f3928f No.821112[Last 50 Posts]
Why do prots hate theotokos?
____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
aa46fa No.821114
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
285f88 No.821116
>>821114
Why is the EO flag there? Afaik they don't object to the veneration of Our Lady.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
e76bd3 No.821119
>>821112
We've had this thread already
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
0b1a09 No.821122
>>821112
Hey OP, there is literally already a thread for his, and you’re going to get the same answers as every single other time this thread has been done in the past.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
f3928f No.821123
>>821114
I don't pretend you agree with me on Mary, I just want to know why you hate her.
>>821119
>>821122
I didn't know, I don't use to come here.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
e76bd3 No.821124
>>821123
Check the catalog it has all the previous threads. It's okay. I remember when I was new too.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
5112c3 No.821133
>>821112
Because they believe she was just some normal woman who was really holy. Despite God making her birth to an old woman and a high priest miraculous and the miracles surrounding it. Despite the fact she was born with no Original Sin and lived a Sinless life because she was the vessel used to bring our Lord in the world. Despite the Lord Jesus loving his Mother and Mary being the first follower of Jesus. Despite all the Apostles venerating her and teaching their followers to do the same.
Protestant hatred of Mary is one of the worst heresy just under denying the trinity and denying the Sacraments.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
5c4cf8 No.821139
I don't hate Mary at all, I'm sure she was a very great and very holy person, but I don't pray to her because there is one mediator between man and God, the man Christ Jesus. The Bible doesn't tell us to pray to Mary and it doesn't tell us that she's omnipresent (which would be required for her to hear everyone's prayers).
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
e76bd3 No.821145
>>821139
Prayer =/= worship
And she is the Queen of Israel after all. As Queen she advocates on our behalf and prays for us like we pray for you. Literally no one worships her, be we do honor her as God commands us to.
Secondly, our family in heaven can and do pray for us as they are in the mystical body of Jesus. They are the cloud of witnesses St. Paul tells us about, cheering us on as we combat the forces of evil and misinformation. Besides, the saints can and do intercede on our behalf. Case in point, during the Maccabean Revolt agianst the Greeks, Jereimiah gives Judas a golden sword as a gift from God, proving that our family in heaven can contact us and help us out.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
52b023 No.821152
>>821112
I think they just like to be contrarian.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
016155 No.821157
>>821145
>prayer =/= worship
the actual state of catholics
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
e76bd3 No.821169
>>821157
>not understanding what words mean
The absolute state of bible-idolaters
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
5c4cf8 No.821174
>>821145
I know that prayer doesn't mean worship, but what evidence do you have that Mary can hear your prayers? She'd either have to be omnipresent or omniscient to hear our words or know the contents of our hearts/minds respectively.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
1f92e7 No.821178
>>821174
She beholds the vision of God in heaven. By this fact alone the Saints essentially (and anyone who obtains the vision) "see" all things, by seeing God who is love they see what He is loving. Another way is that God for the sake of happiness in heaven will not withold from them things that pertain to them. Someone who is perfected like she is desires the will of God (the salvation of all) and it would be a sort of cruelty to her and the Saints to not allow them to help as much as they possibly can, by witholding from them the knowledge of prayers to them (imagine knowing someone who lives for helping homeless people, and you don't tell them about a homeless camp near them, depriving them of being able to do this in a way). They aren't omnipresent, or omniscient.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
5c4cf8 No.821182
>>821178
So if they're seeing what God has already seen, why pray to them? God already saw what you're praying for and is omnipotent.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
1f92e7 No.821188
>>821182
That goes directly into free will and the knowledge of God, it is the same issue. Origen actually illuminates it clearly in his writing "On Prayer" (yes he is a suspect case, but this same logic is reiterated by others in the Church, and I like how eloquent and simple this explanation is):
From On Prayer by Origen (http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/origen_on_prayer_02_text.htm):
>Of objects that move, some have the cause of motion outside them. Such are objects which are lifeless and in passive motion simply by force of condition, and those which are moved by force of nature and of life in the same manner and not like things which move occasionally, for stones and stocks that have been quarried or cut off from growth, being in passive motion simply by force of condition, have the cause of motion outside them.
>Such too are dead bodies of animals and movable parts of plants, which change position under compulsion and not as animals and plants themselves change their position but in the same manner as stones and stocks cut off from growth—although even these may be said to move in respect that, all bodies in decay being in flux, they possess the motion inherently attendant upon decay. Besides these a second class of moving objects are those which move by force of their internal nature or life, which are said by those who use terms in their stricter sense to move of themselves.
>A third kind of movement is that in animals, which is termed spontaneous movement, whereas, in my opinion, the movement of rational beings is independent movement. If we withdraw from an animal spontaneous movement, it cannot be any longer conceived as even an animal; it will be like either a plant moving by mere force of nature or a stone borne along by some force external to it: Whenever an object follows its own peculiar movement, since that is what we have termed independent movement, it must needs be rational. Thinkers therefore who will have it that nothing is in our power, will necessarily assent to a most foolish statement, firstly that we are not animals, and secondly that neither are we rational beings, but that, what we are believed to do, we may be said to do by force as it were of some external cause of motion and in no sense moving ourselves.
>Let anyone, moreover, with special regard to his own feelings, see whether without shame he can deny that it is himself that wills, eats, walks, gives assent to and accepts certain opinions, dissents from others as false. There are certain opinions to which a man cannot possibly assent though he puts them with innumerable refinements of argument and with plausible reasoning: and similarly it is impossible to assent to any view of human affairs in which our free will is in no sense preserved.
>Who assents to the view that nothing is comprehensible, or lives as in complete suspense of judgement: Who that has received a sense perception of a domestic misdeed, forebears to reprove the servant? And who is there that does not censure a son who fails to pay the duty owed to parents, or does not blame and find fault with an adulteress as having committed a shameful act? Truth forces and compels us, in spite of innumerable refinements, to impulsive praise and blame, on the basis of our retention of free will with the responsibility in which it involves us.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
1f92e7 No.821189
>>821188
>If our free will is in truth preserved with innumerable inclinations towards virtue or vice, towards either duty or its opposite, its future must like other things have been known by God, before coming to pass, from the world's creation and foundation; and in all things prearranged by God in accordance with what He has seen of each act of our free wills. He has with due regard to each movement of our free wills prearranged what also is at once to occur in His providence and to take place according to the train of future events. God's foreknowledge is not the cause of all future events including those that are to have their efficient cause in our freewill guided by impulse.
>Even though we should suppose God ignorant of the future, we shall not on that account be incapacitated for effecting this and willing that. Rather it ensues from His foreknowledge that our individual free wills receive adjustment to suit the universal arrangement needful for the constitution of the world. If, therefore, our individual free wills have been known by Him, and if in His providence He has on that account been careful to make due arrangement for each one, it is reasonable to believe that He has also pre-comprehended what a particular man is to pray in that faith, what his disposition, and what his desire.
>That being so, in His arrangement it will accordingly have been ordained somewhat after this wise: This man I will hear for the sake of the prayer that he will pray, because he will pray wisely: but that man I will not hear, either because he will be unworthy of being heard, or because his prayer will be for things neither profitable for the suppliant to receive nor becoming me to bestow: and in the case of this prayer, of some particular person, let us say, I will not hear him, but in the case of that I will.
>Should the fact of God's unerring foreknowledge of the future disquiet anyone by suggesting that things have been necessarily determined, we must tell him that it is a real part of God's fixed knowledge that a particular man will not with any fixed certainty choose the better or so desire the worse as to become incapable of a change for his good. And again I will do this for this man when he prays, as becomes me seeing that he will pray without reproach and will not be negligent in prayer: upon that man who will pray for a certain amount, I will bestow this abundantly in excess of his asking or thinking, for it becomes me to surpass him in well doing and to furnish more than he has been capable of asking.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
1f92e7 No.821190
>>821189
>To this other man of a particular character I will send this angel as minister, to cooperate from a certain time in his salvation and to be with him for a certain period: to that other, who will be a better man than he, that angel of higher rank than his. From this man who, after having devoted himself to the higher views will gradually relax and fall back upon the more material, I will withdraw this superior cooperator, upon whose withdrawal that duly inferior power, having found an opportunity to get at his slackness, will set upon him and when he has given himself up in readiness to sin, will incite him to these particular sins. So we may imagine the Prearranger of All saying:
>Amos will beget Josiah, who will not emulate his father's faults but will find his way leading on to virtue, and will by aid of these companions be noble and good, so that he will tear down the evilly erected altar of Jeroboam. I also know that Judas, in the sojourn of my son among the race of men, will at the first be noble and good but later turn aside and fall away to human sins so that he will rightly suffer thus for them. This foreknowledge, it may be in regard to all things, certainly in regard to Judas and other mysteries, exists in the Son of God also, who in His discernment of the evolution of the future has seen Judas and the sins to be committed by him, so that, even before Judas came into existence, He in His comprehension has said through David the words beginning "O God, keep you not silence at my praise."—Knowing as I do the future and what an influence Paul will have in the cause of religion, ere yet I set me to begin creation and found the world I will make choice of him: I will commit him from the moment of his birth to these powers that cooperate in men's salvation.
>I will set him apart from his mother's womb. I will permit him at the first to fall in youth into an ignorant zeal and in the avowed cause of religion to persecute believers in my Christ and to keep the garments of them that stone my servant and witness Stephen, so that later at the close of his youthful wilfulness he may be given a fresh start and change for the best and yet not boast before me but may say: "I am not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God," and realizing the kindness that he will receive from me after his faults committed in youth in the avowed cause of religion may declare "It is by God's grace that I am what I am"; and, being restrained by conscience by reason of the deeds he wrought while still young against Christ, he will not be excessively elated by the exceeding abundance of the revelations which in kindness I shall show him.
>To the objection in reference to prayer for the rising of the Sun we may reply as follows. The Sun also possesses a certain free will, since he with the moon joins in praising God, for "Praise Him, Sun and Moon" it says: as also manifestly the moon and all the stars conformably, for it says "Praise Him all the stars and light." As, therefore, we have said that God has employed the free will of individual beings on earth for the service of beings on earth in arranging them aright, so we may suppose that He has employed the free will, fixed and certain and steadfast and wise as it is, of sun, moon and stars in arranging the whole world of heaven with the course and movement of the stars in harmony with the whole.
>If I do not pray in vain for what concerns any other freewill, much more shall I pray for what concerns the freewill of the stars which tread in heaven their world-conserving measures. It may indeed be said of beings on earth that certain appearances in our surroundings call out now our instability, now our better inclination to act or speak in certain ways: but in the case of beings in heaven what appearances can interpose to oust and remove from the course that benefit the world beings which have each a life so adjusted by Reason independently of them, and which enjoy so ethereal and supremely pure a frame?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
1f92e7 No.821191
>>821190
>>821182
God bless Origen. And God bless you anon.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
bf706a No.821197
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
c8c01c No.821257
>>821112
We dont 'hate' Mary, its just that we believe Catholics have gone too far in what titles, abilities and powers they ascribe to her. Protestants do not see the four marian dogmata supported anywhere in scripture (although in scripture the perpetual virginity is neither confirmed or denied). The bodily assumption is indefensible with scripture as it is never mentioned (note how all other such assumptions whether OT prophets or Christ are mentioned and have passages dedicated to them).
The title 'Mother of God' or 'Theotokos' in the original greek meaning 'God-bearer' was first used by Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria in the 4th century AD, and was meant to say something about Jesus, not Mary, and was used in a christological sense to defend the truth of His absolute deity. Every schoolboy knows that at this time, there were huge divisions within christendom over this very matter, with large heterodox movements such as Arianism, and the Miaphysites having very different opinions over what exactly the nature of Christ was. I dont want this to be a super long post, so I wont delve into it here, but pretty much 'Theotokos' has proper theological meaning only in reference to affirming the truth about Christs absolute deity and humanity from the moment of conception. Anyone who uses it otherwise does so anachronistically and incorrectly!
The immaculate conception is I suspect the murkiest, with many people on both sides misunderstanding what the doctrine is. I'll paraphrase Pius IX here who said in 1854 that: Mary at the instance of her conception was preserved from the stain of original sin via a singular grace and privilege granted by God.
Finding any explicit biblical support for this is impossible, but many theologians claim that there is implicit support in scriptures for this doctrine - namely in Genesis 3:15. However, the literal meaning of the passage refers to Eve and her posterity and the struggle that will exist between them and Satan, you have to eisegetically read Mary into the text to support the doctrine, which is simply not good enough. Luke 1:42 is also often used to support this doctrine, where Elizabeth the prophetess says: "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!”. The Greek word used for blessed is 'eulogeo', and there is nothing in this word that implies sinlessness. If it does, does that mean all Christians are sinlessly perfect because they are called 'eulogeo' in Matt. 25:34? Absolutely not, and this is another example of bad eisegesis, reading something into a text that isnt there.
Beyond this, the commonly held Marian beliefs which are prevalent in all stratas of the Catholic Church are far more distressing. This is because they massively diverge from scripture and sometimes become completely contradictory of it and downright blasphemous. Titles such as mediatrix, co-redemptrix, distributor of graces, advocate Queen of Heaven etc. are all commonly found in Catholic theological literature, and while Catholics claim Mary is always lesser to Christ in these roles, it seems very unhealthy. I wont spend too much time on this, but all of this can be torn down with passages such as 1 Timothy 2:5, which says: "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;". Catholics often like to point out here that the Greek term used for one is 'heis', meaning one but it can also mean 'primary'. They claim that because Paul could have used 'monos' which is exclusively one, he is affirming that Christ need not be the only mediator. The problem is that 'heis' is also used when talking about one God. Surely Paul did not mean to say that Yaweh is the primary God, or need not be the only God? That would be insane.
I could say much more, but this has already turned into a long effort post, and I am tired.
Some questions I would ask OP in return:
> If the involvement of Mary in my life is so important, why did neither Christ or his apostles ever talk about it?
> If interacting with Mary is so important to living as a Christian, why did God not reveal it to us from the get go?
> Why does Mary have such a small role in scripture compared to other people of extreme importance in the Bible?
At the end of the day, I the sheer energy and time spent on Mary could be far better spent on Christ himself. Mary cannot improve your spiritual life one iota above what interaction with Christ directly can - in fact I would be tempted to say there is a big opportunity cost that hurts you. Christ has explicitly invited you into a union with God via his unique role as a redemptive mediator, whereas Mary has no such power.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
3cd25c No.821271
>>821257
10/10 post that will more than likely be deleted
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
2cd991 No.821282
>>821257
Could someone give us the standard rebuttal to these points? Letting them stands like this makes it seem as if we had no argument against.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
5c4cf8 No.821286
>>821257
Exceptional post here, good work
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
1693bb No.821299
>>821257
What say you of the various (corroborated) apparitions?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
1693bb No.821302
>>821257
>The bodily assumption is indefensible with scripture as it is never mentioned
You keep saying this or a variation thereof. The scriptures are not the only definition of Christian belief. Sola scriptura is unbiblical and indefensible. Stop it.
>The title 'Mother of God' or 'Theotokos' in the original greek meaning 'God-bearer' was first used by Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria in the 4th century AD
Did Mary or did Mary not give birth to the incarnation of God and bear Him for 9 months?
Regardless of the exact words used to describe this phenomenon, that is an event that happened, Mary is called "blessed" and "full of grace", and that's before her assent to the messenger. What is meant by this entirely unique greeting, not used in relation to any other human?
Similar logic is used by cultists when they say that God is not triune because neither "trinity" nor any of its roots appear in scripture. Both of these doctrines are exegesis of many scriptures together.
>However, the literal meaning of the passage refers to Eve and her posterity and the struggle that will exist between them and Satan,
There are two parts to that verse.
> 15 I will put enmity between you and the woman,
> and between your offspring and hers;
> They will strike at your head,
> while you strike at their heel.
> New American Bible. Revised Edition. Washington, DC: The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2011. Print.
(use whichever translation you like, they're all identical, some rendering "offspring" as "seed").
Keep in mind that "you" here was referring directly to Satan. No meaningful striking at Eve's offspring happened as a result of him until the Job incident, with the next biggest incident being the birth of Christ. It seems rather odd to me that the prophesy would be for the least, rather than most, significant event. Job merits a book, Christ is arguably the entire purpose of the entire bible.
>and sometimes become completely contradictory of it and downright blasphemous.
This.. this I will give you. The bible is absolutely unambiguous on this point. And while the bible may not be the end of Christian teaching, it most certainly cannot be contradicted.
It may be worth mentioning that many of these titles were never formally defined as dogma (i.e. something Catholics must believe) and are not part of the faith. I would consider these human inventions, and almost, if not directly, heretical in nature.
> Mary cannot improve your spiritual life one iota above what interaction with Christ directly can - in fact I would be tempted to say there is a big opportunity cost that hurts you.
Hard disagree, and the reason why is partly >>821299 (combined with the other documented Eucharistic miracles).
There are only three ways to take these (approved) Marian apparitions:
1. They are works of demons (2 Co 11:14 - And no wonder, for even Satan masquerades as an angel of light.). Except, given the results these apparations have caused, bringing people into the faith, this would make no sense. (Mark 3:25 - And if a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand. 26 And if Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand; that is the end of him.
2. They are bogus. I find this *highly* unlikely given the discernment process and general consistency of the messages.
3. They are legitimate.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
25e38e No.821305
>>821257
i for one appreciate the effort
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
ebde13 No.821307
>>821133
>no original sin and lived a sinless life
She isnt Jesus anon.
The heresy of romanists is outstanding.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
e76bd3 No.821312
>>821307
Keep calling God's mother is sinner and see how well that ends for you.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
25e38e No.821313
>>821312
Mary addressed Christ as her Saviour, thus Mary knew she had sin from which she needed rescue
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
8b253c No.821315
>>821257
Genesis 3:15 is retold in Apocalypse 12, the exact same people (the Blessed Virgin, the Christ child, and Satan) are at battle. She is a symbol of the Church, but she is not *just* the Church, because a symbol would not literally need to give birth. It's risible to say that the child is not the Christ, because it says He will rule with a rod of iron, a reference to the Psalms. She is also the Ark of the New Covenant, just as the Ark of the Covenant (also considered to be the holiest object on Earth) contained bread from Heaven, the rod of Aaron, and the Ten Commandments (God's Word), the new Ark contained God's Word Himself, the second Person of the Blessed Trinity, the Bread of Heaven, and the true High Priest. In Apocalypse 11, John sees the Ark (something we'd want to see talked about more, since the Ark was lost) and then immediately he talks about the woman crowned with twelve stars. That's on purpose.
>The Greek word used for blessed is 'eulogeo', and there is nothing in this word that implies sinlessness.
Why don't you go over kecharitomene? http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/a116.htm Also, what of when she says ALL generations shall call her blessed? Don't suppose you're a Christian if you're not devoted to the Blessed Virgin. It's akin to a man in the OT refusing to venerate the Ark or refusing to march behind it in battle. Those who didn't show proper respect to the Ark would even die. Because the Ark represented God's spiritual presence on Earth. The very ground God stood on when he appeared before Moses became holy. How much holy must the Blessed Virgin be, for God to dwell in her womb for nine months?
>Queen of Heaven
In Apocalypse 12 she is crowned with twelve stars. In the Davidic Kingdom, the mother of the King was the Queen.
>why did neither Christ or his apostles ever talk about it?
Luke painted a picture of the Blessed Virgin. It was carried all the way to India by Thomas.
>Why does Mary have such a small role in scripture compared to other people of extreme importance in the Bible
She is told of in Ezekiel (Ezekekiel 44:1-3 is on her perpetual virginity*) Sirach (http://mostsacredheart.com/bible/verses/ecclesiasticus24.html + https://taylormarshall.com/2011/02/immaculate-mary-and-personified-wisdom.html + https://psallitesapienter.blogspot.com/2009/07/ecclesiasticus-xxiv-1-31.html + https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2008/08/eructavit-cor-meum-verbum-bonum.html (these all can be used to prove the importance of devotion to the Blessed Virgin, her Mediatrix title, Mother of God, etc)), and the Psalms (Psalm 132:8 is on the Assumption). James 5:16 says the continual prayer of a just man avails much. How much more does prayer to the Blessed Mother of God avail? Jesus does not refuse His mother. In Exodus 40:34-35, the old Ark was overshadowed, just as the Blessed Virgin was in Luke. In 2 Samuels 6:9 David said "how can the Ark of the Lord come to me", just as Elizabeth exclaimed "How could the Mother of my Lord come to me" David also leaps before the Ark (like John the Baptist, who was put into a state of grace/filled with the Holy Ghost by the mere words of the Virgin, and the way Mary was used as a vessel for sanctifying John is another proof for the Catholic view), and it was said that they were in its presence for 3 months, like in the NT. All here are proofs for the Marian Dogmas.
*Fathers prove that Ezekiel is talking about her virginity
“Who is this gate (Ezekiel 44:1-4), if not Mary? Is it not closed because she is a virgin? Mary is the gate through which Christ entered this world, when He was brought forth in the virginal birth and the manner of His birth did not break the seals of virginity.” – Saint Ambrose of Milan (390AD)
“It is written (Ezekiel 44, 2): ‘This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it. Because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it…’ What means this closed gate in the house of the Lord, except that Mary is to be ever inviolate? What does it mean that ‘no man shall pass through it,’ save that Joseph shall not know her? And what is this – ‘The Lord alone enters in and goeth out by it,’ except that the Holy Ghost shall impregnate her, and that the Lord of Angels shall be born of her? And what means this – ‘It shall be shut for evermore,’ but that Mary is a Virgin before His birth, a Virgin in His birth, and a Virgin after His birth.” – Saint Augustine (430AD)
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
8b253c No.821316
>>821313
>Mary addressed Christ as her Saviour, thus Mary knew she had sin from which she needed rescue
I guess the sinless Christ should not have prayed? Again, shows how historically illiterate Protestants are. Thomists and Franciscans had this debate already. How could God be her savior if she was sinless? (Note: they never questioned her sinlessness, because the Fathers, Scripture, and common sense teach that she was indeed sinless). Christ is the savior of all mankind, therefore He must save her from something, yet she was sinless. Thomists said that she was exposed to original sin in the womb for a few moments, but God took it away, thus God was her savior. Franciscans said that her privilege was that God applied the effects of the redemption to her before being born, thus He was still her savior, retroactively, and this became the accepted Catholic view.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
e76bd3 No.821317
>>821313
And yet an Archangel far FAR older than her and the nation of Israel even said she was full of grace. How can she be filled to the brim with God's saving grace if she was a sinner?
But lets assume an Archangel had no idea what he was talking about, name one sin that Mary committed. Spoiler Alert you can't
Thirdly, why would God arbitrarily dishonor His own mother and make her a sinner? He made His ark perfect in the Old Covenant, why not make His new Ark of the New Covenant perfect as well?
Fourthly, salvation isn't exclusive to the forgiveness of sins. Scripture even says that salvation can be attained by God protecting the person from sin without them evem knowing:
>Now to him who is able to keep you from falling and to present you without blemish before the presence of his glory with rejoicing, to the only God, our Savior through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now and for ever. (Jude 24-25)
So Mary, being a humble and sinless creature, could assume she is a sinner yet God did protect her from the blemish of sin without her even knowing. She was saved from sin by receiving God's saving grace before she could ever commit a single sin.
Fifthly, if you are in the mystical body of Jesus Christ which you are if you are an authentic Christian than not only is God the Father your father, but the Blessed Virgin Mary is also your mother. Denying that fact means Mary isn't Jesus' mother, thus making thousands of years of prophecy invalid and Jesus NOT the Messiah.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
25e38e No.821323
>>821317
interesting argumentation, lets break it down a little
>And yet an Archangel far FAR older than her and the nation of Israel even said she was full of grace
i'm going to agree with you that an angel is most likely doctrinally inerrant, but not for his age, but because he's Gabriel who 'stands in the presence of God' - Luke 1:19 – thus even at that moment he is receiving direct and exacting orders on what words to proclaim
> How can she be filled to the brim with God's saving grace if she was a sinner?
speaking of Gabriel – who asserted his authority to John the Baptists' father Zechariah on the grounds that he 'stands in the presence of God' – do you remember the Lord Jesus saying of him "I tell you the truth, among those born of women, no one has arisen greater than John the Baptist…"
now Mary was born of a woman, wasn't she?
and she was older than John, being the cousin to John's mother – this predating John indicating that she was less graced than John, right?
should we then venerate John with more dulia than Mary?
or perhaps we should look to what being 'graced' actually means, and remember the words of Christ on John once more, because in the same breath He says "… Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he is"
well since we know now that Mary was less graced than John the Baptist – and to argue with that statement is to argue with Christ the Living God – and since we know that Christ spoke at a time when The Kingdom had not fully arrived, since He had not died, ressurrected and ascended, thence to bestow the saving grace of God the Holy Spirit to all believers, thus making them more 'filled to the brim with God's saving grace' than anyone prior John or even John himself, do you really think your argument holds water?
i mean, c'mon man – when the believer has the actual Living God indwelling him by God the Holy Spirit, the Lord Jesus proclaiming that such a soul who loves God will be so graced that 'My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them' do you really
think that a pre-Kingdom Mary was more full of saving grace?
> But lets assume an Archangel had no idea what he was talking about, name one sin that Mary committed. Spoiler Alert you can't
well now, this all depends on how high a view of God one has – and if you believe that the Lord Jesus Christ would be inerrant in following the Will of God during His life on earth
if you hold that God the Son was absolutely correct in all His doings during his earthly ministry, you might then wonder at His mother attempting to dissuade Him of pursuing it, when she joined with His brothers to entreat Him to come home – her fear of the Jews killing Jesus outweighing her trust in Him
and since trust is an aspect of faith, and since without faith it is impossible to please God, and since she showed faithlessness in this fear; Mary sinned
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
c8c01c No.821364
>>821302
(1/3?)
> You keep saying this or a variation thereof. The scriptures are not the only definition of Christian belief. Sola scriptura is unbiblical and indefensible. Stop it.
Look, at the end of the day essentially all disputes over Mariology between Protestants and Caths will boil down to whether sola scriptura is true. OP asked why protestants 'hate' Mary, and because Protestants believe that sola scriptura is true, dont expect an answer to your questions that dont involve scripture as the final authority on the matter. Sola scriptura is obviously not indefensible, just like the other pillars of Protestantism. If it were indefensible, Protestantism would already be a footnote in the annals of history. I take Catholic arguments very seriously and try to answer them in the same spirit, I suggest you do the same with Protestants. If you want, make a thread about sola scriptura and ill probably show up and post there.
> Did Mary or did Mary not give birth to the incarnation of God and bear Him for 9 months?
She absolutely did, no Protestant denies this. The point I was making was that the term 'Theotokos' whenever it was used by the early church fathers was never used to make a statement about Mary, but about the nature of Jesus. I think it is anachronistic and incorrect to say that the 'Mother of God' title has been accepted and in use the way Catholics use it since the early church.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
c8c01c No.821365
>>821364
>>821302
(2/)
> Regardless of the exact words used to describe this phenomenon, that is an event that happened, Mary is called "blessed" and "full of grace", and that's before her assent to the messenger. What is meant by this entirely unique greeting, not used in relation to any other human?
Yes, 'kecharitomene', a word many Catholics have pointed to as evidence of the immaculate conception doctrine. I didnt address this in my last post as it was getting too long but ill address it here. Ill include this >>821315 poster because he also asked about this. For those of you who dont know, the passage in question is Luke 1:28: "And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women." (Douay Rheims Bible). Translations do vary however, with many not saying 'full of grace', but 'favored one', or 'highly favored'. Catholics argue that the Greek phrase used for the phrase 'full of grace' - 'kecharitomene' indicates not only a perfection of grace within Mary, but that this state is permanent and extends over her entire life - from conception and beyond. They argue that this logic holds because 'kecharitomene' is what we call the 'perfect passive participle' tense of the root word 'caritow'.
Ill try to quickly explain what this means. In English at least, a participle is a 'verbal adjective', often a word ending in '-ing', which can do things such as modify a noun, define/explain the action of a verb, or be used as an adjective. A participle in Koine Greek is also a verbal adjective which is formed from a verbal root word, and often modifies/qualifies other words in a sentence. In Greek, the 'passive' voice means that the grammatical subject of the sentence is receiving the action described by the verb, whereas the 'active' voice denotes the converse. In Greek 'aspect' is how the speaker/writer views the situation. So a 'perfect' aspect is an aspect describing a complete situation, referring to it as a whole without commenting on whether or not it involves a process. It is most often prior to or simultaneous with the action of the main verb of the sentence. Therefore a 'perfect passive participle' is usually a verbal adjective which is received/done to the subject of a sentence intensively and wholly, usually prior to or simultaneously with the action of the main verb of the sentence (this is crucial). Hence, according to Catholics, because 'kecharitomene' is in perfect passive participle form, Mary was given a perfect state of grace by God permanently and completely from the moment of her conception.
I believe that in fact there is very good reason to reject this interpretation of Luke 1:28 and that it is erroneous on the basis of the grammatical rules of Koine Greek. Before I do this, lets quickly look at the root or 'stem' of 'kecharitomene' - 'caritow'. The lexical form of the word 'χαριτόω' means 'cause to be recipient of a favor', there is no lexical source anywhere which includes sinlessness or 'being free of sin' when defining this word, and it could not mean this, lest passages like Ephesian 1:6 become very problematic. However, Catholics mainly base their defense on the fact that 'kecharitomene' is in perfect tense, but there is no way to really use this to say that Mary received a perfection of grace. You see, participles in Greek usually derive their aspect from the main verb of a sentence, however there is no main verb in Luke 1:28, and 'kecharitomene' is in the vocative case - which is only ever used when someone is directly addressed or greeted. If there is no main verb in the passage, and 'kecharitomene' is being used in the case of a direct greeting, it makes far more sense that the angel is emphasizing the certainty of the favor ('caritow') given to her, not describing that God is currently bestowing/has bestowed upon her a state of perfect grace since her conception onward. The former interpretation makes far more sense to any Greek scholar than the latter - both lexically and grammatically.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
c8c01c No.821366
>>821365
>>821302
> But you're wrong anon, your just another Protestant shitposter who hates Mary!
Okay, If I really am wrong and Catholics are using the perfect passive participle form correctly, lets look at an analogous situation in the Bible and apply the same standards you apply to Luke 1:28. How about we take a look at Matthew 25:34: "…‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world". 'Blessed' here is in perfect passive participle form, are we really to take that Jesus is saying that the righteous have a perfection of blessedness that indicates that they had this perfection throughout their life from conception forever onward? No one would argue that with a straight face. You cant selectively apply grammatical rules where it suits you.
Again, I will point out that this is yet another example of egregious Marian eisegesis - trying to read the immaculate conception into the text when it is not really supported by the grammatical structure of the passage in the Greek language.
> It may be worth mentioning that many of these titles were never formally defined as dogma (i.e. something Catholics must believe) and are not part of the faith. I would consider these human inventions, and almost, if not directly, heretical in nature.
This is true, but surely you have to recognize the huge number of Catholics from popes down to parishioners that do embrace these non dogmatic Marian ideas and incorporate them into their lives. Surely you have to recognize the enormous volume of Marian literature that espouses these non dogmatic views which many Catholics ardently consume every year.
I know some anons have argued that Mary is referenced in both Genesis and Revelations among other points such as apparitions. Im not going to make this post longer, cant be bothered right now, but I might address those issues later.
I understand that Catholics are as used to incorporating Mary into their spiritual life as Protestants are drinking grape juice, and so I dont expect to 'convince' you. But what I do want to do is help you understand that there are serious problems when trying to defend Marian dogma and doctrine with holy scripture. I understand that Rome is your final authority, not some Protestant shitposter on 8ch, but just because Rome says that a Tradition and Scripture are in harmony does not mean its true. But because in your world Rome is infallible and God always reveals the truth to her on every dogmatic matter, anything ive said will fall on deaf ears because in your world I am wrong by default by virtue of the fact that I have contradicted Rome. Because Catholics wont budge on this point, I feel that most argumentation with them is pretty much futile.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
c8c01c No.821390
>>821315
(1/)
I have a few more free minutes, so ill make a brief comment on the immaculate conception doctrine and a few other things within 'tradition'.
I find it really funny and ironic that this poster would use quotations from St. Ambrose and St. Augustine to defend the perpetual virginity of Mary - probably the least controversial and impactful Marian idea, when both of those men explicitly denied the immaculate conception. Here are some of the things St. Ambrose said:
> "So, then, no one is without sin except God alone, for no one is without sin except God. Also, no one forgives sins except God alone, for it is also written: “Who can forgive sins but God alone?”" (NPNF2: Vol. X, On the Holy Spirit, Book III, Chapter 18, §133.)
> "No Conception is without iniquity, since there are no parents who have not fallen." (Prophetae David ad Theodosium Augustum, Caput XI, PL 14:873)
And again:
> "For wholly alone of those born of woman was our Holy Lord Jesus, Who by the strangeness of His undefiled Birth has not suffered the pollutions of earthly corruption, but dispelled them by heavenly majesty." (Exposition of the Holy Gospel according to Saint Luke, Book II, §56)
Note how St. Ambrose says that Christ was wholly alone in not 'suffering the pollutions of earthly corruption', he never includes Mary in this.
From St. Augustine we find similar attitudes:
> "…there never has existed, nor ever will exist, a human being of whom, placed in this life of ours, it could be said that he had no sin at all, with the exception of the one Mediator, who reconciles us to our Maker through the forgiveness of sins." (NPNF1: Vol. V, On Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants, Book II, Chapter 47.)
> "…One alone is there who was born without sin, in the likeness of sinful flesh, who lived without sin amid the sins of others, and who died without sin on account of our sins." (NPNF1: Vol. V, On Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants, Book II, Chapter 57 [XXXV].)
> "“the saints are clothed with righteousness,” one more, another less; on the other hand, no one lives here wholly without sin—one sins more, another less, and the best is the man who sins least." (NPNF1: Vol. I, Letters of St. Augustin, Letter 167 – To Jerome, Chapter 3, §13.)
This is unsurprising, as St. Ambrose was something of a teacher to St. Augustine.
Catholics need to know that in fact, the entire concept of the immaculate conception is absent from the earliest patristic sources. You will not find any reference to such a teaching prior to 400 AD, although Marian ideas eventually came into their own with the proliferation of asceticism and monasticism.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
c8c01c No.821391
>>821315
>>821390
(2/)
> In Apocalypse 12 she is crowned with twelve stars. In the Davidic Kingdom, the mother of the King was the Queen.
The early Christians (< 400 AD) never believed that Revelations 12 referred to Mary, the “Virgin Mother” for Christians was not Mary, but the Church. The woman in Revelation 12 was not Mary, but the Church as well, with extremely important theologians such as St. Hippolytus of Rome confirming that this was the common interpretation of the time (2nd century AD):
> By the woman then clothed with the sun," he meant most manifestly the Church, endued wth the Father's word, whose brightness is above the sun. And by the "moon under her feet" he referred to her being adorned, like the moon, with heavenly glory. And the words, "upon her head a crown of twelve stars," refer to the twelve apostles by whom the Church was founded." (On Christ and Antichrist, sec. 61)
Do not try to claim that all of these Marian ideas are apostolic tradition passed down from the very first days of the Church. Most Marian ideas, both dogmatic and non-dogmatic simply did not exist in the early Church and were not practiced by early Christians.
> she is also the Ark of the New Covenant, just as the Ark of the Covenant (also considered to be the holiest object on Earth)
I have a huge problem with this sort of typological analysis (although it can be valid), as it ends up being a pick and choose game to make the parallel work. What can and cant I include in the typological parallel between Mary and the Ark of the Covenant? I know you used a couple of parallels which 'work', but what about others?
So in 1 Samuel when the Ark of the Covenant is stolen by the philistines, must Mary have also been stolen by Gods enemies for a time and then brought back to the people of God with great rejoicing? In Marian typology, Who takes the place of Uzzah who in 2 Samuel who was killed upon touching the Ark? What is the parallel with David’s action of sacrificing a bull and a fattened calf when those who were carrying the ark had taken six steps? Obviously there are no parallels between Mary and the Ark in these examples.
Do you see why I might find calling Mary things like 'The New Ark' based off of typology really hard to accept? Do you see why this isnt good enough as a proof of the divine truth of the Marian dogmas?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
c8c01c No.821393
>>821315
>>821391
(3/)
> Don't suppose you're a Christian if you're not devoted to the Blessed Virgin. It's akin to a man in the OT refusing to venerate the Ark or refusing to march behind it in battle.
See this is the sort of thing that really scares me, and is ultimately why I make big effort posts to counter Marian ideas. Brother, you have just denied my salvational status - not based on whether or not I have accepted Jesus Christ as my personal savior and am walking in His truth with the Holy Spirit, but based on whether I am devoted to his earthly mother. I would urge you to ponder how dangerous this sort thinking is, as not only does Jesus Christ directly contradict this idea (John ch. 3), but also because you condemn millions of Christians (some even saints of the RC Church) who have lived and died for the Kingdom of God without being devoted to the Lords earthly mother. I really hope that other Roman Catholics are willing to join with me to condemn these sorts of dangerous ideas as well.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
ae5df8 No.821396
>>821393
Nah. She's the Queen of Israel just as Jesus is the King of Israel. It would be foolish to only recognize one and not the other.
>but you are condeming thousands of Christians
They did that to themselves when they decided to disobey God’s commandment to honor your father and mother. Besides, protestants aren't christians
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
24bb89 No.821407
Most "prots" are indifferent to her.
Indifference ≠ hate.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
1693bb No.821423
>>821364
>I take Catholic arguments very seriously and try to answer them in the same spirit, I suggest you do the same with Protestants.
Friend, I wasn't shitposting there.
Sola scriptura is inherently unbiblical. It relies mostly on a tortured interpretation of 2 Timothy 3:16-17 that pretends "beneficial" means the same thing as "entirely sufficient". Without taking this thread too far off course, I find it to be just as unreasonable as hundreds of other heresies that people believe despite compelling evidence to the contrary. People believe unreasonable garbage all the time, a belief's longevity has no correlation with its correctness.
polite sage
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
1693bb No.821425
>>821366
>But because in your world Rome is infallible
You give me a hard time for pooh-poohing sola scriptura and then you repeat the single most commonly misunderstood and incorrect definition of papal infalliability that literally any mainstream Catholic website has an FAQ section explicitly denouncing?
Cmon.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
5112c3 No.821454
>>821407
Indifference is worse then hate.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
f4b2bb No.821486
Very informative thread. I'm surprised the mods let it stay up.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
c8c01c No.821504
>>821423
>Sola scriptura is inherently unbiblical.
This isnt the thread to do this, and I will probably make a post or two if one does get created. I am not trying to sidestep answering, but I think the thread should stay on topic.
>>821425
>you repeat the single most commonly misunderstood and incorrect definition of papal infalliability that literally any mainstream Catholic website has an FAQ section explicitly denouncing?
I was absolutely not talking about the dogma of papal infallibility, I dont know why you got that impression, perhaps I should have been clearer. I was more referring to the fact that any dogma Rome proclaims is always seen as infallibly 'true' and immutable because God has 'revealed' the truth of said dogma to them. Due to this sort of thing it is really hard for Caths and Prots to have reasonable dialogue, as most disputes always boil down to these fundamental differences in sources of authority.
> Cmon.
Why dont you respond to some of the points Ive made in the thread instead of nitpicking and straying off topic? To keep the thread rolling, here are a few questions I have for you or any other Catholic who cares to answer:
> If the immaculate conception is such an important doctrine, why can no traces of this teaching be found in the early patristic sources (<400 AD)?
> Following from this, why are there early church fathers who are saints of your church such as St. Ambrose and St. Augustine (there are more) who deny the immaculate conception?
> Are you aware that if you applied the 'perfect passive participle' grammatical form consistently across all instances in the NT in the same manner that you do in Luke 1:28, it would cause massive theological problems? I referenced one of such problems in Matt 25:34 with 'eulogeo' (blessed).
> Please explain why I should buy into your precarious typological analysis of Mary, responding to my previous criticism of it.
> Why did the early Church theologians (see my reference to St. Hippolytus) never interpret passages such Revelations 12 as identifying Mary, but the Church itself? Were early Christians just plain wrong?
> Will you as some other posters have, deny the salvational status of a Christian (Catholic or otherwise) who professes and lives out the Nicene creed, but who denies the truth of the Marian dogmas?
>>821486
>Very informative thread. I'm surprised the mods let it stay up.
Yeah, this tends to be the one of the most heated topics whenever I have spoken to Caths online of irl. I havent been back to /christian/ in ages and dont remember if this was always the case, but there seem to be a disproportionate number of Catholics here. Is the board run by them too?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
8b253c No.821505
>>821390
>both of those men explicitly denied the immaculate conception.
Not only do they affirm the immaculate conception, also baptismal regeneration, the Catholic view of the Eucharist, Roman See being the Rock, purgatory, seven sacraments, and so on.
>“The first thing which kindles ardor in learning is the greatness of the teacher. What is greater than the Mother of God? What more glorious than she whom Glory Itself chose?” (The Virgins, 377AD).
>Come, then, and search out your sheep, not through your servants or hired men, but do it yourself. Lift me up bodily and in the flesh, which is fallen in Adam. Lift me up not from Sarah but from Mary, a virgin not only undefiled, but a virgin whom grace had made inviolate, free of every stain of sin. – Ambrose on Psalm 118, (387AD).
The entire reason Ambrose started a consecrated virginity congregation was because of his devotion to Mary.
>“Having excepted the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom, on account of the honor of the Lord, I wish to have absolutely no question when treating of sins – for how do we know what abundance of grace for the total overcoming of sin was conferred upon her, who merited to conceive and bear him in whom there was no sin?–so, I say, with the exception of the Virgin, if we could have gathered together all those holy men and women, when they were living here, and had asked them whether they were without sin, what do we suppose would have been their answer?” (Nature, Grace 36:45, Augustine)
>“Every personal sin must be excluded from the Blessed Virgin Mary for the sake of the honor of God.” – St. Augustine, 390AD
The following was written by Augustine:
O blessed Virgin Mary, who can worthily repay thee thy just dues of praise and thanksgiving, thou who by the wondrous assent of thy will didst rescue a fallen world? What songs of praise can our weak human nature recite in thy honor, since it is by thy intervention alone that it has found the way to restoration. Accept, then, such poor thanks as we have here to offer, though they be unequal to thy merits; and receiving our vows, obtain by thy prayers the remission of our offenses. Carry thou our prayers within the sanctuary of the heavenly audience, and bring forth from it the antidote of our reconciliation. May the sins we bring before Almighty God through thee, become pardonable through thee; may what we ask for with sure confidence, through thee be granted. Take our offering, grant us our requests, obtain pardon for what we fear, for thou art the sole hope of sinners. Through thee we hope for the remission of our sins, and in thee, O blessed Lady, is our hope of reward. Holy Mary, succor the miserable, help the fainthearted, comfort the sorrowful, pray for thy people, plead for the clergy, intercede for all women consecrated to God; may all who keep thy holy commemoration feel now thy help and protection. Be thou ever ready to assist us when we pray, and bring back to us the answers to our prayers. Make it thy continual care to pray for the people of God, thou who, blessed by God, didst merit to bear the Redeemer of the world, who liveth and reigneth, world without end. Amen.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
8b253c No.821506
>>821390
>>821505
>You will not find any reference to such a teaching prior to 400 AD
False. The writers of those times were distinguished not so much for their knowledge of the earlier Fathers or of history, as for their exercise of the power of reasoning. They read the Western Fathers more than those of the Eastern Church, who exhibit in far greater completeness the tradition of the Immaculate Conception. And many works of the Fathers which had then been lost sight of have since been brought to light. But, not only do the early Fathers see the parallel between the Ark, they also see her as the New Eve, because Eve damned us to iniquity, at the behest of an Angel, the Blessed Virgin starts the symphony of redemption with her complete submission, at the behest of an Angel.
>"This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one." Origen, Homily 1(A.D. 244).
">[Jesus] became man by the Virgin so that the course that was taken by disobedience in the beginning through the agency of the serpent might be also the very course by which it would be put down. Eve, a virgin and undefiled, conceived the word of the serpent and bore disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy when the angel Gabriel announced to her the glad tidings that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her and the power of the Most High would overshadow her, for which reason the Holy One being born of her is the Son of God. And she replied, "Be it done unto me according to your word" (Luke 1:38) (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 100 [A.D. 155]).
>"For as Eve was seduced by the word of an angel to flee from God, having rebelled against His Word, so Mary by the word of an angel received the glad tidings that she would bear God by obeying his Word. The former was seduced to disobey God, but the latter was persuaded to obey God, so that the Virgin Mary might become the advocate of the virgin Eve. As the human race was subjected to death through [the act of] a virgin, so it was saved by a virgin." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V:19,1 (A.D. 180).
>You will not find any reference to such a teaching prior to 400 AD
Ὑπὸ τὴν σὴν εὐσπλαγχνίαν, καταφεύγομεν, Θεοτόκε. Τὰς ἡμῶν ἱκεσίας, μὴ παρίδῃς ἐν περιστάσει, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ κινδύνων λύτρωσαι ἡμᾶς, μόνη Ἁγνή, μόνη εὐλογημένη.
(250AD–not only does this show the immaculate view of the Blessed Virgin, they're also praying to her)
'''O purest one
O purest virgin
where the Holy Spirit is, there are all things readily ordered.
Where divine grace is present
the soil that, all untilled, bears bounteous fruit
in the life of the flesh, was in possession of the incorruptible citizenship,
and walked as such in all manner of virtues, and lived a life more excellent than man's common standard
thou hast put on the vesture of purity
has selected thee as the holy one and the wholly fair;
and through thy holy, and chaste, and pure, and undefiled womb
since of all the race of man thou art by birth the holy one, and the more honourable, and the purer, and the more pious than any other: and thou hast a mind whiter than the snow, and a body made purer than any gold'''
(Gregory Thaumaturgus, early 3rd century)
Eastern Fathers called her "Panagia"–All-holy.
>Deacon: Remembering our most holy, pure, blessed, and glorious Lady, the Theotokos and ever virgin Mary, with all the saints, let us commit ourselves and one another and our whole life to Christ our God.
From the Divine Liturgy of Chrysostom.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
1693bb No.821509
>>821504
I actually made that thread already. >>821467
Anyways:
>I was more referring to the fact that any dogma Rome proclaims is always seen as infallibly 'true'
Infalliable proclamations are exceedingly rare. Just because someone at the Vatican, up to and including the pope, says something does not mean it is required to be believed. Sure, they do define dogma, but that must necessarily be done by someone on earth at the end of the day. Hence the entire purpose of apostolic succession.
>If the immaculate conception is such an important doctrine, why can no traces of this teaching be found in the early patristic sources (<400 AD)?
To this I'd say Proverbs 4:18:
>But the path of the just is like shining light, that grows in brilliance till perfect day.
Remember that there was no cohesive collection of scripture (at least that wasn't questionable) prior to about 200ish - meaning that there were writings circulating among the early church which were necessarily dismissed from or added to the canon. The NT wasn't even defined properly until 367, and the OT took even longer depending on what your views of Luther's temper tantrum were.
To me, that implies a process of discernment. Also, note that while the Vatican does define dogma, it's also a process, not some arbitrary "thing". The dogma wasn't defined until some questions had been asked and an investigation took place. A number of Christians had similar beliefs before the definition took place.
>Following from this, why are there early church fathers who are saints of your church such as St. Ambrose and St. Augustine (there are more) who deny the immaculate conception?
Many tenets of faith had disagreement in the early church. Disputes being resolved were hardly unheard of.
(continuing)
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
8b253c No.821511
>>821505
>>821506
>>821391
>such as St. Hippolytus of Rome
>He [Jesus] was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle [Mary] was exempt from defilement and corruption (Hippolytus, Orat. In Illud, Dominus pascit me, in Gallandi, Bibl. Patrum, II, 496 ante [A.D. 235]).
>“[T]o all generations they [the prophets] have pictured forth the grandest subjects for contemplation and for action. Thus, too, they preached of the advent of God in the flesh to the world, his advent by the spotless and God-bearing (theotokos) Mary in the way of birth and growth, and the manner of his life and conversation with men, and his manifestation by baptism, and the new birth that was to be to all men, and the regeneration by the laver [of baptism]” (Discourse on the End of the World, Hippolytus 1 [A.D. 217]).
All of the Fathers practiced Marian devotion, as did the early Church. Hippolytus (along with Ambrose, Cyprian, Augustine, every Eastern Father) are known in particular for their Marian devotion.
>simply did not exist in the early Church and were not practiced by early Christians.
Do you -really- want to start talking about the early Church? As I stated in my earlier post, the early Church believed in the Real Presence, Apostolic succession, seven sacraments, baptismal regeneration, the communion of saints, a fortiori, the early Church was Catholic. The rest of your post is pedantic and persnickety–there are all kinds of Biblical parallels that aren't supposed to be exact. We don't have a Talmud, nor a Quran, we have a Bible.
>>821393
>Brother, you have just denied my salvational status
“There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)
>but based on whether I am devoted to his earthly mother
One sigh of the Blessed Virgin Mary is worth more than the prayer of all the Angels and Saints in Heaven.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
8b253c No.821512
>>821511
St. Epiphanus, “The first Christians, whose lives are an example for us, showed a loving veneration to the Virgin. In the paintings produced during the first three centuries of Christianity, those that are conserved in the Roman catacombs, the Virgin is contemplated through her representation with the Child God in her arms. We can never be contented in the way we imitate this attitude of the first Christians"
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
f4b2bb No.821521
>>821504
>Is the board run by them too?
Yes. You used to see lots of Protestants here but now it's mostly Catholics and some Orthodox, with the occasional Catholic false flagging as a Baptist. It's refreshing to see this level of discussion on this board. God bless you anon.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
c8c01c No.821534
>>821505
>Not only do they affirm the immaculate conception, also baptismal regeneration, the Catholic view of the Eucharist, Roman See being the Rock, purgatory, seven sacraments, and so on.
We are only talking about the immaculate conception here, so I will only address the points relevant to that doctrine.
> The Virgins, 377AD
I am not familiar with this text and cannot find it anywhere. Is there any place I could read it/read about it? From the quote you provided however, there is no definitive assertion that Mary was preserved from actual and original sin via an immaculate conception.
> Ambrose on Psalm 118, (387AD)
So when St. Ambrose was commenting on Luke 1:35:
> "For wholly alone of those born of woman was our Holy Lord Jesus, Who by the strangeness of His undefiled Birth has not suffered the pollutions of earthly corruption, but dispelled them by heavenly majesty." (Exposition of the Holy Gospel according to Saint Luke, Book II, §56)
And stated the Jesus was 'wholly alone' in being spared from 'the pollutions of earthly corruption', due to 'the strangeness of His undefiled Birth' and his 'heavenly majesty', what was he talking about? I contend that he absolutely is talking about original sin, and that no human but Christ is free of it.
> "No Conception is without iniquity, since there are no parents who have not fallen." (Prophetae David ad Theodosium Augustum, Caput XI, PL 14:873)
Again, Mary would be necessarily included in this set of conceptions, and hence a carrier of original sin. If she wasnt, why didnt Ambrose ever qualify this statement?
I would also make a comment on the pslam 118 commentary of Ambrose. I really am no expert, but is Ambrose talking about immaculate conception here, or a state which God bestowed upon Mary at some later point?
> Nature, Grace 36:45, Augustine
You have quoted St. Augustine in this part of 'De natura et gratia', and I have seen many Catholics do the same. However, here Augustine was addressing the issue of actual sin, he was absolutely not addressing the issue of original sin, of which he affirmed on multiple occasions that all humans but Christ are carriers of. I will again state some of his words on the matter:
> "For among those born of a woman the holy Lord Jesus was absolutely the only one who did not experience the contagion of earthly corruption because of the new manner of his immaculate birth; rather, he shrugged it off by his celestial majesty.” (Unfinished Work in Answer to Julian, Book I:66)
It should be noted that Augustine stated this near the end of his life. He is clearly stating that only Christ is without original sin, due to manner of his immaculate birth. Mary is completely excluded from this.
> "One alone is there who was born without sin, in the likeness of sinful flesh, who lived without sin amid the sins of others, and who died without sin on account of our sins." (NPNF1: Vol. V, On Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants, Book II, Chapter 57 [XXXV])
Again, here he is clearly speaking to the truth that only Christ was born without original sin, of which Mary is excluded.
> "… that any soul at all, save that of the unique Mediator, was free from inheritance of Adam, that original sin under which we are bound when we are begotten but from which we are freed by our second birth." (FC, Vol. 30, Saint Augustine Letters 165-203, Letter 202A, To Optatus)
And yet again, when he wrote to Optatus - five years after writing 'De natura et gratia' which you quoted, he literally uses the term original sin and categoriacally denies that any other human but Christ was born free of it. I could actually go on and on because Augustine restates this position in multiple other texts, but im sure you get the point. I think it is clear Augustine believes all humans but Christ are born with original sin - including Mary.
As for the other Augustine quote you provided, I do not know where it is from or when it was written, let alone if he even wrote it. In any event there is no definitive assertion here of the immaculate conception.
I do not deny that people such as Ambrose or Augustine believed in intercession, or the perpetual virginity of Mary etc., but I do not think we can say that they categorically affirmed the immaculate conception.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
5112c3 No.821535
>>821534
We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.
(Pope Pius IX, Apostolic Constitution Ineffabilis Deus)
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
c8c01c No.821542
>>821521
>Yes. You used to see lots of Protestants here but now it's mostly Catholics and some Orthodox, with the occasional Catholic false flagging as a Baptist.
They dont sound overly eager to change that state of affairs either, which is a shame. I might not bother really visiting/posting on the board anymore if every thread is 10 Caths doing inquisition work on 1 Protestant.
>It's refreshing to see this level of discussion on this board. God bless you anon.
Thanks man, the discussion has certainly been a bit eye opening for me. I have some devout Catholic friends irl, but they have never categorically condemned me to hell over disbelief in the Marian dogmas like some posters here have (not 'you will have to spend time in purgatory', but 'you will go to hell!'). It makes me wonder how widespread this sort of thing is, or how many Caths believe it behind closed doors. I will never not find the obsession with Mary and all that goes with it bizarre and really sad.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
c8c01c No.821548
>>821506
(1/?)
>"This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one." Origen, Homily 1(A.D. 244).
I do not see Origen definitively stating here that Mary was without original sin. Just because he used the term 'immaculate' does not mean he is speaking of the doctrine that is now known as 'the immaculate conception'. Yes Mary is unique in her position, no one denies that, of course she is 'one of one' as the earthly mother of Jesus, but I dont think this is evidence of Origen definitively affirming the immaculate conception.
The really ridiculous thing about the claim that Origen taught the immaculate conception doctrine is that he literally taught that Mary committed acts of personal sin - not merely carried the stain of original sin! Dont believe me? Go and look at his Homilies on Luke, the 17th chapter where he is providing commentary on Luke 2:33 - 38:
> "6. Thereupon Simeon says, "a sword will pierce your very soul." Which sword is this that pierced not only others' hearts, but even Mary's? Scripture clearly records that, at the time of the Passion, all the apostles were scandalized. The Lord himself said, "This night you will all be scandalized." Thus, they were all so scandalized that Peter too, the leader of the apostles, denied him three times. Why do we think that the mother of the Lord was immune from scandal when the apostles were scandalized? If she did not suffer scandal at the Lord's Passion, then Jesus did not die for her sins. But, if "all have sinned and lack God's glory, but are justified by his grace and redeemed," then Mary too was scandalized at that time." (Homilies on Luke, Ch. 17, sec. 6)
Origen could not possibly have meant anything but acts of personal sin when he used the term of being scandalized in this commentary. When he says the apostles were scandalized that Peter denied Christ three times, he is referring to sin. What could he possibly meant when he said 'If she did not suffer scandal at the Lord's Passion, then Jesus did not die for her sins', and then immediately quoted Romans 3:23-24, adding 'then Mary too was scandalized at that time', if not that Mary was a sinner and needed the cross to be redeemed? The meaning of the excerpt is so plain that it feels superfluous and stupid even typing this out.
Here is the link for Origen btw: https://books.google.com.au/books?id=sUCQS0X1BLMC&pg=PA52&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=2#v=onepage&q&f=false
>"For as Eve was seduced by the word of an angel to flee from God, having rebelled against His Word, so Mary by the word of an angel received the glad tidings that she would bear God by obeying his Word. The former was seduced to disobey God, but the latter was persuaded to obey God, so that the Virgin Mary might become the advocate of the virgin Eve. As the human race was subjected to death through [the act of] a virgin, so it was saved by a virgin." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V:19,1 (A.D. 180).
Again, I dont see where or how Irenaeus is affirming the doctrine of the immaculate conception here. Mary received word that she would bear God, and she obeyed God. Plently of prophets (who sinned) received words of future events/commandments from God and subsequently obeyed Him. How does becoming the 'advocate' of the Virgin Eve affirm that Mary is without original sin? Yes, the human race was saved indirectly through Mary because she gave birth to Jesus Christ who saved the world! To suggest Irenaeus is saying something else there would be very odd.
Another comment on this - Irenaeus seems to indicate that Mary was in the wrong at Cana in Against Heresies book III, Ch. 16, sec. 7:
> For all these things were foreknown by the Father; but the Son works them out at the proper time in perfect order and sequence. This was the reason why, when Mary was urging [Him] on to [perform] the wonderful miracle of the wine, and was desirous before the time to partake of the cup of emblematic significance, the Lord, checking her untimely haste, said, "Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come" -waiting for that hour which was foreknown by the Father.
There are many who have claimed that Irenaeus is indicating Mary a sinned when he says that Christ had to rebuke her: 'checking her untimely haste'.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
c8c01c No.821552
>>821506
>>821548
(2/?)
> (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 100 [A.D. 155]).
Im guessing ' Eve, a virgin and undefiled' is where you are getting the immaculate conception out of this text, because I dont see where else it could come from. Look, as with many of these figures who you guys quote, it is one thing to say Mary was a pure virgin, or 'undefiled' virgin; it is another to extend this to say she never sinned, and was, in fact, kept from original sin by a pre-emptive application of the merits of Jesus Christ, a concept that simply did not even exist for a long time within the Christian faith.
Even respected Roman Catholic historians and theologians such as Ludwig Ott admit this:
>“The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary is not explicitly revealed in Scripture….Neither the Greek nor the Latin Fathers explicitly teach the Immaculate Conception of Mary.” (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, pgs. 200, 201).
>(Gregory Thaumaturgus, early 3rd century)
In regards to the Sub tuum praesidium type thing you quoted, it is a prayer, not an article of teaching. Again, I will ask you, what in this prayer says that Mary never sinned, and was kept from original sin by a pre-emptive application of the merits of Jesus Christ?
>From the Divine Liturgy of Chrysostom.
Again, I will refer you to what I said in the first paragraph in response the the Justin Martyr quote.
>>821511
>All of the Fathers practiced Marian devotion, as did the early Church.
My contention was that the immaculate conception as Catholics know it was not a taught and accepted doctrine within the early patristic sources. I never said the early Church fathers had no Marian practices.
>The rest of your post is pedantic and persnickety–there are all kinds of Biblical parallels that aren't supposed to be exact. We don't have a Talmud, nor a Quran, we have a Bible.
Lol, what a ridiculous thing to say. Yes, how dare I wonder at exactly what the standards for correct and incorrect typological analysis in the Bible is. In fact, I did end up finding some standards from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
>“all persons, events, or objects of the Old Testament are sometimes considered as types, provided they resemble persons, events, or objects in the New Testament, whether the Holy Ghost has intended such a relationship or not.”
Oh cool, you're allowed to just make a connection when needed! Regardless of whether or not the ultimate author of the Bible - the Holy Spirit, actually intended it! This is exactly what happens with typological Marian analysis, you can just go through the Old Testament finding people, places, and things that are “types’ to grant Biblical status to your extra-Biblical Marian beliefs.
>“There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)
Answer me this, if a Catholic accepts all dogmas of the Church, but rejects the immaculate conception, is he anathema and a heretic, destined for hell?
> One sigh of the Blessed Virgin Mary is worth more than the prayer of all the Angels and Saints in Heaven.
Im glad to know where you really stand.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
1693bb No.821567
>>821542
>It makes me wonder how widespread this sort of thing is
Try to remember you're still on a chan board at the end of the day. Even in a place like this, there will still be a lot more cynicism, shitposting, and otherwise negative emotion than can be found elsewhere.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
83f92f No.821579
>>821542
All Christians have to accept the dogma of the Immaculate Conception under pain of heresy and automatic expulsion from the Body of Christ.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
83f92f No.821583
>>821552
>Regardless of whether or not the ultimate author of the Bible - the Holy Spirit
Your "Bible" is not the real Bible, codified at Hippo/Carthage. You, with your own authority, reject the Holy Spirit's guidance of the Church to form the Hippo/Carthage canon.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
c8c01c No.821634
>>821567
>Try to remember you're still on a chan board at the end of the day. Even in a place like this, there will still be a lot more cynicism, shitposting, and otherwise negative emotion than can be found elsewhere.
Its definitely one of the drawbacks out of many great things about anonymous image boards. Catholics here have always been more hard hitting than most other places ive been - online or otherwise.
>>821579
>All Christians have to accept the dogma of the Immaculate Conception under pain of heresy and automatic expulsion from the Body of Christ.
I have had Catholic friends tell me that water baptism (RC Church recognizes water baptisms from many Protestant churches) along with an active faith inline with the Nicene Creed will be enough to get me to purgatory, even if I am not a Catholic. Can anyone clear this up for me?
>>821583
>Your "Bible" is not the real Bible, codified at Hippo/Carthage. You, with your own authority, reject the Holy Spirit's guidance of the Church to form the Hippo/Carthage canon.
I wont debate the Solas of Protestantism here, so I wont make a comment on this matter. The quote I gave you however from the Catholic Encyclopedia about typological standards was in relation to the Roman Catholic Bible, and my following comment was also referencing the Roman Catholic Bible
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
c8c01c No.821645
Look, this thread might fall down the catalog soon so i'll make a general comment. Firstly, thank you to all the Catholics (and Protestants) who have taken time to respond to any posts that I made, I really do appreciate it. However, as it stands I have not been convinced by your arguments that the Marian Dogmas are readily supported by scripture in the New Testament (whose composition we agree on), or the Old Testament (excluding the apocrypha). Some of the outstanding reasons are:
>The erroneous use of the Greek language and its grammatical rules to eisegetically read Marian doctrines into the text, when plain reading of the passage in context would never yield these conclusions (sometimes it would suggest the opposite). If the same standards for these words and grammatical rules were used across all NT instances of them (such as Catholic use of perfect passive participles in Luke 1:28), huge theological problems would arise. I feel like I never got a proper response to the points I made in relation to the Greek.
>The precarious standards upon which Marian typological analysis is conducted. If it is valid to create types from the text 'whether the Holy Ghost has intended such a relationship or not'(RC encyclopedia), then anything goes, and anyone who wants to eisegetically read a doctrine into the text via types simply can, no matter how flimsical it is. Also, figures in the NT identified many 'types', if Mary is such an important type why is no typological comment made explicitly made about her?
>That the early Church never identified Mary in passages such as Genesis 3:15, or Revelations 11 and 12. The earliest writers saw the woman in the latter passages as either the church/Israel with the conjunction of both views into one coming long after. One example can be found in the interpretation of St. Hippolytus on Revelations, which one poster >>821511 replied to but failed to give any evidence that Hippolytus was not identifying the Church in Revelations 11,12, but identifying Mary. Likewise I am still waiting for any Catholic to cite an early patristic source which definitively identifies Genesis 3:15 as talking about Mary.
Furthermore, I still stand by my statement that the definitive assertion of doctrines such as the immaculate conception are not readily found in the early patristic sources and writings as some have said. A couple of exemplary problems:
>Many of the figures who posters provided for supporting quotations such as St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, Origen and Irenaeus either affirmed that Mary was a carrier of original sin, or flat out stated she had committed acts of personal sin. I have not gotten a response to this yet.
>That most references to such doctrines are too vague, indefinite or open to interpretation, making it hard to leap from a statement like 'Mary was a pure virgin', or 'undefiled virgin', 'spotless' etc. to extending this to say she never sinned, and was, in fact, kept from original sin by a pre-emptive application of the merits of Jesus Christ, a concept that simply did not even exist for a long time within the Christian faith. There are Roman Catholic theologians and historians who recognize the latter point.
I have talked to Catholics about most of these matters- including clergy. I have been to Catholic philosophy groups and even have a great love and interest in the Aristotelian-Scholastic philosophical tradition which much Catholic teaching is born of. But whenever I have been invited to RCIA, or pondered about what becoming a Catholic would look like for me, it is issues like the Marian dogmas and devotion that prevent me from taking any further steps. I hope Catholics understand that we Protestants arent simpletons who irrationally 'hate' Mary, but Christians with serious and much of the time unsatisfactory responses to our grievances. I hope Protestants who have read this thread have gained some new insight into the nature of the dispute also.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
83f92f No.821650
>>821634
>I have had Catholic friends tell me that water baptism (RC Church recognizes water baptisms from many Protestant churches) along with an active faith inline with the Nicene Creed will be enough to get me to purgatory, even if I am not a Catholic. Can anyone clear this up for me?
"The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)
The average "Catholic" thinks Mass is just for communion, and that God doesn't actually care if someone uses contraception, etc. They're excommunicated as per Canon Law and Catholic theology.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
e080a1 No.821886
>>821257
Refuting the best Protestant arguments against Marian veneration and dogmas,
1)Mother of God/Theotokos is only to affirm Christ's deity and incarnation
Let it be noted first that this is indeed the focus of why the title is used. However this argument misrepresents the patristic data from the 4th-6th centuries on this issue of Mary as Theotokos being emphasized. This anon claims that there is no such honour given to Mary or veneration of her presupposed when the title is used by claiming exclusivity to the meaning as only saying something about Christ. Let's make the data more accurate by instead saying that Marian veneration and honour arises and is emphasised to show and convey the message that such reverence and honour is done due to Christology.
For proof we look at Athanasius:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2806061.htm
>And at this also I am much surprised, how they have ventured to entertain such an idea as that the Word became man in consequence of His Nature. For if this were so, the commemoration of Mary would be superfluous. For neither does Nature know of a Virgin bearing apart from a man. Whence by the good pleasure of the Father, being true God, and Word and Wisdom of the Father by nature, He became man in the body for our salvation, in order that having somewhat to offer for us He might save us all, 'as many as through fear of death were all their life-time subject to bondage.'
Letter 59 also refers to the commemoration of Mary. If that anon's assessment on the early Christian use of Theotokos is correct why did Athanasius essentially refers to the comemmoration of Mary when speaking of Christ, a practice which is essentially about venerating Mary?
This commemoration cannot be what Scripture says because no author during, before and after his time uses the term to refer to a specific Scriptural narrative. When this term is used, it is about liturgical commemoration, naming saints in the liturgical service which as Cyril of Jerusalem, writing close to Athanasius' time makes clear, is done to seek intercession. This is basically a liturgical veneration of saints which hardly any Protestant do.
For instance see Cyprian,
>And of these finally, take note of the days on which they die that we may be able to celebrate their commemorations among the memorials of the martyrs although Tertullus,1i our very faithful and very devoted brother, who does not fail in that matter regarding the care of bodies, among other things which, in his solicitude and care, he bestows upon the brethren in every duty of service, has written and is writing and indicating to me the days on which our blessed brethren in prison pass through the exit door of a glorious death to immortality. And, for their commemorations, let there be celebrated here by us Oblations and Sacrifices which, with protection of the Lord, we shall celebrate soon with you.(Letter 12, pg.35-36. Also on pg.100 where Commemoration of someone is done eucharistically.Elsewhere commemoration is used for remembering Christ's actions in constituting the eucharist so the context is still liturgical)
This is from the CUA press fathers of the church series which seems to classify the epistles differently than CCEL. Keep note. But this is genuine.
So this means that Athanasius actually used the veneration of Mary to argue for Christology because it is not the part of any Protestant liturgy to have special remembrance of commemoration of Mary. And also because Athanasius knew Alexander who is the first to use this title of Theotokos, this means he may have actually known the commemoration of Mary in the eucharist from Alexander too.
So Catholics are right when noting that the veneration of Mary has something to do with Christology.
Next, I will show it from Cyril of Alexandria how he actually considers honouring Mary to be something that makes a statement on Christology.
Also see
So that anon who thinks Theotokos has no effect on Marian veneration or relation to honouring Mary is just false. Otherwise the practice of such by liturgical commemoration wouldnt be mentioned as part of arguing for Christ's deity and the incarnation
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
e080a1 No.821893
>>821886
Cont .
In Cyril of Alexandria's Contra Nestorius the beginning already makes clear that the title of Theotokos when used also ascribes honour to Mary. In fact we see him saying regarding Nestorius and his group that,
>I do not know how they can bring themselves to do it, but there are those who besmirch the most sacred beauty of the teachings of the Church and calumniate the holy and most pure Virgin,14 reducing her to the meagre level of their own flimsy ideas and planting in our midst a host of novel inventions. For they brand the word ‘Theotokos’, which the holy fathers who preceded us devised and applied to the holy Virgin, an illegitimate and inept term, or rather one that goes beyond all reasonable language.15 They bisect the one Lord Jesus Christ, dividing him into two separate sons, and remove from God the Word the sufferings of the flesh, even though we have certainly not said that he suffered in his own nature, by which we conceive of him as God, but rather have attributed to him along with the flesh the sufferings that befell the flesh, so that he too should be acknowledged as Saviour.16 For ‘with his stripes we were healed’, as Scripture says, ‘and he was bruised for our sins’ (Is. 53:5), even though he was incapable of experiencing bruising. We have been saved by his taking death upon himself for our sake through his own body.(Quoted from Russell's translation, pg.131-132)
If the use of Theotokos doesnt have any bearing on Mary's honour and it's solely to say something about Christ's deity, why does Cyril use epithets for Mary(Holy and most pure virgin)? He even speaks of Nestorians reducing her to a meagre level by their rejection of the term Theotokos and turn Christ into "two sons". While the title here has implications for Christology, we see it does not exclude honour given to Mary or the title as honouring her. It should be noted that even Nestorius' concerns and rejection of the term does not exclude veneration of her which the Assyrian Church which honours Nestorius, still do in their own services today. As Cyril quotes Nestorius,
> Look what follows, heretic. I do not begrudge you the expression ‘Virgin Christotokos’.21 I know that she who received God is venerable, she through whom the Lord of all things passed, through whom the sun of righteousness shone forth. Again I am suspicious of your applause.22 How do you understand ‘passed through’? I did not use ‘passed through’ as a synonym for ‘was born’. I have not forgotten my own words as quickly as that. That God passed through from the Virgin as Christotokos I have been taught by the divine Scriptures, but that God was born from her I have not been taught anywhere.23(pg.136)
Here, Nestorius makes clear that the woman who received God is venerable and is even where Jesus Christ the Lord has passed through but not in the manner as biological birth. Note also that right after quoting Nestorius, Cyril literally using the honour to Mary as an argument against him, asking why does he deprive Mary of the dignity of bearing Christ despite calling her venerable(pg.137). In this context he also paints Nestorius as inconsistent as he considers that label mistaken yet Nestorius permits those who wants to use it, to use it which by his standards would be blasphemous as Cyril himself says,
>consider this term which is so blasphemous (as it seems to you alone) fit to adorn the most venerable one and you pretend to crown her, presenting this calumny against the Word of God as if dedicating some choice gift to her?
And not much later,
>Will you not be caught insulting the venerable one rather than, as you yourself think and say, choosing to honour her by assigning her a title detestible to God? For if we give names to those we intend to honour through which the glory of the supreme nature is denigrated, first we shall involve ourselves unintentionally in such impious crime, and secondly with regard to them we shall do them no small disservice, glorifying those who are praised, as if by the bestowal of honour, with what does not praise them, and weaving for them a eulogy hateful to God.(ibid.)
This sort of language in speaking of Mary or arguing proper Christology is not used by the Reformers or most Protestants at all. This again further solidifies the fact that the best argument against Marian dogmas ITT is inaccurate about the later Patristic view of the use of Theotokos.
We will see more from Cyril in the next post before going to Ephesus
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
e080a1 No.821901
>>821893
Cont.
One argument that Cyril uses later on in Against Nestorius is how his argument leads to Mary being no special than other biblical women. The prime example Cyril uses is Elizabeth as Cyril explains why Nestorius' use of "pass through" is flawed,
>But since you have taken ‘passed through’ from I know not where and have applied it to God, explain the word clearly.25 What is the meaning of this so-called ‘passage’? Tell those who do not know what you have in mind. For if the Word of God passed through her in the sense of transferring from one place to another, this will knock you down. For you will hear him saying by the voice of the saints: ‘Do I not fill heaven and earth? says the Lord’ (Jer. 23:24). The divine does not occupy a place and does not experience physical transfers of location, for it fills all things. But if while awaiting the appropriate time for the birth, he dwelt incidentally in a human being, and that is why you say that God was in transit in the holy Virgin, or ‘passed through’ her (for on every occasion I shall use your own sacred terms26), it follows that we see nothing more in the holy Virgin than in other women. For Elizabeth gave birth to the blessed Baptist who was sanctified by the Holy Spirit, the same Spirit through whom the Son himself makes his home in us. The wise John testifies to this when he says: ‘By this we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he has given us of his own Spirit’ (1 Jn 4:13). Therefore the Word of God also passed through Elizabeth herself, dwelling in the infant through the Spirit even before his birth.(Against Nestorius, pg 139)
The latter part of the argument would not had made sense if Mary being above other women in honour was not in mind here. To Cyril, the way Nestorius' say that Jesus passed through Mary in the incarnation is one that since it doesnt entail Mary as Theotokos, is nothing special in comparison with other women such as Elizabeth who herself was filled with the Holy Spirit when pregnant with John the Baptist. So here the honour of Mary above other women is a key point to argue against Nestorian Christology as if she cannot be called Theotokos and Christ did "transit" through her, is she then not different from the other women in Scripture who also received the Holy Spirit? This serves to reinforce the notion that Nestorian Christology is also two sons, as if the Holy Spirit didnt take away John's will or personhood, then it would entail two persons in that womb which is now applicable to Mary. Earlier, Cyril utilised a similar logic to this and made clear that Nestorius who permit others to use the title Theotokos must to be coherent, admit that it is ok for others to apply the term to women like Elizabeth since they too received the Holy Spirit and thus received God. Yet to Cyril, both he and Nestorius know this is not true. So only Mary is Theotokos(See pg 138 of Russell's translation) and the implication is, she is special above other women for it as the quote above indicates quite clearly for us.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
e080a1 No.821903
>>821901
This should be sufficient to show that veneration of Mary do play a role in the controversy over Theotokos but we now move from Cyril to another key figure who gave a homily on the Theotokos before Nestorius himself, Proclus of Constantinople. Homily I on the Theotokos begins with this, language which can be said to be not how Luther or Calvin or any Protestant would use for Mary,
>The Virgin’s festival, my brethren, summons us today to words of 5 praise, and the present feast has benefits to bestow on those who assemble to keep it. And surely this is right, for its subject is chastity. What we celebrate is the pride of women and the glory of the female, thanks to the one who was at once both mother and virgin. Lovely is the gathering! See how both the earth and the sea serve as the Virgin’s 10 escorts: the one spreading forth her waves calmly beneath the ships, the other conducting the steps of travelers on their way unhindered. Let nature leap for joy, and let women be honored! Let all humanity dance, and let virgins be glorified! For “where sin increased, grace abounded yet more.”1 She who called us here today is the Holy Mary; 15 the untarnished vessel of virginity; the spiritual paradise of the second Adam;2 the workshop for the union of natures; the market-place of the contract of salvation; the bridal chamber in which the Word took the flesh in marriage; the living bush of human nature, which the fire of a divine birth-pang did not consume;3 the veritable swift cloud4 20 who carried in her body the one who rides upon the cherubim; the purest fleece5 drenched with the rain which came down from heaven, whereby the shepherd clothed himself with the sheep;6 handmaid and mother,7 virgin and heaven, the only bridge for God to mankind; the awesome loom of the divine economy upon which the robe8 of union 25 was ineffably woven.(quoted from: Proclus of Constantinople and the Cult of the Virgin in Late Antiquity: Homilies 1 to 5, pg.137, translated by Maximos Constas for Brill)
Are there festivals to honour Mary in Protestantism where she "calls" the faithful to come and celebrate it?
The answer is simple, no. What should be noted about this homily is that it has some parallels to Luke's gospel. Mary is prominent at the beginning before moving to the atonement of Christ and its benefits.Later on we will see how Luke follows this in his birth narrative but for now I note that the description of Mary here is one where it cannot be said that there is zero intention to honour Mary or veneration isnt supposed.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
e080a1 No.821905
>>821903
The Council of Ephesus itself was held directly in the "great church" in Ephesus that bore the name of Mary(Ctrl +FMary in the Acts of Ephesus page on New Advent and see for yourself). Cyril of Alexandria would give a series of homilies there and the contents reveal once more how the issue of Mary as Theotokos also has bearings and relates to her veneration. Homily IV of this series shows clearly again how Mary the Theotokos calls the council together as Cyril declares in the opening,
>I see a beaming assembly of saints,⁷⁰ who have all eagerly gathered together, called by the holy Mother of God, Mary, the eternal Virgin.(Quoted from Wessel, Cyril of Alexandria and the Nestorian Controversy: The Making of a Saint and of a Heretic (Oxford Early Christian Studies),pg.311)
And after this, similar to Proclus himself, Cyril have this to say about Mary,
>Hail from us, Mary, Mother of God, the venerable treasure of all the world, the inextinguishable flame,⁷⁵ the crown of virginity, the sceptre of orthodoxy, the indissoluble temple, the place for the infinite, the Mother and Virgin; through whom the one who comes in the name of the Lord is called blessed in the holy Gospels;⁷⁶ Hail, the one who contains the uncontainable in the holy virginal womb, through whom the holy Trinity is glorified and venerated throughout the world, through whom heaven is exalted, through whom angels and archangels are delighted, through whom demons are banished, through whom the tempting devil fell from heaven, through whom fallen human nature is assumed into heaven, through whom all of creation, possessed by the madness of idolatry, came to the full knowledge of truth, through whom holy baptism came into being for all the faithful, through whom is the oil of exultation, through whom the churches have been founded for all the world, through whom the nations are brought into repentance. And what more is there to say? Through whom the Only Begotten Son of God shined light for those that sit in the darkness and shadow of death;⁷⁷ through whom the prophets prophesied; through whom the apostles proclaim salvation to the nations; through whom the dead were revived; through whom kings reign, through the Holy Trinity. Is it even possible for people to speak of the celebrated Mary? The virginal womb;⁷⁸O thing of wonder! The marvel strikes me with awe! Who ever heard of a builder who, after he constructed his own temple, was prevented from dwelling in it? Who is insulted for having summoned his own servant into motherhood?(pg.312)
And remember that point that Mary is "indirectly" the cause of salvation? Well we dont see that sort of restraint in language here as we see that Mary as the one who bore God is the instrument/vehicle for holy Baptism to come to the faithful, for the churches to be founded, the vehicle through which human nature is assumed into heaven. Clearly he has in mind the incarnation. Yet we see that he takes this very seriously, as Catholics and Orthodox do. Do we see Luther, Calvin or James White using this language to describe Mary?
Of course not. In fact the presence of such in the hymns of Catholics and Orthodox is seen as idolatrous.
So we see the best argument against Marian dogmas ITT, misrepresents the issue of the use of the term Theotokos.
Next off we move to Irenaeus.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
e080a1 No.821908
>>821548
Here, the Protestant argues that when Irenaeus describes Mary as the cause of salvation, it is merely "indirect" language and nothing approaching the view of Mary's importance in the Divine Economia. What is missed out here is the simple fact that Mary is portrayed as a co-recapitulator with Christ in the Divine economy of Salvation. To understand the significance, we need to understand the intertextual use of Genesis 1-3 here(it is actually a common theme throughout Adversus Heresies but its use here will be the focus). But first one thing to note is the fact that reducing Irenaeus' statement here to just "indirect" cause contradicts Irenaeus own exegetical principle of Typology.
In Adversus Heresies III, Chapter 22(the most detailed exposition on the Mary-Eve parallel), Irenaeus introduces the Eve-Mary typology and the Adam-Christ typology here. We see the significance of the flesh that is obtained from Mary to the economy of Salvation. It is important to note that Mary's role is subordinate to that of Christ in this entire economy. The overarching sense is clearly of God's work in recapitulation. Part of this work however, requires the Old and New Testaments to be joined together and Typology is one of the functions of this. The first role of Mary is more passive, stressing the importance of the flesh that is from her as a guarantee of Christ's humanity(remember, Irenaeus states here that if Christ didnt take anything from Mary, he wouldnt have hungered, ate, fasted. He needs to get the flesh of men the way we all do to be truly human). This logic also utilises an intertextual relationship with Genesis through the trigger words "earth", "formation", "hand and workmanship"…etc. This taking up of flesh is also tied to Adam-Christ typology where Christ must take on human nature in order to sum "up in Himself all nations dispersed from Adam downwards, and all languages and generations of men, together with Adam himself".
Part of this divine design then, flowing from the typological logic and recapitulation, requires Mary to be the one who undoes the damage of Eve too. Flowing from this, her role now becomes more active. Her obedience in contrast to Eve's disobedience cause Salvation for the entire human race in contrast to Eve's active disobedience who caused the death of the entire human race. There is a "social" role for both here where the acts of both has implications for the whole. Because of this, her role isnt merely her as "indirectly causing" salvation but in fact more direct although as part of the Divine plan. Typological logic only strengthens this and makes Mary a re-capitulator of humanity. After all, Eve didnt "indirectly" cause sin and death to flow into the world to begin with and so just as Eve was more active and has the responsibility for that beside Adam, so too Mary. As Irenaeus himself states,
>so that the former ties be cancelled by the latter, that the latter may set the former again at liberty. And it has, in fact, happened that the first compact looses from the second tie, but that the second tie takes the position of the first which has been cancelled.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.xxiii.html
Mary's role as being more than "indirect" is also seen when he discusses the Mary-Eve Typology in Adversus Heresies V, chapter 19 where Irenaeus describes Mary as a "patroness"/advocate of Eve, a clear indication of how her role has much more significance for humanity as a whole and is also instrumental in untying the knot of Eve
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.vii.xx.html
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
e080a1 No.821910
>>821908
I realized that I made a mistake in calling Mary a re-capitulator. It should be "co-recapitulator.
Anyhow, Irenaeus' structure clearly doesnt have to mean that Irenaeus prays to Mary or actively venerates her. But even with what he presents, his portrayal of Mary is in fact beyond the confines of Protestantism because of the fact that Mary's own active role contributed to the salvation of humanity which is something no Protestant would affirm except for "indirect". Mary may be sinless to the early Reformers, even the most holy but her role as Eve's advocate or cause of Salvation is not present at all. Calvin himself would not approve of such a language as he doesnt even agree with Augustine's "synergistic" language to begin with. That Mary's obedience and faith have the significance of co-recapitulator or as an important point of salvation history such that her role is more active, this is perhaps closest to some Anglican divines of high church persuasion. But beyond this, it is rare if not non existent for a Protestant to affirm an Irenaean view of Mary.
Such a view should extend to devotional life which one starts to see in the 3rd century with the oldest prayer to Mary and Hippolytus' rhetorical language
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
e080a1 No.821927
>>821910
Now I will cover 3rd century evidence for Marian veneration starting with Hippolytus. In Fragment VIII of his writings, when referring to the incarnation of Christ, he uses the common epithet for Mary that is extremely similar to those found in later liturgies and some later fathers, "All-holy Mary, ever-virgin". The flesh of Christ is also described as "All Holy" right after calling Mary this. In a sense, Hippolytus' own statements here anticipate the views of later Christology
https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iii.iv.ii.v.viii.html
In a fragment cited by Theodoret, Hippolytus utilises rhetorical language where Samuel and Mary are directly invoked and questioned as if they are present. While the Christology here is Nestorian, it is to be remembered who is citing this, a supporter of Nestorius who could very well made some adjustments. Such invocation is also not foreign to Hippolytus as he does this in his Commentary on Daniel, beseeching the three youths in the furnace,
>1. Tell me, you three boys, remember me, I entreat you, that I also may obtain the same lot of martyrdom with you, who was the fourth person with you who was walking in the midst of the furnace and who was hymning to God with you as from one mouth? Describe to us his form and beauty so that we also, seeing him in the flesh3 , may recognize him.(see pg 73)
https://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/pdf/0205_hippolytus_commentary-on-daniel_2010.pdf
He also does this with Nebuchadnezzar,
>2. Tell me, Nebuchadnezzar, for when did you see the Son of God, so that you confessed this one to be the Son of God? Who pricked your heart so that you plainly spoke such a word? With what sort of eyes were you able to see the light of him4 ? 33.3. But why was this shown to you alone and to one of the other satraps? But it is because it is said, “the heart of the king is in the hand of God.”(pg76-77)
At first sight these may make the invocation of Mary or the three youths seem to be just merely rhetorical devices. However there is another easy explanation for why Hippolytus does this. Because in exegeting the text, Hippolytus and his audience are participating in the narrative of the text which is a common part of early Christian exegesis. In fact later hymns will even follow this structure. For an example of this, we have Melito of Sardis' Peri Pascha where the exegesis and sermon on the Exodus narrative is actually described in a manner such that the audience are somehow "present" in the narrative. Dragoş Andrei Giulea in "Pre-Nicene Christology in Paschal Contexts: The Case of the Divine Noetic Anthropos", notes this and devotes an entire chapter detailing paschal exegesis as "mystery performance". Through exegesis, the reader and audience experience the presence of Christ mediated by the Scriptures. A similar view is noted by Calvinist scholar Hans Boersma in "Scripture as real presence : sacramental exegesis in the early church".
Because of this view of exegetical activity which is still evident in the Eastern and Western liturgies today and as it developed, this means that when Hippolytus is addressing Mary or the three youths, he is really presupposing participation in the narrative such that they are encountered and seen. This explains the rhetorical technique used to make them appear present and later Byzantine hymns and liturgy follow in this footsteps. Hence even this basic exegetical activity is in fact a form of veneration as it is clear there is a reverence for the figures invoked, save for Nebuchadnezzer who is seen to suffer the consequence of his actions
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
e080a1 No.821951
>>821927
Now we get to the real issue of Mary in Scripture.
>>821365
Here the main point boils down to "Grace" in Gabriel's greeting to Mary is essentially a statement that Mary was favoured by God. There is nothing wrong with this. Practically all commentators render it as "favoured one" and it weakens the use of the verse to support the Immaculate Conception which I dont agree with in the first place. Yet however even when Mary is said to be divinely favored by God, that does not entail a low view of Mary in the grand soteriological narrative. The text also indicate a higher view of Mary than what a plain reading will allow for. This is especially so if we use the technique of letting Scripture interpret itself and thus allow Luke's intertextuality to Old Testament verses to guide us to the significance and meaning of the verses.
Although not mentioned by this anon, "Hail, full of grace"/"Hail, favoured one" can actually simply be just an ordinary greeting and some commentators emphasise this. This is also a common Protestant argument to downplay Mary's importance and role. However χαίρω can also be used to denote a call to rejoice. The BDAG lexicon notes this meaning but classifies the use in Luke 1:28 as being more towards a normal greeting. However it is important to note that the BDAG doesnt just say that this essentially merely means "hello" as the greeting is meant to signal being in good terms and to wish someone well. This sense is is emphasized later by calling Mary "favored one". Given similarities with Zeph 3:4-15 ; Zech 9:9 and Joel 2:21 there is a sense in which Gabriel's announcements to Mary casts her as in a way, representative of Israel as in these instances which closely resemble the greetings to Mary which adds significance to what is essentially a simple ordinary greeting. Also note the similarity of the annunciation to what happened with the high priest Zacharias regarding the birth of John.
Gabriel's label of Mary as "favoured one" shows that Mary is the recipient of divine benefaction and clearly because she is chosen to be the one who will birth the Messiah of Israel. It's new king(verses 31-33). In verse 35, we also get what is essentially the most plain statement that literally makes the motif of Mary as the Ark of the Covenant or a type of it something that is plausible. In this verse the statement of "overshadow"(Ἐπισκιάσει) brings to mind several OT verses such as Exodus 40:34–35 and Numbers 9:18; 10:34 where the term is used to describe the Shekinah cloud that rests on the tabernacle. In Pslams 91:4 [90:4 LXX] and140:7 [139:8 LXX], it refers to God's presence in protecting his people. Luke 9:34 uses the term to describe the cloud of the Transfiguration overshadowing the disciples. Given the connection to these then, it would be that what Gabriel refers to is the fact that God's presence in the manner of these OT verses, is located at Mary. Mary is now the nexus of divine action and presence which is in fact what the role of the Ark of the Covenant functions as in the Old Testament where God's presence is there in a more special sense.
This is not all however as when Mary and Elizabeth meet, we get more hints that point to Luke portraying Mary as a type of the Ark.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
e080a1 No.821968
>>821951
Before getting to how Luke portrays Mary as a type of the Ark of the Covenant, I want to make one additional note about the most high overshadowing Mary. It is similar to Acts 1:8 and Pentecost where the Holy Spirit will descend upon the disciples. This presents Mary's position as prefiguring or anticipating the future activities of the Messiah and God as he establishes the New Covenant. Mary could be said to be just as Gabriel announcing the favour and birth to her, announcing and heralding the new age and salvation of Israel as Luke will record of the Messiah later in the Gospel and the formation of the Church in Acts. More of this role would come to light as we move to the Magnificat. For now though, we move to the meeting with Elizabeth after the annunciation(verse 43) where the intertextual link with 2 Samuel 6:9 when Elizabeth asks Mary her question.
When Mary visited her relative, Elizabeth, the first questioned she asked is "43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?".
It could be said that the intertext is in fact not to David's question before the Ark but instead to 2 Samuel 24:1-4 which if so, diminishes the argument for Mary as a Type of the Ark of Covenant. That the Messiah be from David's lineage is after all stated by Luke earlier and Gabriel did say that the child that Mary will give birth to would become the king of Israel forever and David was a king of Israel. However in light of the overshadowing of the power and Spirit of God over Mary which tends to describe God's overshadowing and presence in the Tabernacle and glory, it would be more fitting that Luke actually intends to see Mary as someone who is essentially hosting the divine presence similarly to the Tabernacle in the OT or Mount Zion. This makes the intertextual link to 2 Samuel 6:9 more likely especially when Lord here has more Divine conocations and also anticipates Acts 2:34-36(again showing how Mary is heralding the New Covenant as this first identification of Jesus as Lord in Luke's narrative begins first here).
Also significant in verse 42 the Greek verb ἀνεφώνησεν(where Elizabeth spake out in a loud voice) in this verse appears in the LXX exclusively for liturgical acclaimations(see 1Chronicles 15:28; 16 4, 5 & 42 and 2 Chronicles 5:13. In 1 Chronicles 16:42, this term is not used before the Ark of the Covenant but is done in a cultic context.The other usages all relate to the Ark of the Covenant in its transfer to Jerusalem. This entails that it is very likely Luke wants his audience to see that Elizabeth is actually reacting in a manner akin to David before the Ark and is making an open declaration before Yahweh himself which makes Mary as a Type of Ark or temple, very likely. This view also has one huge advantage that Protestants seem to not realise, by declaring Mary as the Ark of Covenant, there is also an implication that it is Yahweh himself being present in her womb given the fact that the Ark is also the nexus of Divine presence in the OT.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
e080a1 No.822159
>>821968
I will linger on v.42 as it contains a significant statement from Elizabeth I havent covered, "Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.". Given the way the word for "shout" was used in the LXX, this language could be seen as one of reverence towards Mary which isn't surprising given that before her is someone who is seen as akin to the Ark, bearing the Divine presence. This verse resonates with Judges 5:24 and the deuterocanonical Judith 13:18 in which the language of blessed is used towards a woman. Regardless of which text Luke has in mind here, it is clear that both would indicate Mary as the instrument which will bring about something to the benefit of Israel as in both texts, the women are praised for their actions. In Mary's case however, unlike the violence in these texts, her instrumental role is through bearing the deliverer in her womb, that is Jesus and her faith as verse 45 indicates, which also IMO, further solidifies Mary's role as anticipating what will happen later on in Luke and Acts.
Elizabeth's "shout" is then reciprocated by Mary's song of the Magnificat. The song is clear on its emphasis on Divine sovereignty and priority and is one of gratefulness and thanksgiving to God for appointing her this divine role to bear and birth the Messiah. There is also clear thematic parallels with OT hymns of praise such as 1 Samuel 2:1-10(the strongest parallel) where Hannah expresses thanksgiving to God for granting her a son(i.e status reversals and his faithfulness for instance), Exodus 15:1-8 where Moses and the Israelites sing to glorify God for delivering them from Egypt and Pharaoh(also in verses 19-21 where Miriam and the women sang and danced). Such thematic parallels and clear echo may indicate here of Mary's role as God's instrument as part of a continual chain that accumulates with her through the coming of the Messiah. Some of these may also indicate her as in a sense, representing Israel. For instance Mary's "lowly estate" in v.48 can be used to refer to the oppressed state of the people of God(Deuteronomy 26:7; 1 Samuel 9:16 ; 2 Kings 4:26; Psalm 1 36:23 and in the dueterocanon, 1 Maccabees 3:51 and 3 Maccabees 2:12). Paired up with the focus on Mary's song shifting from what God does to her to Israel(indicated in verse 54). This view is not foreign to the Second Temple Judaic background of the NT, as Pseudo-Philo's exegesis of Hannah and Deborah shows. Bauckham notes in his study on Gospel women where both of them are portrayed as mothers of Israel(Gospel Women: Studies of the Named Women in the Gospels, pg.65). So this line of thinking that I am showing here, is not something implausible of Luke and if it is true, shows that Luke is portraying Mary as a key instrument in Israel's Salvation history at its key point through her birth of the Messiah.
The significance of her role is not missed by Mary herself as she sings that all generations will call her blessed. Of course this is not because of any merit of her own but of what God has done through her by regarding her lowly estate.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
95d26a No.822643
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.