Posted on 09/07/2020 12:09:29 PM PDT by CondoleezzaProtege
We Protestants certainly have a problem when it comes to Mary–so allergic are we to any sign of Marian devotion that we flip out and run the other way at any sign of it, including thoroughly orthodox phrases like “Mother of God” and “Hail Mary, full of grace.”
The first phrase is of course part of the touchstone of orthodoxy the Definition of Chalcedon, and is the proper translation of Theotokos–the preferred Protestant version (for those who even bother to recite it) is “God-bearer,” ... To call Mary the “Mother of God” was a truth that many Christians actually gave their blood and their lives to defend, and yet we Protestants have casually tossed it aside because it sounds icky and Catholic.
Likewise, the first part of the Ave Maria is of course straight from the Gospel of Luke: “Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you…. Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb.”
For almost as long as the Church has existed, it has held Mary in a place of special honour, and seen fit to show that honour liturgically. No doubt Marian devotion has taken many harmful forms, but should we not defer to the consensus of many centuries of Christians that some kind of Marian devotion is appropriate and desirable? Therefore we should seek to engage, together with Catholics, Orthodox, Anglo-Catholics, and long centuries of Christian practice, in whatever forms of Marian devotion that are not necessarily heretical, idolatrous, or what have you, and try to assume the best of forms that seem dubious or ambiguous.
(Excerpt) Read more at bradlittlejohn.com ...
The Greek word for *lord* is *kyrios*.
The Greek word for *god* is *theos*.
Saying *mother of my lord (kyrios)* is not equivalent to saying *mother of my God (theos)*.
It’s only wishful thinking and twisting of Scripture to try to force one to mean the other.
Mary did not give her assent.
The angel told her how it was going to be. He did not ask her permission therefore she could not assent to it.
Why is “Mary, mother of Jesus” as the Holy Spirit saw fit to identify her as, not good enough for Catholics?
In Catholicism Scripture is effectively too often made a servant .....................
The phrase *mother of Jesus* was never used in Scripture as a statement of the deity of Christ.
It was always used to identify which Mary of the several in Scripture the Holy Spirit was referring to.
Mary can certainly be admired as the bearer of the God-man, Jesus Christ. Though the Son of God has always existed, His incarnation (infleshment) occurred in a point of time 2000 years ago. God chose blessed Mary to be the woman who was honored to bear God-with-us. Her obedience, faithfulness, longsuffering and devotion are also traits to imitate. Apart from this, there is no place for "Marian devotion". Only Almighty God deserves our devotion. He alone is the Savior, the Redeemer, the Consoler, the focus of worship. As the Psalmist states,
Whom do we really have in heaven BUT God? Not "Saints", not Mary, but Almighty God alone. Devotion to a human being is a slap in the face to the One who alone deserves ALL our devotion. We can certainly honor Mary without devotion to Mary.
What?
Exactly.
And it the *church* wrote Scripture then it has the authority to rewrite if they so choose.
But they can’t so they invented *sacred tradition* to usurp Scripture.
But that then raises a question. If they did such a poor job the first time around with not being clear when writing Scripture that it needs to be constantly amended, why should we trust them to get it right now with *sacred tradition*?
Luk 2:19 but Mary kept all these things in her heart and thought about them often.
or
Luk 2:19 But Mary kept all these things and pondered them in her heart.
I have to believe Mary would be appalled at the idea of any honor or glory to her. She would point to Jesus.
Wow, Dan, that looong list reads like an indictment for heresies and blasphemies!
As long as you acknowledge that "some mocking, much condemnation as if they need execution" aimed at non-Catholic Christians is equally evil, then I would agree. I have enough confidence in my beliefs about Mary that not only can I defend why I don't believe the same way as Catholics do, I can still agree to disagree and leave it at that. It's between you and God.
The problem arises on these threads when Catholics get their dander up by the disagreement and start accusing others of hating or disrespecting Mary. We don't.
You might as well say that Jesus didn’t give his assent either.
What do you mean Jesus didn’t give His assent? It was His plan from the start
Yes they are - NOW. Yet before the incarnation the Son of God existed - He has always been, He is the I AM - the self-existent one. He didn't just come into existence when He was born in His human flesh.
How,so?
Unreal, isn’t it?
I’d agree both ways. But you don’t seem to understand. My point is partly, overwhelmingly I see hatred and vile coming from Protestants to Catholics on FR.
Perhaps as a late-comer Lutheran raised around loose Catholic practices I’m biased, but that is my honest view. Surely as blacks are more likely to bring out the vitriol, so are Protestants. At least here on FR.
Not to mention supposedly never sexually touching Mary despite sexual relations being how this union is described in Scripture (Gn. 2:24,25) And intending not to have children is one of the reasons the RCC normally holds as grounds for her "annulment."
Actually "The Catholic Church" (Roman or Eastern) presumes that it is the HIGHER AUTHORITY since Scripture and Tradition only consist and authoritatively means what she says, since she says so.
The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.” — Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 275.
For Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares. Out of which novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility flows the premise that she cannot salvifically error in teachings that are not considered to be infallible.
Thus are explained both her respect for the writings of the Fathers of the Church and her supreme independence towards those writings–she judges them more than she is judged by them.” — Catholic Encyclopedia: “Tradition and Living Magisterium” http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm
Not only does she wrongly presume that souls cannot ascertain what writings are of God apart from faith in her* (most of Scripture had been established as a body of inspired writings before there was a NT church), and then picks and chooses from so-called "church fathers" for support of her beliefs, but she can even claim to "remember" what early tradition "forgot" to record, and make belief in something into a dogma that requires belief, over 1700 years after the alleged event occurred.
A man by the name of Joseph Ratzinger explains:
Before Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven was defined, all theological faculties in the world were consulted for their opinion. Our teachers' answer was emphatically negative... Altaner, the patrologist from Wurzburg¦had proven in a scientifically persuasive manner that the doctrine of Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven was unknown before the 5C; this doctrine, therefore, he argued, could not belong to the "apostolic tradition. And this was his conclusion, which my teachers at Munich shared.
But...subsequent "remembering" (cf. Jn 16:4, for instance) can come to recognize what it has not caught sight of previously ["caught sight of?" Because there was nothing to see in the earliest period where it should have been, before a fable developed] .." (Joseph Ratzinger, Milestones (Ignatius, n.d.), pp. 58-59; emp. mine).
Add to that such scholarly confessions as from Lawrence P. Everett, C.Ss.R., S.T.D. who confesses:
In the first three centuries there are absolutely no references in the authentic works of the Fathers or ecclesiastical writers to the death or bodily immortality of Mary. Nor is there any mention of a tomb of Mary in the first centuries of Christianity. The veneration of the tomb of the Blessed Virgin at Jerusalem began about the middle of the fifth century; and even here there is no agreement as to whether its locality was in the Garden of Olives or in the Valley of Josaphat. Nor is any mention made in the Acts of the Council of Ephesus (431) of the fact that the Council, convened to defend the Divine Maternity of the Mother of God, is being held in the very city selected by God for her final resting place. Only after the Council did the tradition begin which placed her tomb in that city. More, by the grace of God.
*A premise in Catholic theology is that "no matter what be done the believer cannot believe in the Bible nor find in it the object of his faith until he has previously made an act of faith in the intermediary authorities..." - Catholic Encyclopedia>Tradition and Living Magisterium. "People cannot discover the contents of revelation by their unaided powers of reason and observation. They have to be told by people who have received in from on high."- Cardinal Avery Dulles, SJ, “Magisterium: Teacher and Guardian of the Faith,” p. 72; http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/08/magisterial-cat-and-mouse-game.html.
And thus (to avoid circular reasoning of proving the Scriptures by the church and the church by the Scriptures) "when we appeal to the Scriptures for proof of the Church's infallible authority we appeal to them merely as reliable historical sources, and abstract altogether from their inspiration." - Catholic Encyclopedia > Infallibility Whereby it is supposed that while one cannot recognize which writings are of God, yet it is allowed that one recognize that the Catholic church is of God. Meaning Scripture is then to be understood as only supporting said organization since she is the supreme authority on it. And thus the basis for assurance that something is of God is that the Catholic magisterium has told you this since she decreed that she is of God and cannot be wrong in what she decrees. .
And for those who at least admit that some of these supererogatorical ascriptions (of glory, power and titles which are nowhere in Scripture ascribed to Mary or any other created being) by many authors are wrong, then a recourse is to argue that these were not official teachings(which classification can be another can of worms), yet the same defenders hold that the "living magisterium" of their church is the answer to disunity (except when they disagree with it), but which leaves such authors of adulation uncensored.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.