i Ali! As we discussed briefly in this piece, your salvation is not assured. You need to repent your sin and make amends if you want to inherit eternal life. Please, do it today. Ask the Blessed Mother for the courage to do it. As salvation flowed from her womb, so too do all graces flow from her hands.
Catholics stress Mary way too much, and they turn to her for assistance in almost every part of Christian life. The Bible, on the other hand, does not command believers do this at all. Don't you find that a bit strange?
Well, you are working on the assumption that all Christian truth is restricted to the Scriptures, which of course I deny. But as to your specific question, I would say, again, that the Scriptures were never meant to be an exhaustive discourse on Christian theology – much less a full blown theological treatise on Mary. The 27 books THEMSELVES which you consider canonical did not fall from heaven in a nice little leather edition with Martin Luther's imprimatur on them.
But even Martin Luther had nice things to say about Mary:
Is Christ only to be adored? Or is the holy Mother of God rather not to be honored? This is the woman who crushed the Serpent's head. Hear us. For your Son denies you nothing. (Luther's Works, Weimar Edition, Volume 51)
…she is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin. …God's grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil…God is with her, meaning that all she did or left undone is divine and the action of God in her. Moreover, God guarded and protected her from all that might be hurtful to her. (Luther's Works, American edition, vol. 43, p. 40 , ed. H. Lehmann, Fortress, 1968)
Perhaps you think your forefather did not practice Sola Scriptura the way he ought to have?
Have you ever really seriously considered that Mary's veneration, from the earliest times of Church history, was passed down orally (2 Thessalonians 2:15), without being fully realized while she was still alive? After all, the prophets were not exactly popular people while they were alive, now, were they?
Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. And you say, "If we had lived in the days of our forefathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets." So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of the sin of your forefathers! (Matthew 23:29-32)
It is only later that the leaders learned who these men really were. The same principle applies to Mary. Sola Scriptura aside, tell me why this is not plausible?
I have no real difficult with the first part of the "Hail Mary" since it is, quite obviously, scriptural. To deny Mary is "blessed" is to go against the clear teaching of the Bible. I accept that. My problem, though, is that many Catholics think that Protestants who do not accept Marian teachings either hate her or disregard her. This is not the case at all. There are many individual Protestants and even whole Confessions that have a healthy biblical respect for Mary.
I agree whole heartedly with your comments. It's a shame that we both get pushed to extremes that neither of us want to be at.
My problem with the "Hail Mary" is with the second part of the prayer:
Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. Amen.
This seems to me to teach that Mary is a central part of salvation and she is our mother who we can petition to in need. I cannot understand how, as a Christian, a Catholic can reconcile this with the biblical text.
I can appreciate your concern. The problem when non-Catholics read this is that they sometimes get the wrong idea because they are not within the fold and they do not have an appreciation for the familial bond and language that is used. Let's look at the phrase in question:
Holy Mary – I don't think this as a ***mere*** description of Mary will cause too many objections with you, agreed? I think if Elizabeth was considered a righteous woman in God's sight (Cf. Luke 1:6), then Mary would be all the more, considering her election to carry God in her womb. A "blessed woman" is, after all, a holy woman.
Mother of God – Mary is the mother of a divine person. Jesus was not a human person but a divine person with 2 natures – a divine one and a human one. At the incarnation, Jesus ***assumed*** a human nature:
He did not cast aside what he was, but although he assumed flesh and blood, he remained what he was, God in nature and truth. (Third letter of Cyril to Nestorius – read at the Council of Ephesus and included in the proceedings)
This means that, among other things, ***after*** the incarnation, in addition to his divine nature, he assumed a human nature as well. And this union could never be separated from then onward. Ergo, when Mary gave birth (physically) to the person of Christ, and since Jesus never ceased in being a divine person, then that means that she truly is the Mother of God. The term 'theotokos' literally means "God Bearer". It does not mean that Mary created God, only that God resided in her and she gave birth to His person. That's it; that's all. But, of course, that is an awesome reality if you think about it.
Pray for us – This is a biblical command as St. Paul clearly attests on numerous occasions (Cf. Romans 1:9, Romans 15:30, 2 Corinthians 1:11). Your only problem with asking Mary to pray for you is that she is not on earth. But the Body of Christ lives in heaven as well as on earth. No NT writer says that "death separates" the members of the Body. Indeed, St. Paul would never have said "O Death where is your sting?" if it were otherwise. All baptized Christians are all united in Christ – whether here on earth or in heaven. The only way you would have a problem with this is to say death cuts us off from the body of Christ in heaven – which is an anti-biblical belief:
For by one Spirit we were all baptized into ***one body*** – whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free – and have all been made to drink into[1] one Spirit. (1 Corinthians 12:13)
Is Christ divided? (1 Corinthians 1:13)
…or, instead, you may say that Mary is not part of the Body of Christ.
Which one do you choose?
[John's Protestant opponent continues:]
I just don't get it. What is so important about Mary that either Elizabeth or John the Baptist would have to react the way they did?
Well, St. John the Baptist thought her voice was special and so did St. Elizabeth when she was filled with the Holy Spirit by the same voice. Is that not enough? If I try and tell you why she is so special, you'll dismiss my explanations as pure Romanist fantasy so I won't do it. Instead, I will leave the speculation to you and let you deal with the clear and unmistakable text.
I mean, let's face it, if Jesus was not within her womb, there would be nothing special about Mary. There would be no intrinsic beauty about her at all. It's all Jesus and zilcho Mary. There certainly would never have been any leaping for joy by John the Baptist if Jesus was not present in Mary's womb.
Well, no, but that just proves my point, doesn't it? Of course, Mary would not be so honored. It is precisely ***because*** she was pregnant with Jesus that we give her such honor. Your answer appears to reveal a deficiency in understanding the Blessed Mother's privileged place in Catholicism. Everything Mary is given is because of God's magnificent grace. It's all grace. That's what Catholics rejoice in – that He would choose a mere creature like us and give her so much. No honor she is given is by her own merits. That is the Church's teaching. Mary still needed a saviour.
Furthermore, we are not simply talking about a mere "thank you" to Mary. The Catholic Church explodes something noble into pure and rank idolatry by elevating her further than God would ever want us to. It's about Jesus, stupid! Not Mary! All of this "Queen of this" and "Mediatrix of that" – it's absurd. You might as well add her to the Trinity, for crying out loud!
Simply because the Creator relishes in His creation. You don't exalt the creator by detracting from his creation. In fact, THAT is the real blasphemy.
You should really reflect on Romans 1:25:
They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator-who is forever praised. Amen.
Your Bible also says this in the previous verse:
Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another…
Is that what you are accusing me of? Wonderful.
And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, "Honor your father and mother" and "Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death." But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, "Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God", he is not to "honor his father" with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. (Matthew 15:3-4)
As for regal titles for Mary, this verse provides a pretty sound basis for that:
And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; she was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery. (Revelation 12:1-2)
[John's Protestant opponent continues:]
That verse refers to the nation of Israel not Mary. Catholics get far too much mileage with that passage. How would you explain that the child was snatched up into heaven and the woman then fled into the desert without Him?
Because Revelation works on 2 levels. It's not either/or. The child is Jesus. The woman is his mother. How can you categorically say it is not? Following sola scriptura, my opinion is just as good as yours. All I am trying to do is make you appreciate that such an interpretation is valid. By the way, the interpretation of Israel and the Church doesn't fit in all of its aspects either.
And about assured salvation: if you think we can lose our salvation, I would like to see the biblical support for it.
There are a whole bunch of them. Here are but 2:
You will say, "Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in." That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast only through faith. So do not become proud, but stand in awe. For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God's kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off. (Romans 11:19-22)
Did you catch the $64,000 word in the passage? That's right! The word is "provided" which indicates a conditional and provisional clause. That means your salvation is not assured. It is provisional on you "continuing in His kindness" OTHERWISE you too will be CUT OFF.
Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one gets the prize? Run in such a way as to get the prize. Everyone who competes in the games goes into strict training. They do it to get a crown that will not last, but we do it to get a crown that will last forever. Therefore I do not run like someone running aimlessly; I do not fight like a boxer beating the air. No, I strike a blow to my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize. (1 Corinthians 9:24-27)
[John's Protestant opponent continues:]
In regards to Mary being the Mother of God, I have no problem with your statements above, about Mary's identity protecting Jesus' human and divine natures. I could be wrong about that, of course.
No! You are not wrong about that. You are dead right. Why do you think, for instance, that Mary was declared the "Mother of God" at the Council of Ephesus? To protect Jesus' identity against Nestorius.
In any case, what bearing do all of these Marian teachings of the early Church have on our salvation if they are not spelled out in Scripture?
Well, they are the closest WITNESS to the Apostles' teachings. Let me ask you something. If you and I disagree over the interpretation of a Scripture, do you think it reasonable that we consult the pupil of St. John to find out what precisely is the correct interpretation of St. John's writings?
As soon as man abandoned the clear testimony of the Scriptures, going out on flimsy limbs, and started mixing in vain theologies and philosophies, it was just a matter of time before heresies started to surface.
They were out on a limb? Well, maybe St. Iraenaeus will say the same thing to you. And guess what? I prefer his testimony of what the Apostles taught over yours. Nothing personal…just playing the odds: the closer a source is to the truth, the more likely it is to be correct. The Reformers were 10-15 centuries removed from the witness of the early fathers. And even then you have reformed their original reformation:
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.
I esteem immensely the Mother of God, the ever chaste, immaculate Virgin Mary …; Christ… was born of a most undefiled Virgin. (Ulrich Zwingli, quoted by Stakemeier, E. in De Mariologia et Oecumenismo, Balic, K., ed., Rome, 1962, p. 456.)
[John's Protestant opponent continues:]
The Scriptures claim sufficiency. Read 2 Timothy 3:15.
The Scriptures claim no such thing anywhere. On the contrary, they teach that you are to hold to ORAL tradition (Cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:15).
As such, I have no reason to believe that Mary is "mediatrix" or "queen" or any other title you wish to bestow on her. The Scriptures don't explicitly say it so I won't believe it.
Then you might as well take away all of those definitions of Jesus that came centuries afterwards by the Councils and which you, as a Trinitarian, accept. You can't pick and choose. It's the Church and the Bible or it's neither.
After all, what God wants to make plain and clear in the Bible, He does. Do you see a confusion about circumcision? I think the Apostle's decision was pretty clear cut, don't you?
Yes, I do know that it was a central issue BACK THEN, but it is not TODAY. That was my point: the Scriptures, while inspired and infallible, were written to a PARTICULAR audience on many occasions (although all or most of it has an application today) and addressing SPECIFIC problems in the Church BACK THEN.
On the other hand, Mary's place in salvation is not at all clear from the Bible. If she is so important then why didn't St. Paul dwell on her – even only a little.
Why? What has the letter written to the Romans have to do with Mary? St. Paul is going after the Judaisers. Just like in this little discourse here: the fact that I have not mentioned Purgatory doesn't mean that I don't believe it.
Just face it, OK? The Roman Catholic Church worships Mary and is therefore an idolatrous Church. In regards to Elizabeth and John the Baptist, it is Jesus' presence that makes the scene so important to Mary. Take away Jesus, and there is no more exaltation of Mary's role.
Again, for the record, we do not worship Mary. If you refuse to accept our distinction, then that's not my problem. I'm telling you what we believe. If you try and define the Catholic Church's belief instead of letting her do it for herself, then what's the point of discussing anything?
As far as Jesus' presence being "special" and the ***ultimate*** reason why St. Elizabeth and St. John were blessed, I will agree with you. However, you are not accepting the text of Scripture. It was THROUGH Mary's voice that the blessing came. See? I told you that you have a problem with the Incarnation and God using people for His Glory.
I give up! You don't even have one verse to support the Catholic Church's claims about Mary. Where are all of these verses which support your satanic doctrines? Get it through your head: we are not talking about merely honoring Mary since all Christians do that.
Oh, we do? I was not aware of this. Tell me precisely how you honor Mary.
You place Mary on an equal footing with the Lord and Only Savior. I don't have the time or the energy to argue this any more with you.
OK. Pity. I think if you cut us a little bit of slack here, and let us define these titles for ourselves instead of trying to believe in caricature, you'd be far better off. But that's your choice.
What I was asking you was, during the times when you're not on the defensive trying to justify your Marian beliefs, does it ever seem strange to you that out of all apostolic writings we have, writings that include numerous words of praise and honor to the Lord Jesus Christ, that it just so happened that we don't happen to possess a single document that records the apostles or any first century Christians giving any special honor to Mary – especially in light of the fact that you couldn't get very far in reading Catholic literature today without running across words of veneration to Mary.
Well, how do you explain the references I supplied above from the original reformers, like Luther, for instance?
If you're asking whether I think he was correct in everything he believed, then no. His contribution to the Reformation is immeasurable, but that doesn't mean I have to believe he's infallible, and I don't understand why Catholics don't seem to get that.
Remarkable. So what happens to an article of faith that is supposed to be passed down from generation to generation? Do you simply get to the twentieth century and posthumously declare it was never an article of faith in the first place? Wow.
Again, you're comparing ungodly men who killed God's messengers because their darkened evil hearts didn't allow them to recognize them as God's messengers, to God's chosen servants who were obedient to all that their Lord commanded them.
You mean, like Mary?
My point in citing the Pharisees' treatment of the prophets is simply that it takes time to realize something that is true. Jesus Himself hinted at that when He said:
I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. (John 16:12-13)
This means that the whole exposition of Christian truth is not going to be present around the time of the Apostles – but that certainly the seed or basis for it will be. There have always been attacks on the Gospel from the very beginning to our own time. The Holy Spirit must be present in the Church to fight against it, and guide authoritative ministers to combat those attacks. The Bible alone cannot be the sole instrument if *** everyone *** including the enemies of the gospel can legitimately use it.
How do you justify the following prayer?
DAILY, DAILY, SING TO MARY
Daily, daily sing to Mary Sing, my soul, her praises due; All her feasts, her actions WORSHIP, With the heart's devotion true.
Certainly. Turn to 1 Chronicles 29:20 in your KJV. Tell me what it says. (Notice the word used in the translation in reference to both God and King David?) Catholics are doing to Mary what the Jews did to King David. What's the problem?
John Pacheco
June 12, 2002
