How I Changed My Mind About Mary

e3mil.com ^ | 5/6/02 | Mark Shea

[drstevej]

See post #127 regarding "full of grace" in the Greek. I addess the question in the post to you too.

[COBOL2Java]

Perhaps you could help me here?

Well, "Sola Scriptura" may not suffice, but the following may be helpful:

THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

PART 1, SECTION 2, CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE 3, PARAGRAPH 2, SUBSECTION 2, HEADING 2

The Immaculate Conception

490 To become the mother of the Saviour, Mary "was enriched by God with gifts appropriate to such a role." 132 The angel Gabriel at the moment of the annunciation salutes her as "full of grace". 133 In fact, in order for Mary to be able to give the free assent of her faith to the announcement of her vocation, it was necessary that she be wholly borne by God's grace.

491 Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, "full of grace" through God, 134 was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854:

The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Saviour of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin. 135

492 The "splendour of an entirely unique holiness" by which Mary is "enriched from the first instant of her conception" comes wholly from Christ: she is "redeemed, in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son". 136 The Father blessed Mary more than any other created person "in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places" and chose her "in Christ before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless before him in love". 137

493 The Fathers of the Eastern tradition call the Mother of God "the All-Holy" (Panagia), and celebrate her as "free from any stain of sin, as though fashioned by the Holy Spirit and formed as a new creature". 138 By the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long.

[RnMomof7]

Mary's sinlessness is not for her own sake, but for Jesus' sake. She had to be holy in order to be a worthy vessel for her utterly holy Son. So this doctrine upholds the holiness and deity of Christ.

Yet God was able to preform a miracle and make her sinless from two sinful parents...why not just make the Son sinless (Which he did) There was no need for Mary to be sinless if there was no need for HER parents to be sinless to have a sinless child .

[narses]

Of course there was no NEED, nonetheless, there was good reason. That reason convinced both the Apostolic Catholic Church and their Sister, the Apostolic Orthodix Church to understand her sinlessness. The fact that heretics choose to demonize her and try to (without any basis in scripture or tradition) make her into a sinful women can't change that reality.

[Antoninus]

Who said the following?

"Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . "brothers" really means "cousins" here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers." (Sermons on John, chapters 1-4, 1537-39).

"He, Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that." (Ibid.)

"It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary's soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God's gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin" (Sermon: "On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God," 1527).

"She is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin- something exceedingly great. For God's grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil. (Personal {"Little"} Prayer Book, 1522).

"[She is the] highest woman and the noblest gem in Christianity after Christ . . . She is nobility, wisdom, and holiness personified. We can never honor her enough. Still honor and praise must be given to her in such a way as to injure neither Christ nor the Scriptures." (Sermon, Christmas, 1531).

"Mary is the Mother of Jesus and the Mother of all of us even though it was Christ alone who reposed on her knees . . . If he is ours, we ought to be in his situation; there where he is, we ought also to be and all that he has ought to be ours, and his mother is also our mother." (Sermon, Christmas, 1529).

"Our prayer should include the Mother of God . . . What the Hail Mary says is that all glory should be given to God, using these words: "Hail Mary, full of grace. The Lord is with thee; blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus Christ. Amen!" You see that these words are not concerned with prayer but purely with giving praise and honor . . . We can use the Hail Mary as a meditation in which we recite what grace God has given her. Second, we should add a wish that everyone may know and respect her . . . He who has no faith is advised to refrain from saying the Hail Mary." (Personal Prayer Book, 1522).

Answer: Martin Luther.

Clearly, the only difference between Martin Luther and Catholic belief on Mary was on the value of intercessory prayer, which Luther denied. Honestly, any recent Protestant 'innovations' to the contrary must be based solely on 'private revelation' as honor and devotion to the Virgin can be shown to go back to the earliest days of Christianity.

[drstevej]

C2J: Well, "Sola Scriptura" may not suffice

Drj: My point. Take a crack at Post #127.

[Polycarp]

7. THE PROTESTANT REFORMERS ON MARY

When Fundamentalists study the writings of the Reformers on Mary, the Mother of Jesus, they will find that the Reformers accepted almost every major Marian doctrine and considered these doctrines to be both scriptural and fundamental to the historic Christian Faith.

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."¹

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."²

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..."³

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."⁴

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."⁵

"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."⁶ 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."⁷

"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."⁸ 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."⁹

"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."¹⁰

Ulrich Zwingli:

"It was given to her what belongs to no creature, that in the flesh she should bring forth the Son of God."¹¹

"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."¹² 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."¹³

"Christ ... was born of a most undefiled Virgin."¹⁴

"It was fitting that such a holy Son should have a holy Mother."¹⁵

"The more the honor and love of Christ increases among men, so much the esteem and honor given to Mary should grow."¹⁶

We might wonder why the Marian affirmations of the Reformers did not survive in the teaching of their heirs - particularly the Fundamentalists. This break with the past did not come through any new discovery or revelation. The Reformers themselves (see above) took a benign even positive view of Marian doctrine - although they did reject Marian mediation because of their rejection of all human mediation. Moreover, while there were some excesses in popular Marian piety, Marian doctrine as taught in the pre-Reformation era drew its inspiration from the witness of Scripture and was rooted in Christology. The real reason for the break with the past must be attributed to the iconoclastic passion of the followers of the Reformation and the consequences of some Reformation principles. Even more influential in the break with Mary was the influence of the Enlightenment Era which essentially questioned or denied the mysteries of faith.

Unfortunately the Marian teachings and preachings of the Reformers have been "covered up" by their most zealous followers - with damaging theological and practical consequences. This "cover-up" can be detected even in Chosen by God: Mary in Evangelical Perspective, an Evangelical critique of Mariology. One of the contributors admits that "Most remarkable to modern Protestants is the Reformers' almost universal acceptance of Mary's continuing virginity, and their widespread reluctance to declare Mary a sinner". He then asks if it is "a favourable providence" that kept these Marian teachings of the Reformers from being "transmitted to the Protestant churches"!¹⁷

What is interpreted as "Providence" by a Marian critic may legitimately be interpreted as a force of a very different kind by a Christian who has recognized the role of Mary in God’s plan.

NOTES

1 Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther's Works, English translation edited by J. Pelikan [Concordia: St. Louis], volume 24, 107.

2 Martin Luther, op. cit., Volume 11, 319-320.

3 Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther's Works,

English translation edited by J. Pelikan [Concordia: St.

Louis], Volume 4, 694.

4 [Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther's Works (Translation by William J. Cole) 10, p. 268.

5 [Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther's Works

(Translation by William J. Cole) 10, III, p.313.

6 Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther's Works, English translation edited by J. Pelikan [Concordia: St. Louis], Volume 51, 128-129.

7 John Calvin, Calvini Opera [Braunshweig-Berlin, 1863-1900], Volume 45, 35.

8 Bernard Leeming, "Protestants and Our Lady", Marian Library Studies, January 1967, p.9.

9 John Calvin, Calvini Opera [Braunshweig-Berlin, 1863-1900], Volume 45, 348.

10 John Calvin, A Harmony of Matthew, Mark and Luke (St. Andrew's Press, Edinburgh, 1972), p.32.

11 Ulrich Zwingli, In Evang. Luc., Opera Completa [Zurich, 1828-42], Volume 6, I, 639

12 Ulrich Zwingli, Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Volume 1, 424.

13 E. Stakemeier, De Mariologia et Oecumenismo, K. Balic, ed., (Rome, 1962), 456.

14 Ibid.

15 Ibid.

16 Ulrich Zwingli, Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Volume 1, 427-428.

17 David F. Wright, ed., Chosen by God: Mary in Evangelical Perspective (London: Marshall Pickering, 1989), 180.

                    
For technical questions concerning this website, please contact support at neweve.com

[xzins]

If someone wants to pay me to post on FR though, I'm willing

What are you thinking, hourly or salary?

[RnMomof7]

The fact that heretics choose to demonize her and try to (without any basis in scripture or tradition) make her into a sinful women can't change that reality.

I do not demonizer her..do not be dramatic..The truth is there is NOTHING in scripture to indicate that she was considered sinless by the early church..she was an obedient and holy woman..blessed by God..foreordained , elected for this purpose.

But nares..she was fully human, subjesct to the same temptations and sin as all of us..

She knew she needed a redeemer...Luk 1:47   And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.

Jesus said that only His Father was good...I think His words speak in support of Romans...

[RnMomof7]

RC's paste and copies do not help Poly:>) Luther was a Catholic Priest.

Sola Scriptura..prove all of that in scripture THEN we can talk:>)

[Polycarp]

I do not believe in sola scriptura. Sola scritptura ain't scriptural.

That's why I've pretty much given up swapping proof texts.

Its pointless.

What we have are different interpretation of scripture.

Scripture texts themselves prove nothing.

All differences here revolve around interpretation, for there can obviously be no such guide as some ideal "plain sense of scripture."

If scripture were to be taken at its plain sense face value, everyone would believe in the Real Presence and the authority of Peter.

Obviously no one agrees on scriptural interpretation.

Frankly, I don't believe scripture is a Catechism.

Not every Christian belief, including for instance the Trinity as it is understood today, is written on the face of scripture. "Trinity" is nowhere obvious from scripture's "plain sense."

Yes, its easy enough to deduce from scripture.

Yet so are other Catholic doctrines you reject.

[Polycarp]

Sola Scriptura..prove all of that in scripture THEN we can talk:>)

Sola Scriptura..prove Sola Scriptura in scripture THEN we can talk:>)

[COBOL2Java]

Sola Scriptura..prove all of that in scripture THEN we can talk:>)

Therein lies a difficult nut. As you may already be aware my friend, the Catholic Church professes its belief that Divine Revelation comes not solely from Sacred Scripture, but also in Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium of the Church. In order to fully appreciate the depth and breadth of Her beliefs one must, as in contemplating a three-dimensional work of art, examine all dimensions. Reference paragraphs 74 through 87 of The Catechism...

[Polycarp]

apart from this recent dogmatic assertion

Wrong. The belief that Mary was immaculate is an ancient belief. The only thing that could be said to be "recent" was the official explanation of how she was created that way. The Church waited until relatively recently to define her Immaculate Conception because it took so long to formulate theologically the means by which she was Immaculately conceived.

So, Mary's sinlessness was believed from the earliest Christians.

The manner in which God created Mary sinlessly was not fully or properly understood or formulated until recently.

You cannot argue that Mary's sinlessness is not an ancient belief based on the fact that the belief was not codeified until relatively recently. That is a false argument. The writings of the early Christians prove they believed Mary was sinless.

WARNING RnMomof7: Here follows one of Polycarp's dreaded cut and pastes!!! (I often wonder why you dislike my cut and paste, but deep down we both know its because they are irrefutable ;-)

Mary's Sinlessness Early Christian belief always associated Mary with Jesus in the divine plan. The Patristic writers referred to Mary as the "new Eve," who cooperated with Christ, the "new Adam." In the writings of Justin the Martyr (165 A.D.), Irenaeus (202 A.D.), Ephraem of Syria (403 A.D.), Cyril of Jerusalem (348 A.D.), Jerome (420 A.D.), Augustine (430 A.D.), Epiphanius of Salamis (403 A.D.), and John Chrysostom (407 A.D.), Mary is portrayed as bringing life (Christ) into the world, whereas Eve brought death, and Mary's humility and obedience is contrasted with Eve's pride and disobedience.

Mary's sinlessness in general was undisputed by early Christian writers. St. Ambrose (430 A.D.) wrote, ". . . Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain." Concerning Our Blessed Lady, St. Augustine declared, "I wish to have absolutely no question when treating of sin." St. Ephraem, in a poem addressed to Christ, penned "Thou and thy mother are alone in this—you are wholly beautiful in every respect. There is in thee, Lord, no stain, nor any spot in thy Mother." In praise of Mary, he wrote, "My Lady most holy, all-pure, all-immaculate, all-stainless, all-undefiled, all-incorrupt, all-inviolate . . . spotless robe of Him who clothes himself with light as with a garment . . . flower unfading, purple woven by God, alone most immaculate!"

St. Proclus (446 A.D.), Patriarch of Constantinople, wrote, "Mary is the heavenly orb of a new creation, in whom the Sun of justice, ever shining, has vanished from her soul all the night of sin." St. John Damascene spoke of Mary as "preserved without stain." Although agreeing that Mary was sinless in her behavior, the Church Fathers were divided on the question of her inheritance of original sin. Even the great Thomas Aquinas (1274 A.D.) could not resolve the issue; it remained for John Duns Scotus (1308 A.D.) to propose a "preservative redemption" rather than a "restorative redemption" for Mary. The Church took the decisive step on December 8, 1854, when Peter's successor, the venerable Pope Pius IX, infallibly defined the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. It was by this title that, four years later, Mary identified herself to St. Bernadette at Lourdes. And, in 1954, the first Marian Year was occasioned by the 100th anniversary of the proclamation of this beautiful truth.

[drstevej]

Let's look at this treatment of Calvin. First, the quotes do indicate a translational preference for 'cousin' rather than 'brothers', otherwise I see nothing of Marian doctrine in these quotes. Second the introduction to the quotes is interesting and I will comment on it.

It has been said that John Calvin belonged to the second generation of the Reformers [WHAT RELEVANCE IS THIS?] and certainly his theology of double predestination governed his views on Marian and all other Christian doctrine [STATEMENT WITHOUT PROOF. THIS IS A SIMPLISTIC, UNSUBSTANTIATED ASSESSMENT. SHOW HOW HIS PREDESTINARIAN VIEWS GOVERN HIS VIEWS OF MARY.]. Although Calvin was not as profuse in his praise of Mary as Martin Luther he did not deny her perpetual virginity [THIS STATEMENT IS TELLING. HE ALSO DID NOT DENY LIFE ON PLUTO]. The term he used most commonly in referring to Mary was "Holy Virgin" [AND THIS PROVES?].

=====
The Zwingli quotes reflect a belief in her perpetual virginity but there is no mention of her sinlessness unless you make the phrase chaste, immaculate to be two different things rather than synonyms. Might weak sustanatiation.

=====
Luther also accepted consubstantiation in contrast to all othe the non-Lutheran reformers and likely Melancthon as well. These quotes hardly speak for the Reformation.
======

The Opening Statement is just plain ludicrous and is either deliberately deceptive or lacks any substantial knowledge of the Protestant Reformation. Nice tactic to label this a Fundamentalist ignorance of history.

"When Fundamentalists study the writings of the Reformers on Mary, the Mother of Jesus, they will find that the Reformers accepted almost every major Marian doctrine and considered these doctrines to be both scriptural and fundamental to the historic Christian Faith."

I am not your typical fundamentalist and have studied the writings of the reformers in depth (PhD Reformation History and Theology, Westminster Semiinary) and I say, "Balderdash, pure debate tactics."

[drstevej]

Where is the biblical basis for the doctrine? I do not believe in infallible tradition ancient or recent. Acts 17:11.

[RnMomof7]

So, Mary's sinlessness was believed from the earliest Christians.

It is interesting that no one thought much about this or Marys"assumption" when they were writing the NT HUH?

All you have is Word of mouth from interested parties (a church that wants to maintain it's position and power) . That is not infallible to me..we have no common ground on this Poly

[Polycarp]

we have no common ground on this

Obviously. I don't buy Sola Scriptura. It is not scriptural. It is the opinion of men who rebelled against God's authority, an authority He granted to a Church He built.

Your belief system is so far removed from Christian reality that indeed we have very little common ground.

Unfortunately, I've given up apologetics here. I just don't have the time, and I have other more grave battles I'm fighting. Sorry I stepped into this.

I'm stepping back out. God Bless.

[drstevej]

Have a great 4th of July!
Steve

[Polycarp]

Where is the biblical basis for the doctrine?

You know our scriptural basis before you ask, you just disagree with our interpretation of it.

What's the point?

From the link above:

Catholicism needs only to show the harmony of a doctrine with the Bible. It is not our view that every doctrine of Christianity must appear whole, explicit, and often, in the pages of the Bible. We have also Sacred Tradition, Church Authority, and an acceptance of the development of understanding of essentially unchanging Christian truths. A belief implicitly biblical is not "anti-biblical" or "unbiblical," as many Protestants would have us believe. In fact, many Protestant doctrines are either not found in the Bible at all (e.g., "Bible alone" and the Canon of the Bible), are based on only a very few direct passages (e.g., the Virgin Birth), or are indirectly deduced from many implicit passages (e.g., the Trinity, the two natures of Jesus Christ). Likewise with the Immaculate Conception and other Catholic Marian beliefs.