• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Protestant and Catholic theological differences.

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
that there would be no way to see that Mary was immaculately conceived. That her mother also had a virgin birth. That mary is without original sin since conception.

No...actually Anne and Joachim did conceive Mary naturally.
Immaculate Conception has nothing to do with virginity or intercourse. It means the girl was born without the stain of original sin.

As for your questions, you are right: there is no biblical evidence of these 2 dogmas. Immaculate Conception and Assumption. In fact they are very recent (1854 and 1950)
 

Blake Place

Kryptic
No...actually Anne and Joachim did conceive Mary naturally.
Immaculate Conception has nothing to do with virginity or intercourse. It means the girl was born without the stain of original sin.

As for your questions, you are right: there is no biblical evidence of these 2 dogmas. Immaculate Conception and Assumption. In fact they are very recent (1854 and 1950)


How does that make you feel? Is that an issue for you? Having these concepts fleshed out much later, why was this not done in the first century for example?
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
How does that make you feel? Is that an issue for you? Having these concepts fleshed out much later, why was this not done in the first century for example?

The RCC also has acknowledged, across centuries Mary's apparitions (not all of them).

Maybe these Marian dogmas are either intuitions/revelations.
In the Gospel of James, Joachim promises God to consecrate his child to Him, if he had made Anne's womb fertile. Maybe this means God preserved Mary from original sin...I don't know...
 

Blake Place

Kryptic
The RCC also has acknowledged, across centuries Mary's apparitions (not all of them).

Maybe these Marian dogmas are either intuitions/revelations.
In the Gospel of James, Joachim promises God to consecrate his child to Him, if he had made Anne's womb fertile. Maybe this means God preserved Mary from original sin...I don't know...


I'd love your comment on an argument i kind of made off the cuff.

"In the bible it would be common for the word 'knew' when speaking of a marriage to mean to consummate the marriage and have children.

In Mathew 1:24-25 it says "24 When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, 25 but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus."

Other passages with the term knew, all throughout genesis for example showing the lineage, shows the term knew, and then it would say their children that came out of this union.
The other strange part of scripture that could show this would be

Mark 6:2-4 "2 And on the Sabbath he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were astonished, saying, “Where did this man get these things? What is the wisdom given to him? How are such mighty works done by his hands? 3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him. 4 And Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor, except in his hometown and among his relatives and in his own household.” "


I'm not trying to take away from the significance of Mary, although i'd like to see her through the lens of scripture as that's all the recorded information we have of her life from birth to passing.
We know that in the gospel of John, as Jesus is on the cross he is telling mary and john that they are now mother and son, in a formal way explaining to john to look after Mary... John is also the only apostle to not only not die due to martyr, but die of old age.

John 19:26-27 "26 When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” 27 Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.""
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
But where did the traditions come from? The stuff outside of scripture, that if we were to lose all history except our language and our bible, that there would be no way to see that Mary was immaculately conceived. That her mother also had a virgin birth. That mary is without original sin since conception. That she wouldn't die on earth but be raised to heaven.

There are instances where the NT is silent, in the literal sense, concerning the doctrines of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. The last mention of Mary is before Pentecost Scripture says nothing concerning her death and after. Her bodily assumption to heaven
reflects belief that the resurrection look toward by all Christians was first given to the first disciple. I am not familiar with any tradition of Mary's mother having a virgin birth.
There is also the tradition of Mary' s perpetual virginity, again nothing in Scripture states that. It is based on a 2nd century of Protevangelium of James, mostly a work of fiction.
 

GardenLady

Active Member
Regarding Mary being conceived without sin, as I understand it, the idea is that she was the new Ark of the Covenant, the God-bearer, and had to be a sinless vessel to fulfill that roll.

The claim of perpetual virginity seems more excessive to me than the Immaculate Conception, especially given scriptural references to Jesus’ brothers. Some Catholic theologians with say the text can also be interpreted as cousins. Sure. The Catholic Church has long had issues with the sexuality of women, even within marriage. Holy crap, some Catholics will even argue about whether Jesus’ birth ruptured her hymen. Insane.

I am no longer a Catholic, and excessive Maryology was a (minor) factor.

Excess and straying into idolatry are the big issues in my view. And I think the Catholic church has at least stepped on that line and many individual Catholics, especially in Latin countries, have stepped over it.
 

iam1me

Active Member
The idea that you inherit sin itself (not merely that we suffer consequences of that sin, but we are actually guilty of the sin itself) is at the crux of this issue. While there can be no doubt that the consequences of sin are felt throughout creation via Adam (and thus also Christ's, the second Adam's, actions are similarly far reaching) we are not responsible for or to be condemned for Adam's sin (nor are we to be praised as if we ourselves died on the cross for the sins of man).

Similarly, this is at the heart of such bad theology and practices as Baptizing Infants

See Ezekiel 18
The word of the Lord came to me: 2 “What do you people mean by quoting this proverb about the land of Israel:


“‘The parents eat sour grapes,
and the children’s teeth are set on edge’?

3 “As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, you will no longer quote this proverb in Israel. 4 For everyone belongs to me, the parent as well as the child—both alike belong to me. The one who sins is the one who will die.

5 “Suppose there is a righteous man
who does what is just and right.
6 He does not eat at the mountain shrines
or look to the idols of Israel.
He does not defile his neighbor’s wife
or have sexual relations with a woman during her period.
7 He does not oppress anyone,
but returns what he took in pledge for a loan.
He does not commit robbery
but gives his food to the hungry
and provides clothing for the naked.
8 He does not lend to them at interest
or take a profit from them.
He withholds his hand from doing wrong
and judges fairly between two parties.
9 He follows my decrees
and faithfully keeps my laws.
That man is righteous;
he will surely live,
declares the Sovereign Lord.

10 “Suppose he has a violent son, who sheds blood or does any of these other thingsa]">[a] 11 (though the father has done none of them):

“He eats at the mountain shrines.
He defiles his neighbor’s wife.
12 He oppresses the poor and needy.
He commits robbery.
He does not return what he took in pledge.
He looks to the idols.
He does detestable things.
13 He lends at interest and takes a profit.

Will such a man live? He will not! Because he has done all these detestable things, he is to be put to death; his blood will be on his own head.

14 “But suppose this son has a son who sees all the sins his father commits, and though he sees them, he does not do such things:

15 “He does not eat at the mountain shrines
or look to the idols of Israel.
He does not defile his neighbor’s wife.
16 He does not oppress anyone
or require a pledge for a loan.
He does not commit robbery
but gives his food to the hungry
and provides clothing for the naked.
17 He withholds his hand from mistreating the poor
and takes no interest or profit from them.
He keeps my laws and follows my decrees.

He will not die for his father’s sin; he will surely live. 18 But his father will die for his own sin, because he practiced extortion, robbed his brother and did what was wrong among his people.

19 “Yet you ask, ‘Why does the son not share the guilt of his father?’ Since the son has done what is just and right and has been careful to keep all my decrees, he will surely live. 20 The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them.

21 “But if a wicked person turns away from all the sins they have committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, that person will surely live; they will not die. 22 None of the offenses they have committed will be remembered against them. Because of the righteous things they have done, they will live. 23 Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign Lord. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?

24 “But if a righteous person turns from their righteousness and commits sin and does the same detestable things the wicked person does, will they live? None of the righteous things that person has done will be remembered. Because of the unfaithfulness they are guilty of and because of the sins they have committed, they will die.

25 “Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not just.’ Hear, you Israelites: Is my way unjust? Is it not your ways that are unjust? 26 If a righteous person turns from their righteousness and commits sin, they will die for it; because of the sin they have committed they will die. 27 But if a wicked person turns away from the wickedness they have committed and does what is just and right, they will save their life. 28 Because they consider all the offenses they have committed and turn away from them, that person will surely live; they will not die. 29 Yet the Israelites say, ‘The way of the Lord is not just.’ Are my ways unjust, people of Israel? Is it not your ways that are unjust?

30 “Therefore, you Israelites, I will judge each of you according to your own ways, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent! Turn away from all your offenses; then sin will not be your downfall. 31 Rid yourselves of all the offenses you have committed, and get a new heart and a new spirit. Why will you die, people of Israel? 32 For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent and live!
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Hello everyone, this is my first time posting on this site.

I'd like to bring up the topic of Mary and how Protestants and Catholics differ on her significance not only in scripture but also tradition and how we interact with our theology because of this.

As a protestant, I do not pay respects to Mary, or ask her to pray on my behalf.
Scripture says she is humble, blessed, righteous, loyal, a servant to the father and to christ. I understand that in some debates, protestants may not see the significance that Mary actually has in scripture, the figure Abraham plays a large role in the bible for example and we can usually appreciate him for who he is, but the same isn't afforded to Mary.
I do believe she plays just as much a role as Abraham, however there are many things i disagree with too. I don't consider her to be the queen of heaven, or that she is or was ever in a relationship-like dynamic with the holy spirit. Catholics have told me that their tradition tells them that Mary was born perfect and never sinned, this would unfortunately mean that she has unknowingly fulfilled the law of Moses. Some have said that Mary is the figure who crushes the serpents head.

I don't want to put words into anyones mouth, so if you have an argument you would put forward, i'd love to engage with that.

The differences go far beyond just Mary. The differences go even to the roots of organisation of society. Catholics do believe in the immaculate conception, and that Mary was almost deified as the theotokos, while also there is a pope who is democratically elected to lead a people while in the protestant christianity none of these things exist. The differences lies in the threat of losing authority. Thats why millions of people died in the reformation.
 

robocop (actually)

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Hello everyone, this is my first time posting on this site.

I'd like to bring up the topic of Mary and how Protestants and Catholics differ on her significance not only in scripture but also tradition and how we interact with our theology because of this.

As a protestant, I do not pay respects to Mary, or ask her to pray on my behalf.
Scripture says she is humble, blessed, righteous, loyal, a servant to the father and to christ. I understand that in some debates, protestants may not see the significance that Mary actually has in scripture, the figure Abraham plays a large role in the bible for example and we can usually appreciate him for who he is, but the same isn't afforded to Mary.
I do believe she plays just as much a role as Abraham, however there are many things i disagree with too. I don't consider her to be the queen of heaven, or that she is or was ever in a relationship-like dynamic with the holy spirit. Catholics have told me that their tradition tells them that Mary was born perfect and never sinned, this would unfortunately mean that she has unknowingly fulfilled the law of Moses. Some have said that Mary is the figure who crushes the serpents head.

I don't want to put words into anyones mouth, so if you have an argument you would put forward, i'd love to engage with that.
Hi Blake,

I'm in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We are neither Catholic nor Protestant.

But I was just thinking the Bible says, "Blessed art thou among women," to Mary.
 

GardenLady

Active Member
Similarly, this is at the heart of such bad theology and practices as Baptizing Infants

The Catholic view of baptism, also shared by the Anglican, Episcopal, Lutheran churches, etc. is a sacramental view, not a “believer baptism view.” In seeing baptism as a sacrament, the belief is that it is God who acts, not the person being baptized. In baptism, we are adopted into the Body of Christ, forgiven, endowed with grace and the Holy Spirit to grow in faith and live a Christian life. The adult and the infant bring the same thing to baptism—only our human brokenness.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Hello everyone, this is my first time posting on this site.

Hello and welcome. :)

I'd like to bring up the topic of Mary and how Protestants and Catholics differ on her significance not only in scripture but also tradition and how we interact with our theology because of this.

As a protestant, I do not pay respects to Mary, or ask her to pray on my behalf.

Nowhere in scripture is Mary assigned any special role apart from being the womb that carried God's son to his human birth. And since the father figure was also a very important role in Jewish family life, Joseph played no small role either. Being a devout Jewish couple they were selected to be the parents who would raise this special child. Jesus was 100% human, but conceived without sin by the intervention of God's holy spirit. God basically implanted the lifeforce of his already existing son, into the womb of this wonderful woman, who accepted her role with grace and humility. Joseph too, upon finding out that his betrothed was 'with child' did not broadcast it, but out of respect for her, was intent on divorcing her secretly because of not wanting to cast aspersions on a woman he knew to be virtuous. It was God who revealed to Joseph that Mary's child was the product of holy spirit, not fornication. He was then more than willing to take Mary as his wife, but did not have relations with her until after Jesus was born. They thereafter became parents to four more boys as well as to at least two sisters. Jewish families were large and each child was considered a blessing from God.

Scripture says she is humble, blessed, righteous, loyal, a servant to the father and to christ. I understand that in some debates, protestants may not see the significance that Mary actually has in scripture, the figure Abraham plays a large role in the bible for example and we can usually appreciate him for who he is, but the same isn't afforded to Mary.

Abraham proved by his actions that he was a loyal worshipper of his God, at a time when there was no nation of Israel....no formal worship, no scripture, or temple and no priesthood. As one of the original Patriarchs, his life course and his unshakable faith were rewarded with a promise....that his family line would produce the promised Messiah. Both Mary and Joseph (who was assumed to be Jesus' natural father) were descendants of Abraham.

Mary did not have to be sinless in order to give birth to a sinless child. Mary and Joseph both made an offering at the temple according to the law, which stated...."‘If, though, he cannot afford a sheep, he must bring to Jehovah two turtledoves or two young pigeons as his guilt offering for the sin, one for a sin offering and one for a burnt offering." (Leviticus 5:7)

Now, Mary and Joseph, being of little means, offered the two turtle doves as the law required...one was for a sin offering, showing that Mary herself was not sinless.

Luke 2:21-24....
"After eight days, when it was time to circumcise him, he was named Jesus, the name given by the angel before he was conceived.

22 Also, when the time came for purifying them according to the Law of Moses, they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to Jehovah, 23 just as it is written in Jehovah’s Law: “Every firstborn male must be called holy to Jehovah.” 24 And they offered a sacrifice according to what is said in the Law of Jehovah: “a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons.


It also demonstrates that the so-called "wise men" had not visited the newborn Jesus at the stable because they made the offering of the poor, and the "magi" gave them 'gold, frankincense and myrrh'. It also states that these men followed the star until it stopped above the "house" where Jesus now lived with his parents. (Matthew 2:9-11)

I do believe she plays just as much a role as Abraham, however there are many things i disagree with too. I don't consider her to be the queen of heaven, or that she is or was ever in a relationship-like dynamic with the holy spirit.

It is very interesting that all the titles given to Mary were also the same titles that were given to pagan mother goddesses, which go back to Babylon and Egypt. "Our Lady" and "Queen of Heaven" were not "Christian" titles at all.
From The New Encyclopædia Britannica: “Veneration of the mother of God received its impetus when the Christian Church became the imperial church under Constantine and the pagan masses streamed into the church. . . . Their piety and religious consciousness had been formed for millennia through the cult of the ‘great mother’ goddess and the ‘divine virgin,’ a development that led all the way from the old popular religions of Babylonia and Assyria.”
What better place could there be than Ephesus for the “Christianization” of mother-goddess worship?

images
It was nothing new....

ashhh-1-scaled.jpg


Catholics have told me that their tradition tells them that Mary was born perfect and never sinned, this would unfortunately mean that she has unknowingly fulfilled the law of Moses. Some have said that Mary is the figure who crushes the serpents head.

No....the woman is not the one who crushes the serpent's head. The woman in the prophesy is the one who bore the seed who crushes him, but not before the devil deals the promised on a painful heel wound. (Genesis 3:15)
The woman is not Mary. The seed is from heaven, not the earth.

I don't want to put words into anyones mouth, so if you have an argument you would put forward, i'd love to engage with that.

There is so much to discuss.....:D
 

iam1me

Active Member
The Catholic view of baptism, also shared by the Anglican, Episcopal, Lutheran churches, etc. is a sacramental view, not a “believer baptism view.” In seeing baptism as a sacrament, the belief is that it is God who acts, not the person being baptized. In baptism, we are adopted into the Body of Christ, forgiven, endowed with grace and the Holy Spirit to grow in faith and live a Christian life. The adult and the infant bring the same thing to baptism—only our human brokenness.

Forgiveness requires repentance - which we do, not God. Nor should we need to ask forgiveness for sins we did not commit. An infant can neither repent nor does an infant need to repent and be forgiven.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
The idea that you inherit sin itself (not merely that we suffer consequences of that sin, but we are actually guilty of the sin itself) is at the crux of this issue. While there can be no doubt that the consequences of sin are felt throughout creation via Adam (and thus also Christ's, the second Adam's, actions are similarly far reaching) we are not responsible for or to be condemned for Adam's sin (nor are we to be praised as if we ourselves died on the cross for the sins of man).

Similarly, this is at the heart of such bad theology and practices as Baptizing Infants

See Ezekiel 18
Actually we have two Baptisms. The second is called Confirmation and in fact "confirms" the baptism performed after birth.
Normally children reveive this sacrament after the last year of catechism school. 11-12 year old children.
 

iam1me

Active Member
Actually we have two Baptisms. The second is called Confirmation and in fact "confirms" the baptism performed after birth.
Normally children reveive this sacrament after the last year of catechism school. 11-12 year old children.

I’m aware - but having a second baptism doesn’t justify Infant Baptism. It’s a spiritually void and fundamentally flawed practice.
 

Blake Place

Kryptic
Hi Blake,

I'm in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We are neither Catholic nor Protestant.

But I was just thinking the Bible says, "Blessed art thou among women," to Mary.

Yeah Mary is many things in scripture, i'm not taking away from her in the scriptural sense, just wondering why tradition of catholics has added so much that is simply not only not found in scripture, but muddies the water on what substantial things Christ has done, if Christ is not the only sinless person to exist, that means that Mary has also fulfilled the laws of moses.
 

Glaurung

Denizen of Niflheim
I'm a little confused here, i would consider Christs birth to be even more incredible than Mary's, this is our lord, his sacrifice allows us to be in union with the father. Christs role is more than any creation.
I don't understand the objection. Reconsigning the unique privilege of Mary as having been preserved from sin is in no way a detraction from our recognition of Christ as Lord and Savoiur. Mary is unique because of who she was destined to conceive. We exalt Mary precisely because we exalt Christ. To denigrate one is to denigrate the other.
 

Blake Place

Kryptic
Mary did not have to be sinless in order to give birth to a sinless child.

Yeah exactly, if there needs to be someone sinless to give birth to more sinlessness, then why did Mary's mother not require this? Why did Mary's mother not require to be anything special? Scripture doesn't show if she was righteous, where it specifically does for Mary.
 

Blake Place

Kryptic
I don't understand the objection. Reconsigning the unique privilege of Mary as having been preserved from sin is in no way a detraction from our recognition of Christ as Lord and Savoiur. Mary is unique because of who she was destined to conceive. We exalt Mary precisely because we exalt Christ. To denigrate one is to denigrate the other.
I was just mentioning that there is a specific name for the concept of Mary being born without sin, although no such name is afforded to the second person of the trinity. it was a minor detail.
 

Blake Place

Kryptic
Forgiveness requires repentance - which we do, not God. Nor should we need to ask forgiveness for sins we did not commit. An infant can neither repent nor does an infant need to repent and be forgiven.

We respond to repentance because of the initiation of Grace and sacrifice that was afforded to us out of love from God. We are not initiating repentance.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
This is awesome. Thanks for sharing. i knew luther loved Mary, i wasn't aware the others did too. That's really cool to see that even during the reformation itself there was less division then now.
I'm not in agreement with all protestant / reformed theology, and to be honest i'm just not sure where it stared with protestants removing themselves from the original reformers.
In scripture you can see parallels between mary and eve, abraham, the ark of the covenant, the temple, the lady in revelations 12, there is type and shadows with mary and many other things in scripture.

That's all fine.


But where did the traditions come from? The stuff outside of scripture, that if we were to lose all history except our language and our bible, that there would be no way to see that Mary was immaculately conceived. That her mother also had a virgin birth. That mary is without original sin since conception. That she wouldn't die on earth but be raised to heaven.

At some point we have accepted that even though the scriptures is the only content with Mary, that at some point people have said that what we have now is just as true as what scripture tells us.
I can see a lot of things in scripture that signify Mary as important, but many things in the tradition itself are extra-biblical.

I wouldn't be surprised if the protestants moved further from the RC when the idea of getting all doctrine from the Bible developed more.
It is interesting to wonder where many of the traditions of the RC church came from.
It is tradition turned into dogma that had to be believed to be a Catholic which is one thing that turned me away from the RC church. It is sort of like adding to the gospel message.
I don't think that one of those traditions is that the mother of Mary was a virgin however. That would mean that Jesus had no blood link to David at all and could not be his descendant.
 
Top