day of life. But He adds something positive. His disciples were to expect Him from day to day, constantly. Not only should heaven be their portion, but there they should possess all things. They shall sit at meat, and He Will Himself serve them. This is the heavenly portion of the church at the Lord's return. In service until He comes service that requires incessant watchfulness; it will then be His turn to serve them. We next have their inheritance, and the judgment of the professing church and of the world. His teaching produced division, instead of establishing the kingdom in power. But He must die. This leads to another subject the present judgment of the Jews. They were on the road, with God, towards judgment (chapter 13). The government of God would not manifest itself by distinguishing the wicked in Israel through partial judgments. All should perish, unless they repented. The Lord was cultivating the fig tree for the final year; if the people of God did not bring forth fruit, it spoilt His garden. To make a pretence of the law in opposition to a God present with them (even He who had given them the law) was hypocrisy. The kingdom was not to be established by the manifestation on earth of the King's power. It should grow from a little seed until it became an immense system of power in the earth, and a doctrine which, as a system, should penetrate the whole mass. On inquiry being made whether the remnant was numerous, He insists upon entrance by the narrow gate of conversion, and of faith in Himself; for many would seek to enter into the kingdom and not be able: when once the Master of the house had risen up and shut the door (that is, Christ being rejected of Israel), in vain should they say that He had been in their cities. Workers of iniquity should not enter into the kingdom. The Lord is speaking here entirely of the Jews. They shall see the patriarchs, the prophets Gentiles even from all parts in the kingdom, and themselves outside. Nevertheless the accomplishment of the rejection of Christ did not depend on the will of man, of the false king who sought, by the Pharisees' account, to get rid of Him. The purposes of God, and alas! the iniquity of man, were fulfilled together. Jerusalem was to fill up the measure of her iniquity. It could not be that a prophet should perish except at Jerusalem. But then the putting man to the proof in his responsibility closes in the rejection of Jesus. He speaks, in touching and magnificent language, as Jehovah Himself. How many times this God of goodness would have gathered the children of Zion under His wings, and they would not! As far as depended on the will of man, it was complete separation and desolation. And in fact it was so. All was over now for Israel with Jehovah, but not for Jehovah with Israel. It was the prophet's part to reckon on the faithfulness of his God and assured that this could not fail, and that, if judgments came, it would only be for a time to say, "How long?" (Isaiah 6:11; Psalm 79:5). Distress is complete when there is no faith, no one to say, "How long?" (Psalm 74:9). But here the great Prophet Himself is rejected. Nevertheless asserting His rights of grace, as Jehovah, He declares to them, unasked, the end of their desolation. "Ye shall not see me until ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord." This sudden manifestation of the rights of His divinity, and of His divinity itself, in grace, when as to their responsibility all was lost in spite of His gracious culture, is surpassingly beautiful. It is God Himself who appears at the end of all His dealings. We see from this recapitulation that chapter 12 gives us the heavenly portion of the church, heaven, and the life to come; chapter 13 adding to it (with Verses 54-59 of chapter 17 Luke 17:54-59) the government of Israel and of the earth, with the outward form of that which should replace it here below. ...

[Elsie]

...but I do know what Jesus said about the impossibility of Satan doing good works.

So; are you claiming it's IMPOSSIBLE for Satan to end something he started?

[RnMomof7]

That scripture, isolated from the rest of scripture, and out of context can be misleading.

2Th 2:9 [Even him], whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,

The miracles are lies/deception/because the purpose of all miracles is to lead us to Christ.. not anyone else

The exact greek definition is 1) a lie
2) conscious and intentional falsehood
3) in a broad sense, whatever is not what it seems to be a) of perverse, impious, deceitful precepts

The purpose of these satanic miracles is to point to other gods.. and what is the result of these deceptive miracles?

2Th 2:10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
2Th 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
2Th 2:12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

These miracles do not point to Christ or the gospel , they point to a false god, in this case a mary that has been co opted by satan to deceive

Remember that the Egyptian magician witch-priests who opposed Moses--were able to do real miracles

De 13:1-8 If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among youand announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder, and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken TAKES PLACE,and he says, "Let us follow other gods" "and let us worship them," you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The Lord your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul...."

Here is what Jesus said

Mat 7:22 Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?'

Mat 7:23 Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

Mat 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders;insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

Mark 13:22 For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall show signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.

"An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign; but no sign shall be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah." (Matthew 12:39)

These miracles point the people to just the one honored in the post..not Christ ..but to a false demonic Mary

[Natural Law]

"Maybe I miss something in the Greek"

Where did anyone discuss men committing to men? The discussion was that Catholic clergy had not been held accountable to God. Luke 12:48 discusses a parable of a slave not fulfilling his masters requirements.

"From Darby's Bible Synopsis..."

You lost me right there. There is nothing of value or merit in his exegesis for me, other than the observation of the fabrication of the errors of Futurism, Dispensationalism, the rapture and numerous others and it is nothing I want to waste my time on. Rest assured, many Catholics are very well versed in Scripture and do not need Protestants to approach us at the level of telling us what the Bible is, what it does and does not contain and what it means. Thanks, but no thanks.

Peace be with you.

[presently no screen name]

I do, however, appreciate those who hold Catholic clergy to a higher standard than those of any other religious or secular institution as I do.

A higher standard than what? Man-made 'religions' which ARE secular - all put themselves on the bottom rung as that is where pride goes. Their fall is closer to the ground. They need to protect their thin skin.

There is only ONE standard and that is JESUS, The Word!

[RnMomof7]

How often do Catholics need to hear that elder and priest were 2 separate words in greek..and the Holy Spirit knows Greek..saying things over and over is only self deception

the greek word for elder is different than the greek words for priest.. archiereus which translates into “High Priest” and hiereus which translates one that OFFERS SACRIFICES.

The role of the priesthood in scripture was to offer sacrifices.. That is what a priest does in scripture.. God set aside one tribe to be priests, they were not granted any land as God was their inheritance .

The greek have a couple words for priest

hiereus

1) a priest, one who offers sacrifices and in general in busied with sacred rites
a) referring to priests of Gentiles or the Jews,
2) metaph. of Christians, because, purified by the blood of Christ and brought into close intercourse with God, they devote their life to him alone and to Christ

and archiereus

Outline of Biblical Usage
1) chief priest, high priest
2) the high priests, these comprise in addition to one holding the high priestly office, both those who had previously discharged it and although disposed, continued to have great power in the State, as well as the members of the families from which high priest were created, provided that they had much influence in public affairs.
3) Used of Christ because by undergoing a bloody death he offered himself as an expiatory sacrifice to God, and has entered into the heavenly sanctuary where he continually intercedes on our behalf.

Neither role is given in scripture for the new church ..

Christ fulfilled the role of Priest on the cross.. there is no more sacrifice for sin

He is now our High Priest..

The word for elder is presbyteros here is the GREEK definition
1) elder, of age,
a) the elder of two people
b) advanced in life, an elder, a senior
1) forefathers
2) a term of rank or office
a) among the Jews
1) members of the great council or Sanhedrin (because in early times the rulers of the people, judges, etc., were selected from elderly men)
2) of those who in separate cities managed public affairs and administered justice
b) among the Christians, those who presided over the assemblies (or churches) The NT uses the term bishop, elders, and presbyters interchangeably
c) the twenty four members of the heavenly Sanhedrin or court seated on thrones around the throne of God

Now the Holy Spirit knows the difference in the greek words.. there is no priesthood provided for in the NT church.

There was no priests in the new church.it was about 300 AD before the first priesthood appeared..

Greg Dues has written Catholic Customs & Traditions, a popular guide (New London: Twenty Third Publications, 2007). On page 166 he states,
“Priesthood as we know it in the Catholic church was unheard of during the first generation of Christianity, because at that time priesthood was still associated with animal sacrifices in both the Jewish and pagan religions.”

“A clearly defined local leadership in the form of elders, or presbyteroi, became still more important when the original apostles and disciples of Jesus died. The chief elder in each community was often called the episkopos (Greek, ‘overseer’). In English this came to be translated as ‘bishop’ (Latin, episcopus). Ordinarily he presided over the community’s Eucharistic assembly.”

“When the Eucharist came to be regarded as a sacrifice, the role of the bishop took on a priestly dimension. By the third century bishops were considered priests. Presbyters or elders sometimes substituted for the bishop at the Eucharist. By the end of the third century people all over were using the title ‘priest’ (hierus in Greek and sacerdos in Latin) for whoever presided at the Eucharist.”

[Syncro]

I'm not defending Protestantism, but commenting on Catholic leaders.

And the slipping aside to speak of congregation members, store clerks etc.

Perhaps Protestants send their errant leaders to other areas where they can continue their sins, but that's another topic.

I do know of one case where a leader was removed from one church for public disgrace sin, and another church took him in as a pastor. He was supposed to take some time off to get himself right with God. Not Biblical for any Christian church, org etc.

Nothing prevents anyone from doing anything wrong (except good old fashioned conviction listened to), but church leadership (Protestant or mainline Christainity) does their job in most cases I have seen.

[Natural Law]

"So; are you claiming it's IMPOSSIBLE for Satan to end something he started?"

Do not put words in my mouth, Satan is who he is. He is a creature is not omnipotent. Jesus tells us that Satan will not act against himself. When God permits evil it is only to facilitate a greater good.

Peace be with you.

[RnMomof7]

The scriptures existed before the Roman church ...Luther was not infallible ...and there was no official scriptural canon at until Luther

[Natural Law]

"A higher standard than what?"

I do not expect any creature to be perfect, but I do expect more of them because of their vocation than I do of Protestant clergy and secular leaders.

Similarly I do not expect much at all from the anti-Catholics on these threads and I am rarely disappointed. I do hope for their conversion, though.

Peace be with you

[daniel1212]

Doctrinally speaking, demonic ministers do not cast out demons in delivering souls from bondage, as Christ did and stated, but they can do miracles, yet which do not really deliver one from bondage but leave or place him in bondage.

And which demonic miracles are a test to allow those who want darkness to choose it.

“Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. “ (2 Thessalonians 2:9-10)

“And Moses and Aaron went in unto Pharaoh, and they did so as the Lord had commanded: and Aaron cast down his rod before Pharaoh, and before his servants, and it became a serpent. Then Pharaoh also called the wise men and the sorcerers: now the magicians of Egypt, they also did in like manner with their enchantments. “ (Exodus 7:10-11)

“And the fish that was in the river died; and the river stank, and the Egyptians could not drink of the water of the river; and there was blood throughout all the land of Egypt. And the magicians of Egypt did so with their enchantments: and Pharaoh’s heart was hardened, neither did he hearken unto them; as the Lord had said. “ (Exodus 7:21-22)

“And Aaron stretched out his hand over the waters of Egypt; and the frogs came up, and covered the land of Egypt. And the magicians did so with their enchantments, and brought up frogs upon the land of Egypt. “ (Exodus 8:6-7)

And while the response by some to this problem is to give God a sabbatical rest from working miracles, yet God changeth not, and overcomes deception with the Truth, and evil with Good (but help Thou my unbelief in my trials):

“For they cast down every man his rod, and they became serpents: but Aaron’s rod swallowed up their rods. “ (Exodus 7:12)

And the magicians did so with their enchantments to bring forth lice, but they could not: so there were lice upon man, and upon beast. Then the magicians said unto Pharaoh, This is the finger of God: and Pharaoh’s heart was hardened, and he hearkened not unto them; as the Lord had said. “ (Exodus 8:18-19)

“But if I with the finger of God cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of God is come upon you. “ (Luke 11:20)

And as Jesus is the Arm of the Lord, and the Holy Spirit the the finger of God (who wrote the 10 commandments), then believers are in good hands with the Almighty.

Note however that if Jewish exorcists did cast out demons (”And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your sons cast them out? therefore shall they be your judges. “ - Luke 11:19) - but not by presuming to use the name of Jesus, whom they knowingly rejected, (Acts 19:13-16) then it may teach that some degree of wrong theology need not necessarily exclude God from working thru otherwise sincere believers in Him.

[Natural Law]

"How often do..."

How often do you feel compelled to recycle old posts? This one was posted by you on June 13, 2010 and was very eloquently rebutted by Mad Dawg that same day. No need bringing it up again in another 18 months, you aren't changing anyones mind.

Peace be with you

[Syncro]

"The Bible has very strict guidelines for leaders...." (fixed my thypos)

You make my point with the scripture you posted:

"Every one to whom much is given, of him will much be required; and of him to whom men commit much they will demand the more." - Luke 12:48

From the KJV:

⁴⁸ But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

As you can see, much more is required of those in leadership positions.

So considering the last bolded area above it it is obvious the members of the chruch deserve the best leaders possible.

[Jack of all Trades]

Thank you for your continuing efforts. I’ve read your posts on Catholicism over the past year or more, and they have helped me greatly.

[WVKayaker]

... Rest assured, many Catholics are very well versed in Scripture and do not need Protestants to approach us at the level of telling us what the Bible is, what it does and does not contain and what it means.

You could have fooled me.

As for men committing to men, the Scripture you used for your illustration says: ...and of him to whom men commit much they will demand the more."

The Scripture offers no such words, no matter how you wish to twist it. You use Scriptures like a tool, but ignore what it says. Jesus was speaking to his disciples about requirements of life after He left them.

Your dismissal of Darby's also shows that you either had a lot of knowledge of his teachings, or you went back to your "catholic answers" for a response! Either way, your post further illustrates the RC laity lack of trying to educate him/herself, by posting such nonsense.

The Word says what it says, not what the RCC says it says! Please tell us where you find the basis for the heresy of your Mariology in the Word of God?

I have all the peace I need. I am covered by the Blood of Christ! You can use your favored closing until the cows come home, but my peace is from God, not from one so easily led by indoctrinations from their youth, (apparently in attempt to persuade others of their saintliness?)! If I really wanted to be snarky, I'd say "Peace on you!" It seems similar...

Just my opinions, based on my life of study! Only the Holy Spirit can guide you to the Truth John 16:7ff)! I end with a few of Paul's words to Timothy... Yet I am not ashamed, because I know whom I have believed, and am convinced that he is able to guard what I have entrusted to him for that day. -NIV

[daniel1212]

I am not willing to attribute their error to evil. I have no doubt that the vast majority of all regular participants on the Religion Forum are people of great faith that sincerely love God. None of us is completely without error in our attempts to understand the mysteries of faith. Let's deal with the error with respect to all parties.

THAT (which i missed before) most charitable statement is more than anything you have said here (and much different than some i have read in the past). And a challenge to all. Credit where credit it due.

[daniel1212]

You either do not understand Catholic doctrines or are intentionally playing word games. The intentions of the Mass have to do with the intent of the priest. They are the purpose for which the Mass is celebrated.

You are certainly free to espouse what ever you want about your particular flavor of Protestantism and your personal beliefs, but I would highly recommend that if you want to persist in telling Catholics what we believe you put in the effort to be correct.

I honestly find your brief response quite insufficient, or possible words games itself, as you plainly denied as "patently false" RnMomof7's statement that that "the validity of the eucharist depends on the intention of the priest during the consecration." And thus he is not stating the intention of the recipient is the issue, which is what you are refuting by saying "The intentions of the Mass have to do with the intent of the priest." And Pope Saint Pius V plainly states that There is no Sacrament if any of these is missing: the proper matter, the form, including the intention, and the priestly ordination of the celebrant.

And that "The intention of consecrating is required. Therefore there is no consecration in the following cases: when a priest does not intend to consecrate but only to make a pretense;"

Likewise Trent, "If anyone says that in ministers, when they effect and confer the sacraments, there is not required at least the intention of doing what the Church does,[6] let him be anathema.”

And the list and applicabilitygoes on .

Thus to deny that the validity of the Eucharist depends on the intention of the consecrating priest is what is contrary to RC teaching as provided. However, provided that the intention of the minister is true, the intention of receiving it is not required for the Eucharist.

[Syncro]

Only the Holy Spirit can guide you to the Truth John 16:7ff)! I end with a few of Paul's words to Timothy... Yet I am not ashamed, because I know whom I have believed, and am convinced that he is able to guard what I have entrusted to him for that day. -NIV

Thanks you so much for that, how true!

I asked this of salvation a couple of times, but got no answers.

I thought the following translation was a bit too Marianic:

"I will put enmity between you and the woman, between your seed (offspring) and hers; He (she) will crush your head while you strike at his (her) heel." - Genesis 3:15

I can't find that exact wording of Gen 3:15 in a parallel Bible, does it come from a Catholic translation?

Do you know if the Catholics have their own translation, which seems to subsitute Mary for Jesus?

"I will put enmity between you and the woman, between your seed (offspring) and hers; He (she) will crush your head while you strike at his (her) heel." - Genesis 3:15

I can't find that exact wording of Gen 3:15 in a parallel Bible, does it come from a Catholic translation?

[WVKayaker]

Do you know if the Catholics have their own translation, which seems to subsitute Mary for Jesus?

It seems to change with the season. Fish on Friday, pray to Mary, Latin to English in the liturgy, etal.

In your Genesis quote, it is better to include the whole thought. God placed "enmity" between the woman (Eve) and the serpent. Very few women like snakes!

But, the reference about her seed ONLY points to Jesus, our Savior.

...as Charles Spurgeon wrote on serpents...Let your tears fall because of sin; but, at the same time, let the eye of faith steadily behold the Son of man lifted up, as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, that those who are bitten by the old serpent may look unto Jesus and live. Our sinnership is that emptiness into which the Lord pours his mercy.