[RobbyS]

“Normal” begs the question of her worthiness. There is nothing normal about the events in the first two chapters of Luke. They utterly transcend out own experience to the degree that the unbeliever finds them absurd, or “mythical,” A story intended to “dress up” the career of a failed prophet and as preposterous as the story of the Resurrection. A sinless venerated “Queen of Heaven” has a right to such selection, obviating any notion of blessedness. You say? But this is not the Catholic doctrine. We celebrate her “coronation" AFTER her assumption or exaultation. We believe she was chosen by the Father for the Son, as the fairest of his creatures. It is not by right but by the favor that the Father gave her that we celebrate her. The evangelical anti-Marianism always make me think that they regard the Virgin Birth as a kind of “stunt,”or supersign if you like , where the Father, rather than chosing a childless woman advanced in years, such as Sarah and Hannah and Elizabeth as “host” for his chosen one, chooses instead Mary, a young virgin who knows not man, to signifiy the greater worthiness of THIS prophet. Yes, I think that beneath the vague trinitarinism of the evangelical oft lies a vague Arianism.

[Elsie]

We celebrate her “coronation" AFTER her assumption or exaultation.

Which has NO scriptural references at ALL!

[Elsie]

The evangelical anti-Marianism always make me think...

About Catholic doctrine; evidently.

[daniel1212]

It is not by right but by the favor that the Father gave her that we celebrate her.

That simply is not true, as RCs without censure assert she is the most holy of all saints, surpassing them in virtue ("Mary surpasses all the saints in virtue so the grace her Son gives through her is immense enough to save all mankind" - http://www.rosary-center.org/ll61n2.htm) and now in power, and is given more ascriptions and attributes than all others, all of which is far beyond what Scripture says of her, which is little (though significant), esp. as compared with the sacrificial love and abundant labors and sufferings of Paul, who is hardly exalted by Rome in comparison to Mary.

We celebrate her “coronation" AFTER her assumption or exaultation.

Another examples of the disregard Scripture is treated with, as therein we see that the crowning of saints does not occur until after the resurrection, while now or then no one was the object of prayer to Heaven, much less having almost unlimited power ascribed to them, so that there requests are almost like commands to God.

The evangelical anti-Marianism always make me think that they regard the Virgin Birth as a kind of “stunt,”or supersign if you like ,

A charge devoid of examples from established evangelical churches or classic commentators (Henry, Barnes, Clarke, Gill, JFB, etc.) The valid anti-Marianism is against the Mary of Catholicism which is mythical.

Yes, I think that beneath the vague trinitarinism of the evangelical oft lies a vague Arianism.

Rather, historically evangelicals have overall manifested a common front and contention against those that deny the Trinity and other core doctrines, as well as against extra Biblical traditions of Rome, and even in the declension of today evangelicals are overall more conservative than those Rome counts and treats as members, while liberal scholarship abounds in Rome.

[ctdonath2]

““Normal” begs the question of her worthiness.”

We (Mary included) are not worthy. That’s the whole point.