One of the biggest issues Protestants have with venerating Mary boils down to monergism vs synergism. In Protestant theology it’s a zero-sum game. If human agents are venerated, praised, or seen as producing good works through our cooperation with God’s grace, this is seen as taking away from God. When they read “it is finished” they interpret that to mean Christ has done everything and thus we can do nothing but passively receive what Christ unilaterally decrees. We Catholics do not see it as a zero-sum game. We unite our sufferings to Christ. We cooperate with His grace. We participate in His Truth, Good, and Beauty. None of this takes away from God. On the contrary, it is all made possible by Him and Him alone.
it’s the fact you think dead men from over a thousand of years ago, motivated by the same incentives as anyone else, get final say on what the Bible means. it’s so really fascinating you think that should be a compelling reason for anyone else to abandon their own common sense reading.
as if people in the past are immune from lying or something. lol
it’s an obstacle for me because it’s a straight up lie. mary is not sinless, she was not born of a virgin, she is not alive, she is not answering prayers.
The people who knew the apostles directly, and were taught by their students and so forth, not only had access to the apostles' writings but also to their oral teachings (2 Thess. 2:15).
This is why their interpretation of Scripture is more authoritative: they had access to greater authorities and resources than we do now.
Whose interpretation do you find more trustworthy: a student of the apostles, or someone with a theology degree who lived 2,000 years after them?
it’s the fact you think live men, motivated by the same incentives as anyone else, get final say on what the Bible means. it’s so really fascinating you think that should be a compelling reason for anyone else to abandon the commonly understood reading of text that has been translated several times and was written in the past, in different cultures, with symbolic meanings.
as if people in the present are immune from lying or something. lol
it’s not an obstacle for me because it’s a straight up fact. mary is sinless, she was not born of a virgin (Catholics do not believe Mary was born of a virgin), she is alive, she is not answering prayers (Catholics do not believe Mary answers prayers, but through the power of God is able to listen and support your prayers - only God can answer prayers).
If this worship of Mary was Biblical, it would be explicit in the Bible. This idea that it got sorted out later makes no sense and just shows how quickly the Catholic Church went astray. The Reformation was highly needed to get away from Catholic non biblical doctrines that did so much harm.
I just got back from Europe and toured many medieval churches. The Catholic ones had Mary everywhere. Churches named after Mary. The constant statues. Mary was a simple village girl who went along with God's plan. That's it. She was not immaculately conceived. She went on to have children with Joseph. You do not need her or any other saint to intercede for you. There is nothing that special about her.
Mary is the one from whom God received His fleshly body. He chose to dwell inside of her for 9 months, to be raised by her, and to spend most of His earthly life with her.
The same God who would strike down anyone who came near the mount He appeared on, for it was holy ground. The same God who dwelled in the Ark of the Covenant and caused anyone who touched the Ark unworthily to die.
How could the woman God chose to dwell in be "nothing special"?
It is actually unbiblical for you to claim that Mary is nothing special when Scripture tells us she is highly favored by God, all generations will call her blessed, etc.
Not sure how you come to the conclusion that there’s “nothing that special about her” from your reading of Scripture.
She was highly favored to be given opportunity to bear Jesus. Blessed for same reason. That does not in any way make her birth immaculate or her prayers anymore intercessory. Jesus makes clear in Bible that no intercessor is needed.
"Reformed thinkers such as Michael Horton, R.C. Sproul, John MacArthur, and James White have all asserted their opposition to Catholic Marian theology on the grounds that it is unbiblical"
Comment from an Eastern Orthodox: we are repeatedly told by the Reformed that Catholics and Orthodox are making a Straw Man of Sola Scriptura. "Sola Scriptura", they tell us, "doesn't mean using nothing but the Bible, it means that the Bible is the only infallible authority." If there are other authorities besides the Bible, even if they're merely excellent and not infallible, then Catholics and Orthodox are under absolutely no obligation to prove their beliefs from the text of Bible. The presence of things like Icon Veneration, etc. among Extrascriptural authorities like the Lives Of The Saints, the Philokalia, etc. can theoretically vindicate it, if the Protestant is honest and consistent. So to see the Reformed demand anyone prove anything "from the Bible" is to betray what they've said the definition of "Sola Scriptura" really is.
A couple of thoughts: You're spot-on about the Protestant demand to see everything explicitly in Scripture. It's maddening when this demand is made, and then Catholics try to "prove" their dogmas biblically, as if the Protestant's presuppositions about legitimate sources (source!) of doctrine must be granted. But we aren't even starting with agreed upon premises! We Catholics don't think everything has to be proven explicitly in the Bible.
Obviously, we hold that all Church teaching will be in continuity with all biblical truth, but to capitulate to this demand ("Show me the chapter and verse!") is to grant the Protestants' presupposition that all must be proven by Scripture alone.
Some Protestants will admit other authoritative sources (eg early councils) but only those that agree with their particular denominational teaching--denominations that hold to teachings which are largely out of sync with the majority of Christian history (eg sola scriptura).
Lastly-- I do think you downplay the popular piety of many Catholics that slips into "Maryolatry." You're right to admit that this is out of step with Church teaching and due to poor catechesis, but to say "I'm sure they're out there somewhere" makes it sound like a much more rare occasion than it is. This kind of Marian devotion ABOUNDS in Mexico and South American countries, and in parts of Europe.
Protestants do not accept the writings of the fathers as authoritative We accept their writings as useful where they accurately and clearly state biblical truths.
Sure seems like it. Constant references to Mary. Churches named after her. The Rosary. Claiming she was immaculately conceived. Claiming she stayed a virgin (?). Claiming praying to her is the way to God.
The Blessed Virgin Mary is one of God’s greatest gifts to mankind. Her approved Apparitions have always come true and always they lead us to a stronger faith in her son Jesus Christ.
It’s that she’s not in the New Testament that frequently, and Paul doesn’t mention her by name at all and gives no instruction to the Romans or the Corinthians or anyone else as to how they are supposed to think about her.
I don’t thing we are supposed to pray to anyone but the one true God. Mary is a dead Jewish woman of some historical importance. There is no biblical warrant to pray to her, expect benefits from her, or elevate her above her station as a child if God like the rest of us.
The “emojis” are brackets there to show relationships between various different text & context & how they are related to each other…… They are not there to stimulate or trigger you emotionally… There is simply no other way to do it with just plain text & “emojis” are what's avilable here…. In my book I use FONT SIZE & DIFFERENT COLORS with a color guide but that is simply not a option here
There is a difference between telling a thing and demonstrating a thing….
The demonstration is what is required not just happy thoughts about opinions
One of the biggest issues Protestants have with venerating Mary boils down to monergism vs synergism. In Protestant theology it’s a zero-sum game. If human agents are venerated, praised, or seen as producing good works through our cooperation with God’s grace, this is seen as taking away from God. When they read “it is finished” they interpret that to mean Christ has done everything and thus we can do nothing but passively receive what Christ unilaterally decrees. We Catholics do not see it as a zero-sum game. We unite our sufferings to Christ. We cooperate with His grace. We participate in His Truth, Good, and Beauty. None of this takes away from God. On the contrary, it is all made possible by Him and Him alone.
it’s the fact you think dead men from over a thousand of years ago, motivated by the same incentives as anyone else, get final say on what the Bible means. it’s so really fascinating you think that should be a compelling reason for anyone else to abandon their own common sense reading.
as if people in the past are immune from lying or something. lol
it’s an obstacle for me because it’s a straight up lie. mary is not sinless, she was not born of a virgin, she is not alive, she is not answering prayers.
The people who knew the apostles directly, and were taught by their students and so forth, not only had access to the apostles' writings but also to their oral teachings (2 Thess. 2:15).
This is why their interpretation of Scripture is more authoritative: they had access to greater authorities and resources than we do now.
Whose interpretation do you find more trustworthy: a student of the apostles, or someone with a theology degree who lived 2,000 years after them?
it’s the fact you think live men, motivated by the same incentives as anyone else, get final say on what the Bible means. it’s so really fascinating you think that should be a compelling reason for anyone else to abandon the commonly understood reading of text that has been translated several times and was written in the past, in different cultures, with symbolic meanings.
as if people in the present are immune from lying or something. lol
it’s not an obstacle for me because it’s a straight up fact. mary is sinless, she was not born of a virgin (Catholics do not believe Mary was born of a virgin), she is alive, she is not answering prayers (Catholics do not believe Mary answers prayers, but through the power of God is able to listen and support your prayers - only God can answer prayers).
If this worship of Mary was Biblical, it would be explicit in the Bible. This idea that it got sorted out later makes no sense and just shows how quickly the Catholic Church went astray. The Reformation was highly needed to get away from Catholic non biblical doctrines that did so much harm.
I just got back from Europe and toured many medieval churches. The Catholic ones had Mary everywhere. Churches named after Mary. The constant statues. Mary was a simple village girl who went along with God's plan. That's it. She was not immaculately conceived. She went on to have children with Joseph. You do not need her or any other saint to intercede for you. There is nothing that special about her.
Mary is the one from whom God received His fleshly body. He chose to dwell inside of her for 9 months, to be raised by her, and to spend most of His earthly life with her.
The same God who would strike down anyone who came near the mount He appeared on, for it was holy ground. The same God who dwelled in the Ark of the Covenant and caused anyone who touched the Ark unworthily to die.
How could the woman God chose to dwell in be "nothing special"?
You can exalt Mary all you want, based on later non Biblical teachings, but it doesn't make it Biblical.
It is actually unbiblical for you to claim that Mary is nothing special when Scripture tells us she is highly favored by God, all generations will call her blessed, etc.
Not sure how you come to the conclusion that there’s “nothing that special about her” from your reading of Scripture.
She was highly favored to be given opportunity to bear Jesus. Blessed for same reason. That does not in any way make her birth immaculate or her prayers anymore intercessory. Jesus makes clear in Bible that no intercessor is needed.
"Reformed thinkers such as Michael Horton, R.C. Sproul, John MacArthur, and James White have all asserted their opposition to Catholic Marian theology on the grounds that it is unbiblical"
Comment from an Eastern Orthodox: we are repeatedly told by the Reformed that Catholics and Orthodox are making a Straw Man of Sola Scriptura. "Sola Scriptura", they tell us, "doesn't mean using nothing but the Bible, it means that the Bible is the only infallible authority." If there are other authorities besides the Bible, even if they're merely excellent and not infallible, then Catholics and Orthodox are under absolutely no obligation to prove their beliefs from the text of Bible. The presence of things like Icon Veneration, etc. among Extrascriptural authorities like the Lives Of The Saints, the Philokalia, etc. can theoretically vindicate it, if the Protestant is honest and consistent. So to see the Reformed demand anyone prove anything "from the Bible" is to betray what they've said the definition of "Sola Scriptura" really is.
Our Lady's perpetual virginity was definitely my last hurdle on my way back to the true Faith. Great article.
A couple of thoughts: You're spot-on about the Protestant demand to see everything explicitly in Scripture. It's maddening when this demand is made, and then Catholics try to "prove" their dogmas biblically, as if the Protestant's presuppositions about legitimate sources (source!) of doctrine must be granted. But we aren't even starting with agreed upon premises! We Catholics don't think everything has to be proven explicitly in the Bible.
Obviously, we hold that all Church teaching will be in continuity with all biblical truth, but to capitulate to this demand ("Show me the chapter and verse!") is to grant the Protestants' presupposition that all must be proven by Scripture alone.
Some Protestants will admit other authoritative sources (eg early councils) but only those that agree with their particular denominational teaching--denominations that hold to teachings which are largely out of sync with the majority of Christian history (eg sola scriptura).
Lastly-- I do think you downplay the popular piety of many Catholics that slips into "Maryolatry." You're right to admit that this is out of step with Church teaching and due to poor catechesis, but to say "I'm sure they're out there somewhere" makes it sound like a much more rare occasion than it is. This kind of Marian devotion ABOUNDS in Mexico and South American countries, and in parts of Europe.
Protestants do not accept the writings of the fathers as authoritative We accept their writings as useful where they accurately and clearly state biblical truths.
But the exalting of Mary is not in the Bible.
All generations shall call me blessed.
Queen stands at the right hand with gold of ophir
Queen with 12 stars on her head and moon at her feet
Being Blessed is far from being practically worshipped.
Yawn. We don't worship. You don't understand worship. This argument has been debunked at nauseum
You say so, but then why are so many churches named for Mary, so many statues, constant references about her interceding.
True. Which is why we don’t exalt Mary.
Sure seems like it. Constant references to Mary. Churches named after her. The Rosary. Claiming she was immaculately conceived. Claiming she stayed a virgin (?). Claiming praying to her is the way to God.
That is Catholic doctrine, not Protestant. Catholics use extra biblical sources for doctrine and practice.
Yes, The Catholics have invented, massaged all kinds of things.
That is Catholic doctrine, not Protestant. Catholics use extra biblical sources for doctrine and practice.
The Blessed Virgin Mary is one of God’s greatest gifts to mankind. Her approved Apparitions have always come true and always they lead us to a stronger faith in her son Jesus Christ.
Besides lack of reading and study?
It’s that she’s not in the New Testament that frequently, and Paul doesn’t mention her by name at all and gives no instruction to the Romans or the Corinthians or anyone else as to how they are supposed to think about her.
My gut thinks it's misguided idolatry for the most part. But, these are fighting words with the Roman and Greek churches so, that's that.
I don’t thing we are supposed to pray to anyone but the one true God. Mary is a dead Jewish woman of some historical importance. There is no biblical warrant to pray to her, expect benefits from her, or elevate her above her station as a child if God like the rest of us.
"Protestants’ Real Problem with Mary"
... as meaningful as
"Catholics real worship of Mary"
How about not pretending you know what Protestants en masse think and just addressing where you think they're wrong?
You need more emojis
The “emojis” are brackets there to show relationships between various different text & context & how they are related to each other…… They are not there to stimulate or trigger you emotionally… There is simply no other way to do it with just plain text & “emojis” are what's avilable here…. In my book I use FONT SIZE & DIFFERENT COLORS with a color guide but that is simply not a option here
There is a difference between telling a thing and demonstrating a thing….
The demonstration is what is required not just happy thoughts about opinions