Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Because of the Protestant Reformers Beliefs On Mary
Why I Am a Catholic ^ | 12/16/10 | Frank Weathers

Posted on 12/17/2010 7:31:07 AM PST by marshmallow

Back when I first joined YIMCatholic, I was going to write posts about my conversion. I hammered out seven posts in pretty rapid succession and then, I stopped writing them until recently.

Many of my posts now are simply my observations of the world which are colored through the lens of a convert to Catholicism. It would be difficult for them not to be. Other posts I've written are of the "look what I just found!" variety, and the "I want to share this with you" type. Call them the discovery posts if you will.

Recently I gave a talk on the Communion of Saints for my parishes RCIA group. Consequently, I've been answering questions of potential converts that have prompted me to explain my conversion to others.

Basically, this has resulted in my having become a neophyte evangelist of sorts for the Church. And though this blog space isn't the forum for heavy-duty apologetics, because others do that better elsewhere, I have always seen my role here at YIMC as one of evangelizing.

Back to my conversion story, when I was first confronting the idea of becoming a Catholic, I had to look hard at the question "Why am I Protestant?" Having just moved cross-country following my retirement from the Marines, I found out that my mother no longer went to church where we had gone when I was growing up. Instead of the non-denominational church I grew up in (and which we were a founding family of), I learned that she now went to a Presbyterian church instead. Hmmm.

Rather than start visiting all kinds of churches, which appealed to me about as much as shopping for a new car, my family and I kept going to the local Catholic parish in our new town while I did research and home improvement projects. One of the first things I looked into was the problem of Catholics and their obviously misguided devotion to the Virgin Mary.

The funny thing is, I had sat in the pews in the Catholic Church with my wife for close to 18 years and I had never really noticed any wacky or overly zealous devotion to Mary. Not at Mass, anyway, and as we didn't stick around much after the conclusion of Mass, I didn't see anything that made me uncomfortable. Truthfully, I was surprised about this and it's probably a big reason why I continued to sit in the pews with my patient Catholic wife for that long a time.

This didn't stop me from believing that weird Marian devotions were happening though, and I assumed talk of her perpetual virginity was just "crazy talk." Like most, I had no idea what the Immaculate Conception was either and I just thought people were referring to Our Lord's conception. I was ignorant, plain and simple. But I had in mind a mission to correct the wrong religious track that my family was on so I started planning the military campaign to retake the spiritual territory I had ceded to the Church. My first target was what I thought would be the easiest: Mary.

Before I went on my "destroy Marian Devotion" offensive, though, I knew I would have to do a little homework. Planning ahead, you see, I figured the best place to start was with the guys who picked up the Protestant Reformation football and ran with it for touchdowns. Follow the winners Frank, and victory will be yours!

But get this. Much to my surprise, nay, shock(!) I had to throw a penalty flag on myself and look for a different angle of attack. Because what I found out was that the Big Three "Reformers" all agreed with the Catholic Church's teachings on the Mother of God!

Here is what I found, courtesy of the site catholicapologetics.info,

Martin Luther:

Mary the Mother of God

Throughout his life Luther maintained without change the historic Christian affirmation that Mary was the Mother of God:

"She is rightly called not only the mother of the man, but also the Mother of God ... It is certain that Mary is the Mother of the real and true God."

Perpetual Virginity

Again throughout his life Luther held that Mary's perpetual virginity was an article of faith for all Christians - and interpreted Galatians 4:4 to mean that Christ was "born of a woman" alone.

"It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a Virgin."

The Immaculate Conception

Yet again the Immaculate Conception was a doctrine Luther defended to his death (as confirmed by Lutheran scholars like Arthur Piepkorn). Like Augustine, Luther saw an unbreakable link between Mary's divine maternity, perpetual virginity and Immaculate Conception. Although his formulation of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was not clear-cut, he held that her soul was devoid of sin from the beginning:

"But the other conception, namely the infusion of the soul, it is piously and suitably believed, was without any sin, so that while the soul was being infused, she would at the same time be cleansed from original sin and adorned with the gifts of God to receive the holy soul thus infused. And thus, in the very moment in which she began to live, she was without all sin..."

Assumption

Although he did not make it an article of faith, Luther said of the doctrine of the Assumption:

"There can be no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in heaven. How it happened we do not know."

Honor to Mary

Despite his unremitting criticism of the traditional doctrines of Marian mediation and intercession, to the end Luther continued to proclaim that Mary should be honored. He made it a point to preach on her feast days.

"The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart."

"Is Christ only to be adored? Or is the holy Mother of God rather not to be honoured? This is the woman who crushed the Serpent's head. Hear us. For your Son denies you nothing." Luther made this statement in his last sermon at Wittenberg in January 1546.

John Calvin:

It has been said that John Calvin belonged to the second generation of the Reformers and certainly his theology of double predestination governed his views on Marian and all other Christian doctrine . Although Calvin was not as profuse in his praise of Mary as Martin Luther he did not deny her perpetual virginity. The term he used most commonly in referring to Mary was "Holy Virgin".

"Elizabeth called Mary Mother of the Lord, because the unity of the person in the two natures of Christ was such that she could have said that the mortal man engendered in the womb of Mary was at the same time the eternal God."

"Helvidius has shown himself too ignorant, in saying that Mary had several sons, because mention is made in some passages of the brothers of Christ." Calvin translated "brothers" in this context to mean cousins or relatives.

"It cannot be denied that God in choosing and destining Mary to be the Mother of his Son, granted her the highest honor."

"To this day we cannot enjoy the blessing brought to us in Christ without thinking at the same time of that which God gave as adornment and honour to Mary, in willing her to be the mother of his only-begotten Son."

Ulrich Zwingli:

"It was given to her what belongs to no creature, that in the flesh she should bring forth the Son of God."

"I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin." Zwingli used Exodus 4:22 to defend the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity.

"I esteem immensely the Mother of God, the ever chaste, immaculate Virgin Mary."

"Christ ... was born of a most undefiled Virgin."

"It was fitting that such a holy Son should have a holy Mother."

"The more the honor and love of Christ increases among men, so much the esteem and honor given to Mary should grow."

I remember being blown away by these revelations. I had gone to Christian churches my whole life and I had been told what I was supposed to believe, and I had never been told these things about Mary. I felt a little bit like the fellow wearing tan below, even though I was really acting like the guy wearing black.

And then I thought, "methinks they dost protest too much." And like young Skywalker above, I too leaped with faith and lived to tell the tale. I didn't land on my feet though. Instead, I landed in the lap of Blaise Pascal.

And so began the process of my going back to the Scriptures and to the Church Fathers and back through the history of the Catholic Church, and finally back into the arms of Christ's Church Herself.

Perhaps this post is a prequel in the 2BFrank saga. Sheeeesh!

To read more about the Protestant Reformers views on the Blessed Virgin Mary, and to track down the footnotes too, head on over to catholicapologetics.info. Head over to Scripture Catholic too, and bring your Bibles. Then head over to the Vatican and look at the Catechism of the Catholic Church as well.


TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; Theology
KEYWORDS: freformed
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 1,541-1,558 next last
To: SnakeDoctor

But he’s not just God. He’s God and Man.

Why didn’t he inherit a fallen human nature like the rest of us, which he would work to overcome?

“how could she be without sin?”

The same way that God made Adam and Eve without sin. Christ kept Mary from sin at her immaculate conception so that she, as his mother, could pass on a perfect human nature, like Adam and Eve had so many years ago.


161 posted on 12/17/2010 2:12:36 PM PST by BenKenobi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi

My point was . . .

that the criticism the RC was lobbing at Proddys . . . was

AT LEAST

AS

VALID

lobbed against the RCC.

Period.


162 posted on 12/17/2010 2:13:20 PM PST by Quix (Times are a changin' INSURE you have believed in your heart & confessed Jesus as Lord Come NtheFlesh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi

The Holy Spirit can work through someone to ensure perfect transmission. That certainly doesn’t mean (1) He is necessarily doing so through the Pope/Vatican, (2) that every word out of the Catholic heirarchy is from the Holy Spirit, or, (3) that they the exclusive outlet for such work.

People can also say, and genuinely believe, that the Holy Spirit is working through them when He isn’t. The source of the doctrine which says that the Spirit doctrinally works through the Catholic heirarchy is ... the Catholic heirarchy. To me ... that’s not good enough.

SnakeDoc


163 posted on 12/17/2010 2:16:27 PM PST by SnakeDoctor ("They made it evident to every man [...] that human beings are many, but men are few." -- Herodotus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi

>> That’s because Christ never had a beginning. You folks *do* teach that Christ is Eternal?<<

His God side never had a beginning but His human side certainly did. You do believe that He was both fully human and fully God do you not?


164 posted on 12/17/2010 2:16:41 PM PST by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

Looks like you bailed on us.

Must mean you are reading “Bondage of the Will” by Luther. Keep at, my FRiend, there is great wisdom in there.


165 posted on 12/17/2010 2:19:03 PM PST by Dutchboy88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: SnakeDoctor
The source of the doctrine which says that the Spirit doctrinally works through the Catholic heirarchy is ... the Catholic heirarchy. To me ... that’s not good enough.

And yet, you take the Bible to be the true Word of God because those who published it said it was?

166 posted on 12/17/2010 2:22:01 PM PST by WrightWings (Remember, Remember, the Fifth of November...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi

>>So you are arguing that oral tradition is preserved in the Word?<<

As did Irenaeus, Yes I do. The Catholic Church today has fallen far from their original positions.


167 posted on 12/17/2010 2:22:33 PM PST by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeNewYorker

That’s a good question. Sorry I missed replying to it, I had to head out. Why then?

Let’s go back a bit further, the First Council of Nicaea. In 325, which proclaimed the nature of Christ’s divinity. Why did they wait close to 300 years to have this council? Wouldn’t it have been pertinent to establish this doctrine right away?

It was meant to address the heresies at the time which revolved around Arian and his denial of Christ’s divinity. It’s not as if Christ’s divinity wasn’t proclaimed right from the very beginning, but that until then, it had been unchallenged.

The same is true of purgatory. Purgatory has always been understood to be as such, it just wasn’t proclaimed until Trent and Florence, when the doctrine was challenged by the Protestants, in the same way as Arius challenged the nature of Christ’s divinity.


168 posted on 12/17/2010 2:24:56 PM PST by BenKenobi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear

The Church teaches that Scripture and Tradition are equally authoritative. So it would appear that you are confirming their doctrine.


169 posted on 12/17/2010 2:26:20 PM PST by BenKenobi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear

Sure do. And he cannot get a sinless human nature from God, does he?

Then he wouldn’t be fully man.


170 posted on 12/17/2010 2:27:32 PM PST by BenKenobi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: WrightWings

Not exactly.

The Bible has externally and internally verifiable information that lends credence to the account, and that it was, indeed, guided by the Holy Spirit. For instance, the archaelogicially and historically verifiable existence of people and places mentioned therein; the synchronization of purpose, message and events in accounts written by different authors over centuries of time; eyewitness accounts of miracles, and events; the fulfillment of prophecies from one author in centuries-earlier writings of another; the change in writing style between authors; etc., etc.

There are independent reasons to believe the voracity of the Bible, even if those reasons are not ironclad. The rest is faith.

SnakeDoc


171 posted on 12/17/2010 2:31:37 PM PST by SnakeDoctor ("They made it evident to every man [...] that human beings are many, but men are few." -- Herodotus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: Dutchboy88
OK, so help me out here.

The Catholic Church has it wrong about Mary. So too, did Luther, Calvin and Zwingli, apparently. At least as they're quoted here. Have I got that right?

So answer me the following questions.

1) When did "the reformers" (I use the term loosely to mean anyone from the 16th century onwards) start to get it right about Mary and who was the person who "saw the light", if not the three individuals (Luther et al.,) here mentioned?

2) How do we know that you........or anyone for that matter, is right about Mary whereas Luther et al., were wrong?

Bear in mind that you've already told me that "men are errant". That presumably includes you, too.

It's most amusing seeing you pour cold water on Luther but really, you have no alternative, do you? Faced with the glaring inconsistency between your own position and the words of the reformers, you can either admit that modern day Protestantism has completely wandered off the reservation with regard to Marian theology, or you can stubbornly maintain your own position and insist that Luther had it wrong.

Of course, if one goes with the latter, the obvious question which might pop into one's mind is "what else was he wrong about?" but that's for you to wrestle with.

172 posted on 12/17/2010 2:32:57 PM PST by marshmallow ("A country which kills its own children has no future" -Mother Teresa of Calcutta)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: SnakeDoctor

“The Holy Spirit can work through someone to ensure perfect transmission. That certainly doesn’t mean

(1) He is necessarily doing so through the Pope/Vatican,”

The vast majority of Popes haven’t made infalliable proclamations. So you are in line with what the Church teaches here.

“(2) that every word out of the Catholic heirarchy is from the Holy Spirit”

Also true, and this is why infalliability is limited to the Pope, and limited to matters of faith and morals, and limited to the explicit proclaimations, as was cited earlier in the thread. Everything else is fair game.

“(3) that they the exclusive outlet for such work.”

Where do they claim exclusivity? Catholics make the claim that the Pope believes X, and everyone else should believe X. Non-Catholics claim that just because the Pope believes X, doesn’t mean they should believe X.

Non-Catholics don’t claim infalliability. Ever. There’s a very good reason why they don’t, and we’ve touched on some of these reasons. However, to one looking on the outside of both, you really have to ask the question. Why don’t protestants affirm Luther’s infalliability? Because they don’t agree with him on all points so they would rather follow themselves.

As for following the heirarchy, the oldest NT manuscripts are the codex vaticanus and the codex sinaiticus. So you are using what the Pope says is true when you affirm sola scriptura. ;) Not to mention the endless Vulgates published over a millenium which formed the basis for the earliest modern translations.

So it’s pick your poison.


173 posted on 12/17/2010 2:36:00 PM PST by BenKenobi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: WrightWings
This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. (1 Corinthians 2:13)

I have no problem believing that God was more than capable of making sure his teachings were portrayed accurately.

God Bless

174 posted on 12/17/2010 2:37:23 PM PST by Vegasrugrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi

>>Then he wouldn’t be fully man.<<

By jove, then I think we are on to something here! If He Got his God nature from being God, then He must have gotten his fully human nature from a fully human ie sinfull nature, mother. That would mean that Mary could not have been without sin or Jesus would not have been able to carry our sin for us!


175 posted on 12/17/2010 2:37:36 PM PST by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi

>>The Church teaches that Scripture and Tradition are equally authoritative<<

Other then the Bible does teach that the traditions were then written down in Scripture. Sola Scriptura


176 posted on 12/17/2010 2:39:51 PM PST by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear

If Christ got a fully sinful human nature, from his fully sinful mother then how could he be without sin?

Not possible.

As for the Atonement, recall the “Passover Lamb without blemish”? Christ bore our sins because he was perfect, because he was sinless. Else the whole kit’n’kaboodle doesn’t work.


177 posted on 12/17/2010 2:41:04 PM PST by BenKenobi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear

Actually, I don’t think anyone believes in Sola Scriptura. You do believe in the Trinity, don’t you?


178 posted on 12/17/2010 2:41:56 PM PST by BenKenobi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: SnakeDoctor
The Bible has externally and internally verifiable information that lends credence to the account, and that it was, indeed, guided by the Holy Spirit. For instance, the archaelogicially and historically verifiable existence of people and places mentioned therein; the synchronization of purpose, message and events in accounts written by different authors over centuries of time; eyewitness accounts of miracles, and events; the fulfillment of prophecies from one author in centuries-earlier writings of another; the change in writing style between authors; etc., etc.

There are independent reasons to believe the voracity of the Bible, even if those reasons are not ironclad. The rest is faith.

While it is certainly not my intention to argue against the Bible, my point is that there is simply no way to verify/proove that it is, in fact, the Inspired Word of God. Independent reasons or not.

To modify your closing that "the rest is faith", I would say that it is all faith. I can appreciate that your path is not with the Catholic Church - but in no way does that mean those who do choose that path are following an errant faith.

179 posted on 12/17/2010 2:48:00 PM PST by WrightWings (Remember, Remember, the Fifth of November...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi

We do not believe in the existence of purgatory because there is no evidence for it in Scripture. The Bible speaks only of two destinations for those who die—heaven and hell.

Jesus promised the thief on the cross, who certainly had not led an exemplary life, that he would be with him in Paradise immediately.

There is no need for purgatory. A person who has faith in Christ has complete forgiveness of sins. There is no more debt to be paid. A person who does not have faith in Christ has no forgiveness of sins. No amount of time in purgatory could ever pay for his or her sins.

By rejecting the completeness of Christ’s payment for sins, this doctrine robs Christians of the comfort they should have at the time of their own death or the death of a Christian loved one.


180 posted on 12/17/2010 2:50:23 PM PST by Vegasrugrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 1,541-1,558 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson