Catholic Mariology, Authority, and Various Other Qualms of Protestants Considering Conversion

Biblical Evidence for Catholicism ^ | 11 February 2004 | Dave Armstrong

[annalex]

Catholic Mariology, Authority, and Various Other Qualms of Protestants Considering Conversion

Tuesday, January 31, 2006

[originally uploaded on 11 February 2004]

[Derived from actual correspondence with one such person (without violating any confidences): hence the use of first-person address]

If you consider yourselves actually out of the Protestant position, then I will simply have to help persuade you of the Catholic one, so you can get out of this limbo. I know you are the type of people who want to be really sure of what you believe. That's good, and I admire it. I advise folks in this position to take their time and not rush into anything. But at the same time, of course I want to help you feel totally comfortable with the Catholic outlook. If you're anything like me, you hate being uncertain and unsure. It's no fun.

My wife (who grew up Catholic) wasn't really "against" the Catholic Church. She came into Protestantism mainly because there was good fellowship to be had, and the local Assemblies of God church was where "things were happening." A sad commentary . . . I'm glad she did, otherwise we may never have met. I still remember the day that the lovely young girl with the "sad" but beautiful big "French" eyes visited our singles group. She jokes about how three or four guys that night cornered her and started running down the Catholic Church and acted most rude and obnoxious, but I didn't do that at all, and showed her my fall color photographs. :-)

I used to be in Inter-Varsity, and I was a campus missionary in the late 80s (independently; out of my church). That all collapsed and was an abysmal "failure." I was sort of in a place where you are at: not knowing what was in the future for me. My dreams had collapsed and it made no sense. I didn't want to do anything except apologetics and evangelism. That was my calling. But here I am, 15 years later, a full-time apologist! God works in mysterious ways. If someone had told me in 1986 that I would be a Catholic apologist and author, I would have taken them straight to an insane asylum, to make sure they were committed. LOL


I always advise potential converts that the road to the Church is not undertaken with Protestant methods. One doesn't "figure everything out" one-by-one and then make the leap. That is the Protestant method, and it is very ingrained (I know, firsthand). When you become a Catholic, at some point you simply accept the Church's authority because it is an entity far far greater than yourself. You may not understand everything, but who does, anyway?

What you come to see is that this is the Church and authority structure -- with all its human foibles and terrible, scandalous shortcomings in practice - that was ordained by God, and how He intended it to be. The true doctrine and "apostolic deposit" was passed down and it has been known all along. It isn't to be discovered in every generation, or "re-invented" like the wheel. All other knowledge works the same way (science, engineering, mathematics, musical theory, the received outlines of history, legal precedents, etc.), yet when it comes to religion, somehow people think that it is this entirely individualistic and subjective affair. It's very weird when you sit down and analyze it.

Oftentimes, if you ask such people what they think the Catholic Church teaches about Mary, it is clear that they don't understand it. True, millions of Catholics don't, either (the "ignorant" are, unfortunately, always with us, just like the poor), but neither do most Protestants. One must at least know what it is they are rejecting. One major reason why I do apologetics is that I want folks to know WHY they believe WHAT they believe. It builds faith and confidence, and it helps to incorporate reason into faith and theology.

Women approach the prospect of possible conversion in a very slow, deliberate, "holistic," instinctual, more practical way, whereas men tend to be far more abstract and propositional (one might describe the difference as "problem-solving" vs. "life experience and spiritual truths realized on a deep instinctive and emotional level of a whole person" - though my words are very inadequate to express my thoughts here). I hasten to add that I don't think one method is superior to the other: they are simply different, based on how God made us (if anything, I think the "female way" is the better of the two, if I had to choose). Kimberly Hahn's tape on Mary (which I heard in person) is one of the most incredible, moving talks I have ever heard: I think she is wonderful. On my Converts Page I have a separate section for women converts for this reason: their journeys tend to be of a very different nature than mens'.

When I first started thinking seriously about Catholic Mariology, I approached it in a more right-brained, typically "non-male" way than one might expect from me. I had been accustomed to giving Mary great honor, as the greatest woman (and indeed, created person, period) who ever lived. She was awesome to me: the very picture of womanhood and femininity.

When my Catholic friend started explaining to me how Mary was the "New Eve", that fascinated me and resonated in my spirit with my understanding of how God works in other ways. It didn't strike me as "unbiblical" or excessive or "corrupt" at all. The concept is simple: Eve said "no" to God and Mary said "yes." Eve's choice led to the Fall, and Mary's led to the Incarnation and Redemption. She represented the human race (and for once we got it right). God wanted it to be that way. Human beings had fallen based on free choice and God wanted them to be redeemed by a free choice as well (as opposed to being declared saved apart from their free will). But Mary's choice was, of course, steeped in God's grace and entirely derived and enabled by it. She wasn't doing this on her own power, as if she were intrinsically superior to all other creatures.

As I recall, this was the first step of my deepening Mariology. But it wasn't really that big of an issue for me. My issues were infallibility; especially papal infallibility. I thought that was the most absurd and implausible thing ever to cross the mind of man . . .

The very notion that you as an individual have to "make all the Catholic pieces fit into a big puzzle" presupposes the Protestant idea of private judgment. You don't have to. What you have to do is become convinced that the Catholic Church is what it claims to be, and the Guardian of the Apostolic Deposit. Once you get to that point, you can accept all that it teaches as a reasonable, plausible choice, just as we do in all other fields of knowledge. The scientist accepts the laws of thermodynamics or Newton's laws of motion, etc.

The Catholic accepts all that the Catholic Church teaches because he believes that the Church was guided by God to be infallible in matters of faith and morals: in those things which Catholics are bound to believe as dogma. And beyond that, he believes that God desired that His theological and spiritual truth be known with a high degree of certainty: not that people have to search their entire lives to find it. Doesn't that make sense? Doesn't that sound like how God would want things to be, since Christianity has to do with the most important things in life?

It's really not that different from Protestantism's approach to the Bible. They believe that the Bible is inspired and inerrant because God desired it to be so, and because it is His word (thus, could not be otherwise). Men could have corrupted the Bible, BUT for God's protection of it. Sinful men wrote it (David, Paul, Peter), but that didn't stop it from being inerrant and inspired and infallible because God saw to it that it would be so.

And you can't figure out every "problem" of biblical exegesis or hermeneutics or difficult passages. No one can. If every "problem" and seeming contradiction had been resolved, then the Bible scholars would have far less to talk about, wouldn't they? There wouldn't be books like Gleason Archer's Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties. Obviously, if there were no "difficulties" at all, that book wouldn't be written or needed. You may believe that all the difficulties can theoretically be resolved and that there are answers whether we find them or not (as I do), but
that is different from actually resolving them and attaining certainty.

Yet Protestants believe the Bible is inspired and inerrant and infallible by faith, based on what they know, and existing strong evidences. They are justified in believing this, and it is rational. It is not blind faith. The Catholic attitude towards their Church is very similar: we accept in faith the notion that God wanted to have one Church represent His doctrine and truth in its fullness (not excluding many elements of truth in other Christian traditions at all). To do so, He had to specially protect it from error (just as He did with the Bible-writers).

The gift or charism of infallibility is a lesser one than inspiration. It is easier to believe that God simply prevented popes from teaching error and falsehood in certain circumstances (a fundamentally preventive measure) than to believe that He positively inspired the words of Bible-writers and caused them to write his very inspired ("God-breathed" - theopneustos) words. Why should one be harder to believe than the other? If one can believe the greater miracle, why not the lesser? It doesn't rest upon weak, fallible men, but upon God Almighty.

This is a roundabout way of saying that one comes to believe that the Church has authority to declare on doctrines and once having done so, the person accepts teachings like those on Mary which may be hard to understand. We acknowledge our own limitations and weaknesses and blind spots and biases. The inquirer into Catholicism and Catholic Mariology can also read stuff like my papers on Mary, which are designed to show that the teachings are not at all unbiblical or anti-biblical (though often not explicitly biblical).

If the doctrines can be shown to be biblically-plausible or at least possible, then much of the battle is won. I find that the more difficult thing to dissuade Protestants of is the more presuppositional idea that everything must be explicitly biblical, and that sola Scriptura (Scripture as the final infallible authority-in-practice over against popes and councils) is true. That's a whole separate discussion, but suffice it to say for now that it is not at all clear in the Bible itself that this is true. If it is true, then it is a truth no more explicit in the Bible (I say, far less so) than Mariology itself. And this gets into questions of logical incoherence and circularity.

None of us have all the answers. At some point we must bow to authority. Every Protestant does this, just as every Catholic does: they simply give authority to different things in different ways. Another huge discussion . . . The Bible itself (even presupposing sola Scriptura, for the sake of argument) certainly talks a lot about both authority and the Church. People differ on what exactly it teaches, but there is something there. Paul discusses tradition quite a bit. And he shows no indication that there is any doubt in his mind as to what is contained in that tradition.

You will have no choice but to follow your conscience, whatever the cost, if it leads you to Catholicism. The good news is that, oftentimes, Protestant friends and family are not as alarmed and offended and horrified by conversion as we think they might be. If we continue to love them and show that we are no different relationship-wise, then they accept it. It may take a little time (especially if they are anti-Catholic), but they'll come around. When I converted, my mother (a lifelong Methodist) somehow thought I would be this different person. I simply told her, "look; I'm the same old me. I won't be any different from the son that you have known all along. I've just moved from one brand of Christianity to another."

Some people may forsake you and think you're weird or whatever. Others may refuse to talk about those issues but otherwise you will get along fine (I have a relationship like that with a very dear Protestant friend of mine, with whom I used to live and work in the 80s - it is an unspoken agreement to avoid all the controversial issues). But this is no different from what Jesus told us to expect, anyway. He said families would be divided and that discipleship was costly. If other people can't accept our choices made under God, in conscience and faith, with the use of reason and study and bathed with prayer, then in the end that is their problem. It may be difficult and painful and hurtful, for sure, but no one ever promised that following Jesus was a bed of roses.

But it is not as hard as you think it will be. Trust me on this. God has brought you to this place to be a witness. It will be exciting, I am convinced, and you will be happy to be able to share what you have learned, after the initial (quite understandable and justified) fears that you are going through now. You are in the place you are in because God ordained it so, as He ordains all things, in His Providence. He will give you words to speak when the time comes to share your faith and your new discoveries. And it will be some of the most spiritually-fulfilling times you have ever had. I hope I am not being presumptuous. I'm trying to encourage you. Having gone through the "tunnel" and emerged out of it, I can see the light at the end of it, whereas you cannot right now because you are in the tunnel.

It is a good to want to be very sure and confident about Catholic teaching and especially the biblical rationale for them, for the sake of explaining to Protestat friends after conversion. I wholeheartedly agree with that. As with all apologetics, you shouldn't feel that you have to have a quick answer at all times. You don't. I don't. Nobody does. You can always say that you need to study so-and-so and get back to them. No one has all the answers -- let alone quickly, on the spot. This is good, though, because it shows people that you are:

1) honest;

2) not proud or arrogant and claiming to know everything, but humble, with an admission of your own limitations;

3) fully aware that such journeys (including your own) are not all based on reason and apologetics in the first place, but on God's grace, which often goes beyond words and quick responses.

To begin to give an answer with regard to Mariology, one way is to argue that more fully-developed Mariology is not inconsistent with biblical analogies. In other words, if a Protestant is objecting to the very notions as "unbiblical," then if you can show them that directly analogous notions are quite biblical, then the Mariological ones must be, too. Therefore, they are not excessive, because they flow from explicitly biblical modes of thought, at least. It's a bit subtle, but I have come to love this form of analogical argument. That comes right from Cardinal
Newman: my "hero." In this vein, see my paper (dialogue with a fairly well-known and solid Protestant apologist, Robert Bowman, who does a lot of great work): Dialogue on the Biblical Analogies to the Concept of Mary Mediatrix.

The notion of Mary as a mediatrix of all graces is a very difficult one for most Protestants to even grasp, let alone accept. I think it was based on centuries of reflection by very holy and wise Christians, of what it means to be the Theotokos and Immaculate. It comes (arguably it developed from) the idea of the New Eve. We know that in Adam, all men fell. The devil caused that, but we participated as a human race in rebellion against God; we are one entity: the human race; God's creatures, so we could all fall "in Adam" as the Scripture says (this is explicit teaching in the Bible).

So when we get to the "yes" of Eve and the historical beginning of the redemption of the human race and Christ's work for us, we see that, again, God chose to involve a human being. He could have simply said (bypassing the Incarnation and the Cross) "this group of people are saved, and these are not" - based on simply His election with no ultimate regard for human choices or based on some "middle knowledge" whereby He incorporates what He knows of how people will follow Him or not (as a function of His omniscience).

He could have chosen to not become a man. God could have done anything He wanted to do. But He chose to be born of a woman and to involve the human race in its own redemption, in order to "undo" the Fall. Once the Incarnation was God's choice, then Mary became "necessary" as a human being, to make it possible. Her very body was intimately connected with God Incarnate. It is a mystery and a beautiful truth of almost unspeakable majesty and glory and wonder.

So God involved Mary: a human being, in that. I would argue, then, that if God could do all that: then why is it implausible that He could choose to use Mary as an intercessory vessel in His plan of redemption and cause all grace to originate from Himself (of course; by definition) but to merely flow through her? He had already involved her in the Incarnation, by means of the Annunciation. The human race was already raised to extraordinary heights by God becoming Man. So why not go one step further and give Mary this awesome responsibility of being a vessel through which all grace can flow?

The amazing thing is that God would use human beings like that (by extension, any of us) at all. But He chose to do so. And if Mary can be Theotokos and if all of us can potentially be vessels of grace (like a pipe serves to bring water: having no intrinsic relation to the water and not "producing" it at all), how is it implausible for her to be chosen by God to participate in His redemptive plan as an entirely secondary, not intrinsically necessary agent?

This is typically how God works: for example, consider procreation (note the very word). We don't create another human soul as parents. Yet without us (as secondary, contributing causes), these souls do not come into being, because we provide the genetic matter and the physical element which along with the soul makes a human being. God actually lets us participate in the "creation" of a human being and an eternal soul. He wants to involve people. Catholic Mariology starts with this assumption: that Mary had a sublime place in the redemptive plan of God and was the person He wanted to use in the most extraordinary fashion. It fits with how He works in many other areas.

Upon reflection, then, this is seen to be not at all contrary to biblical teaching or what we know about God. It is not explicit, but there can be no prima facie objection to it from the Bible. A sola Scriptura position will disallow it from the outset, but if that objection can be overcome on other grounds, then it is quite worthy of belief. I would recommend reading these two papers in this order:

The Imitation of Mary
A Biblical and Theological Primer on Mary Mediatrix

Many Protestants have a real hard time with the repetition in the Rosary, and what they see as an extreme over-emphasis on Mary, But repetition itself is not at all unbiblical. In Psalm 136, e.g., the same exact phrase is repeated for 26 straight verses. See my paper: A Fictional Dialogue on "Vain Repetition," the Mass, and the Liturgy.

One must understand the functional purpose of the repetitive prayers of the Rosary. They serve as a sort of "rhythm" or "background" of the meditations, just as music serves as the "carrier" of the lyrics, in hymns or even classical and secular music. It is a (rather ingenious) way to concentrate the mind on the spiritual things at hand: "Hail Mary, full of grace" . . . Repetition itself is not a bad thing. Protestants often have pet phrases and things repeated over and over ("praise God," "hallelujah," "thank you Jesus," "glory to God," etc.). The repetition is not implying a superiority of Mary to Jesus at all: it is simply a technique to foster the meditation: which itself is mostly centered on Jesus. And most of the Hail Mary is right in the Bible, as you know, so it is simply repeating (mostly) a Bible passage. In that sense, it is little different from Psalm 136 and many other such repetitious passages.

Many Protestants feel that the form prayers of Catholics are too formulaic and dry and uttered without feeling or passion. But this is often merely an example of personal bias. I understand this because I was extremely "un-liturgical" as a Protestant, and couldn't relate to that at all. I was a "Jesus Freak" who spent most of my time worshiping God in free-form, spontaneous worship services (often with rock music). I didn't like liturgy. It bored me and didn't move my spirit at all. Yet I now attend Latin Mass and absolutely love it. This form concentrates my mind and spirit on worship (along with our gorgeous German Gothic church) far more than the spontaneous worship ever did (though I continue to like that form, too: another case of "both/and" -- not "either/or").

Besides, serving God is not always about "feeling." I would hope that all Christians feel things, and deeply, but sometimes we have to do stuff that we don't particularly feel. It's true that Catholic prayers (in the heart of those uttering them) can become stale and sort of "dull", but that is not intrinsic to the prayers themselves, and has more to do with the internal dispositions of the person. Obviously, we could not oppose formula per se because that would take out the Bible as well. Protestant "chanting" of verses like John 3:16 could very well come under the same criticism. In other words, it is a general human failing, not a particularly Catholic one. A paper which deals with a similar issue would be the following: Sacramentalism and Inner Disposition.

I only hope you (if you decide to cross over) are not disappointed with our own share of nonsense and ludicrosity, on the human level, in the Catholic Church. I am reminded of something Malcolm Muggeridge wrote:

As Hilaire Belloc truly remarked, the Church must be in God's hands because, seeing the people who have run it, it couldn't possibly have gone on existing if there weren't some help from above. I also felt unable to take completely seriously . . . the validity or permanence of any form of human authority . . . There is . . . some other process going on inside one, to do with faith which is really more important and more powerful. I can no more explain conversion intellectually than I can explain why one falls in love with someone whom one marries. It's a very similar thing . . .

The conversion process is very strange - even frightening at times -, yet wonderfully exhilarating as it comes to a conclusion (as any of us who have experienced it can testify). We mustn't rush people who are going through this. And we must accept the genuine, sincere nature of their struggles. Those are my "guiding principles" - at any rate - when I counsel people in this life-situation.

[xzins]

So, you are accepting a "spiritual" interpretation of this chapter. Good.

Genesis 37:9 Then he had another dream, and he told it to his brothers. "Listen," he said, "I had another dream, and this time the sun and moon and eleven stars were bowing down to me." 10 When he told his father as well as his brothers, his father rebuked him and said, "What is this dream you had? Will your mother and I and your brothers actually come and bow down to the ground before you?" 11 His brothers were jealous of him, but his father kept the matter in mind.

Revelation 12:1 A great and wondrous sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. 2 She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth. 3 Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on his heads.

The woman does NOT ascend.

The woman does go into the wilderness. (Mary stayed in Jerusalem after the ascension. Later in life she went to Ephesus and not the wilderness.)

The woman has many spiritual children.

[annalex]

To ascend for Mary is to do what Christ did: go to heaven under her own power. Mary, we teach, was assumed: taken up by God. That is consistent with her being given wings and going where the river of vomit does not reach her. Heaven, indeed, is merely inferred from that chapter, and were we to take it literally we would say that she was flown to some remote desert and not assumed to heaven.

[RJR_fan]

I do not recognize myself, or my faith, or any aspect of my spiritual life at present, in your post at all. It's like you are writing about some sort of alternate, warped, backwards, un-real reality.

You know, we are all limited by our perspectives. Yet without our perspectives, we would not see anything. As I told my adult son once, "The world is really an interesting place when you see it from the inside of my head." Color me weird, if you wish, but don't forget to color me grateful to the God Who made His salvation known to me.

[Truth Defender]

and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

But what is meant by the above? "Netherworld" = Hades = Hell = what?

[Iscool]

You can specualte as day is long, the fact remains, the woman is identified as the physiological mother of Christ.

Fortunately, everyone can see this conversation...

Those that study the scriptures know that the woman is Israel...Israel is known as the 'woman' in many places in the O.T...A little bible study would clear up tons of bad Catholic Theology...

Mary goes to fight Satan with her children (the Church) while out of his reach herself, equipped with wings, till Satan is "cast unto the Earth".

Mary's got wings now, eh??? Did she turn into an angel??? What are her weapons??? What does she fight Satan with to whip him???

And Mary fights with her children up there in the sky somewhere, eh??? So if you make it out of purgatory, you get to go battle with Satan??? When does he lose the battle and drop down to earth???

Your Catholic Theology reads like an Edgar Rice Burroughs book...And just as good a fiction that he put out...

[xzins]

Any inferring in scripture is first toward those passages that are similar to this one. They are in Daniel, Genesis, and earlier in this Revelation. The woman herself is best seen in the light of the OT prophets’ references to the woman (people of God) God desired to have for Himself. Unfortunately, she always adulterated herself and was rejected. This one, however, is faithful.

She is driven into the wilderness. She gave birth to our Lord. Mary was representative of her. The faithful who say “yes” to God.

There is definitely no assumption of Mary in this passage. In fact, too much makes it impossible to be Mary.

[Iscool]

Similarly for the passage from Romans. Here St. Paul describes how he does things he knows to be wrong. He *knows*, to be wrong. How does he *know* these things are wrong? Certainly from the gift of faith, however, this gift from God must be a fact to him, or else it would be a fantasy, not able to convince him that what he does on occasion really *is* wrong.

Often, you guys almost leave me speechless...Here's the real deal:

Rom 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

Paul knew he was a sinner because he couldn't keep the law...And that's not the ceremonial law as you guys falsly claim...We're talking the 10 Commandments here...Paul became aware of sin when the Commandments showed up...Had nothing to do with faith...

[Truth Defender]

Simon Peter said in reply, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God."

Peter said: Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. (Mt. 16:18, Mark 8:29)

Martha said: I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, (John 11:27)

Hmmm....Martha said the same thing as Peter. Why didn't Jesus "bless" her as he did Peter? Where did Martha get the idea that Jesus was the Christ?

[Truth Defender]

His Church is built upon Peter, and it will persevere in Truth until the End, despite the utmost efforts of the Adversary.

And where do you find this in that statement of Mt. 16:18? I'm curious to where you get that.

[Truth Defender]

the river of Satan’s vomit

Where in the world do find such a description in the scriptures? Putting such phrases into use cautions me to suspect everything you say.

I'm sure you can do without such expressions, right?

[annalex]

All I did is read Chapter 12 as written, because as Catholic, I don’t fantasize what the Holy Scripture says, I simply read it and believe it.

[annalex]

All these typologies, — primarily, of the Catholic Church or even, at a great stretch, of Israel (protestant favorite), are indeed part of the Chapter 12 meaning, but that does not negate the fact that the “woman” is described as physiological mother of Christ, and He only has one of these.

[annalex]

“the serpent cast out of his mouth after the woman, water as it were a river” (ydor os potamon).

How would you describe the copious liquid that comes out of the mouth of Satan, (or in fact anyone else) and why the urge to not offend him?

[annalex]

St. John the Chrysostom asked a similar question and this is his answer:

CHRYS; And truly if Peter had not confessed that Christ was in a peculiar sense born of the Father, there had been no need of revelation; nor would he have been worthy of this blessing for confessing Christ to be one of many adopted sons; for before this they who were with Him in the ship had said, Truly you are the Son of God. Nathanael also said, Rabbi, you are the Son of God. Yet were not these blessed because they did not confess such sonship as does Peter here, but thought Him one among many, not in the true sense a son; or, if chief above all, yet not the substance of the Father. But see how the Father reveals the Son, and the Son the Father; from none other comes it to confess the Son than of the Father, and from none other to confess the Father than of the Son; so that from this place even it is manifest that the Son is of the same substance, and to be worshipped together with the Father. Christ then proceeds to show that many would hereafter believe what Peter had now confessed, whence He adds, And I say to you, that you are Peter.

Catena Aurea Matthew 16

Martha speaks these words after Christ tells her "I am the Resurrection"; likewise Nathaniel does so after Christ shows him His omniscience. But Peter confesses without leading questions, as a revealed knowledge from the Father.

[annalex]

This is what St. John had to say about Martha:

CHRYS. She seems not to have understood His words; i.e. she saw that He meant something great, but did not see what that was. She is asked one thing, and answers another.

Catena Aurea John 11

[RJR_fan]

As attracted as I am to the Catholic Church, and as much as the encroaching liberalism in the Protestant world has been goading me toward the Catholic Church, I simply cannot get past the Marian doctrines. I have stated elsewhere on this forum why and how I believe the Marian doctrines developed.

So much of what passes for protestantism in the US is either liberalism (unbelief -- "mainstream" religion) or pietism (one's personal experiences are the hub of the universe, and our highest calling is to spiral into our navels.) Despite all my disagreements with the RCC, I have to admit that they do offer a full-orbed all-encompassing vision of the Christian life.

However, they are not the only game in town. A perspective that might be called "Calvinism on steroids" has pretty well cornered the Protestant market on Biblical worldview thinking and writing over the last 40 years.

[thefrankbaum]

St. John the Chrysostom has a much better answer to your Martha question than I am capable of - see annalex's posts.

Regarding the Gates of Hell/Netherworld, they are the gates of death. Death is a result of sin, and sin began with the actions of the Serpent. That is Satan's legacy. Meanwhile, Christ has conquered Death. In order for us to do the same (and prevail against Death) we must become members of the Body of Christ - His Church. Since His Church is His Body, and He is the Truth, it will not err. I hope I am expressing myself clearly.

[Iscool]

All I did is read Chapter 12 as written, because as Catholic, I don’t fantasize what the Holy Scripture says, I simply read it and believe it.

Oh please...If you believed it, you'd know it wasn't Mary...

[unlearner]

“one can not show from the Scripture how this ‘support’ is gained or forfeited.”

I can. The scriptures assert their own authority. The meaning of most scripture is plain. The most essential message of God’s Word for our faith is simple enough for a child to understand. Of such is God’s kingdom. But these things are hidden from the wise and prudent.

“Where is this ‘rule’ found in the Bible?”

God has ordained that salvation is obtained through the simple message of the gospel.

Romans 1:16
For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes...

The essential message of the gospel is that Christ died, was buried, was raised from the dead, was seen by witnesses, ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES. Any other imagined Jesus, not according to the scriptures is a false Christ.

Luke 24:44-48
Then He said to them, “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.” And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures. Then He said to them, “Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And you are witnesses of these things.

1 Corinthians 15:1-8
Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.

2 Corinthians 11:3-4
But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted—you may well put up with it!

Galations 1:7-9
...there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed...

So where is THIS [on the basis of their agreeing with His word] rule in the Bible.

In the context of church authority, Jesus cited the unity of believers as the basis of acting with this authority both for discipline and prayer:

Matthew 18:18-20
Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. Again I say to you that if two of you agree on earth concerning anything that they ask, it will be done for them by My Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them.”

Again, praying for the church, the basis of both faith and unity is God’s Word:

John 14-23
I have given them Your word; and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. I do not pray that You should take them out of the world, but that You should keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth. As You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. And for their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they also may be sanctified by the truth. I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me.

To not recognize this “rule” is evidence of the failure to discern the body of Christ, which is the church. Discerning His body is required for communion according to 1 Corinthians 11:28-30. And if you do not discern the Lord’s body, it is not truly the Lord’s supper, as this passage explains.

[unlearner]

“You don’t offer specific criticism... If you want to discuss any particular scripture that you think contradicts Catholicism, let us do so.”

I can.

“Individual interpretations of isolated verses exist that, some Protestants claim, contradict the Catholic doctrines. “

Indeed, the Bible not only allows for believers to question those who are or assert themselves to be in spiritual authority over us, BUT it actually commands us to.

Many scriptures warn of false prophets and teachers. We are told to beware and test what we hear. For example:

Matthew 7:15
Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves.

1 John 4:1
Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

We confirm whether doctrine is true by comparing it with what the scriptures say:

Acts 17:11
These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.

It is the listener’s responsibility to discern and reject what is false, and for believers to separate from any individual or group that professes Christ but commits sins against the body of Christ:

Galatians 2:5
to whom we did not yield submission even for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.

Acts 19:9
But when some were hardened and did not believe, but spoke evil of the Way before the multitude, he departed from them and withdrew the disciples, reasoning daily in the school of Tyrannus.

1 Corinthians 5:9-11
I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person.

Jesus even allowed His listeners to test what He said:

John 10:37-38
If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and believe that the Father is in Me, and I in Him.

Jesus proved His testimony to be true on the basis of scripture:

John 8:16-18
And yet if I do judge, My judgment is true; for I am not alone, but I am with the Father who sent Me. It is also written in your law that the testimony of two men is true. I am One who bears witness of Myself, and the Father who sent Me bears witness of Me.

Christ commends those who test the claims of apostolic authority:

Revelation 2:1-3
...These things says He who holds the seven stars in His right hand, who walks in the midst of the seven golden lampstands: “I know your works, your labor, your patience, and that you cannot bear those who are evil. And you have tested those who say they are apostles and are not, and have found them liars; and you have persevered and have patience, and have labored for My name’s sake and have not become weary...”

“In fact, only the interpretation is in contradiction, and it is thereby a wrong interpretation, or at least one lacking substantial authority.”

An interpretation is not validated by an appeal to human authority, but by comparing scriptures and by inspecting the fruit of such doctrine. In the case of prophecy, another test is whether it comes to pass. As to my point above I can cite numerous scriptures which concur. The word of God is alive and authoritative by itself. A person’s ability to understand it is determined by their willingness to be obedient to it and to the Holy Spirit:

John 7:17
If anyone wills to do His will, he shall know concerning the doctrine, whether it is from God or whether I speak on My own authority.

Hebrews 4:12
For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

“Such is for example, the putative contradiction of Mary being free from all sin and prooftexts like ‘all have sinned’ in Romans or the fact that she called Christ her Savior. Neither implies Mary sinned.”

When the Bible repeatedly makes the same point so plainly a small child could understand it, it is unreasonable to call this a proof text. The sin of all of mankind is presented repeatedly with a view to the death of Christ being the only possible means of salvation. The universal sinfulness of mankind is a non-negotiable Biblical doctrine essential to the message of the Gospel and the meaning of Christ’s death. The Bible says Mary was a virgin when she conceived and gave birth to Christ. To assert that Christ’s purity and sinlessness was contingent on hers is a contradiction of scripture in the most extreme sense of perversion. Jesus existed before Mary, as He is the eternal Son and she His creation. She did not form Him. She did not contribute to His deity. She did not even make His humanity because she did not make her own humanity.

1 Kings 8:46
“When they sin against You (for there is no one who does not sin), and You become angry with them and deliver them to the enemy, and they take them captive to the land of the enemy, far or near;

2 Chronicles 6:36
When they sin against You (for there is no one who does not sin), and You become angry with them and deliver them to the enemy, and they take them captive to a land far or near;

Ecclesiastes 7:20
For there is not a just man on earth who does good And does not sin.

Isaiah 53:6
All we like sheep have gone astray; We have turned, every one, to his own way; And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.

Romans 3:9
What then? Are we better than they? Not at all. For we have previously charged both Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin.

Romans 3:23
for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

Romans 5:12
Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned—

1 John 2:2
And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.

“things that attempt to prove that Mary had other children because of the use of the word ‘brother’.”

There are multiple scriptures that support that Mary was a virgin when Christ was conceived and born, but not for her entire life. There are no scriptures that even hint that she remained a virgin. Joseph was not intimate with Mary UNTIL AFTER the birth of Christ according to Matthew 1:25.

“but then the concept of Sola Scriptura is itself counter-scriptural.”

If, that term is used to claim we cannot learn truth from other sources than the Bible such as conscience, nature, logical reasoning, the testimony of witnesses, and such, I agree with you. God has given many witnesses to the truth. When it comes to revealed truth upon which saving faith rests, their can be only one final authority. The Word of God takes precedence over other authoritative sources of truth. And that is not contrary to scripture.

Matthew 24:35
Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away.

1 John 3:20
... God is greater than our heart, and knows all things.

1 John 5:9
If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater; for this is the witness of God which He has testified of His Son.

“The answer to that is that we are not stuck in the carnal any more that Christ Himself, who chose to be incarnate to suffer carnally and die carnally for us.”

You apparently misunderstand my use of the term “carnal”. Christ lived as a flesh and blood man, but He was never carnal. My point is that a mind governed only by human reasoning will not recognize the supremacy of Christ over all else. Peter even fell into this trap at the transfiguration when he elevated Moses and Elijah to the same level as Christ:

Luke 9:32-36
But Peter and those with him were heavy with sleep; and when they were fully awake, they saw His glory and the two men who stood with Him. Then it happened, as they were parting from Him, that Peter said to Jesus, “Master, it is good for us to be here; and let us make three tabernacles: one for You, one for Moses, and one for Elijah”—not knowing what he said. While he was saying this, a cloud came and overshadowed them; and they were fearful as they entered the cloud. And a voice came out of the cloud, saying, “This is My beloved Son. Hear Him!” When the voice had ceased, Jesus was found alone. But they kept quiet, and told no one in those days any of the things they had seen.

Peter later referenced this account when testifying as to the authority of scripture. The supremacy of Christ is essential to unlocking the meaning of scripture.

“He also chose one woman — not two or more, and not zero — to bring Him into the carnal world. “

In elevating the role of Mary beyond what the Bible says, this doctrine fails to measure up to the standard of searching scripture to see if these things are so. The intimacy of spiritual union with Christ is greater than the physical union of Mary or anyone else who knew Christ during His first advent.

Matthew 12:50
For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.

2 Corinthians 5:16
Therefore, from now on, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him thus no longer.

It is possible for believers to sin and err. It is possible for churches to sin and err. God’s remedy for this is repentance.

Revelation 2:5-7
Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent and do the first works, or else I will come to you quickly and remove your lampstand from its place—unless you repent... He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches...

When will those who claim to be part of The Church, who claim to be believers in Christ, humble themselves under the authority of scripture and repent of teaching what contradicts scripture and of advocating practices which violate Christ’s commands?