Quote:
The parting of ways comes, I think, with the beliefs about just who Mary was besides being the physical mother of Jesus. Catholic belief, as best as I can understand it, says that she was a perfect human being, unfallen, without sin, and therefore afforded a special status in the Kingdom of Heaven based on her own merits. They recognize her as still being a created being, but essentially an unfallen human being, as Adam and Eve were before their sin. Thus, she is worthy and powerful to be prayed to, asking her to intercede on one's behalf to God.
Protestants take a different view. They believe that while Mary was "blessed among women" and chosen for an extremely special task, and was probably a girl of strong integrity and purity, she was still an ordinary imperfect human being. There is Biblical evidence for this. Mark 3:21 and 31-35 say clearly (to me) that at one point in Jesus's career, Mary decided that He'd gone insane and she actually went to rein Him in. You can try to claim that this is an honest mistake rather than a sin, or try to wriggle out of it some other way, but in my mind it just doesn't compute if she was truly "perfect."
More importantly, Romans 3:23 says that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Jesus is obviously the exception to this since He *is* God, but there is no room for other exceptions there. Unless you claim Mary is actually divine, this verse is problematic.
Catholics also say that Mary not only was a virgin at the time she conceived Jesus and remained a virgin until after he was born (which is clearly in the Bible-- see Matthew 1:25), but that she remained a virgin all her life. I even once saw a Catholic scholar explain why Joseph also remained chaste all his life so that the "Holy Family" was "perfect." This is a nice tidy idea that just isn't supported by scripture. For one thing, it assumes that there's something "dirty" about sex and that Mary and Joseph would somehow be degraded if they engaged in it, even as a married couple after the birth of Jesus. I disagree with that view-- God made sex to be enjoyed in the context of marriage, and there's nothing degrading about it. The verse above, Matthew 1:25, says that they did not come together "until" after the birth of Jesus. That does not conclusively prove that they DID have sex afterwards, but the implication is certainly there.
Furthermore, Mark 3 above talks about the "mother and brothers" of Jesus. I've heard this variously explained as Joseph's sons by a previous marriage (in which case they would be step-brothers) or cousins (in which case they're not brothers at all). But James, for example, is referred to as Jesus's brother even outside the Gospels (Galatians 1:19). The most probable explanation to me is that he is Jesus's younger half-brother, the son of Mary and Joseph.
I go through all that to explain the factual basis of my problem with the Catholic teaching, but I don't think any of those details are really very important. What *is* important, in my opinion, is the attitude you take towards Mary now. The tendency in Catholic theology is to put "buffers" between ordinary Christians and God. Direct interaction with God is limited, and a lot seems to go through priests, saints, and Mary. My problem with this is that it's just not the pattern in the Bible. I Timothy 2:5 says clearly that Jesus is the only mediator between God and man. Nowhere in the New Testament do you see people praying to Mary or any other human being. When you put a human being in the place that should be occupied by God, that's idolatry.
As I understand it, Catholic teaching does not actually attribute divinity to Mary. Prayers directed "to" her are actually supposed to be directed "through" her to God. In practice, however, God seems to get left out of the picture. You ask Mary for something and you get it, and you thank her, as if she were the one supplying your needs. I don't see any basis in scripture for that.
So back to your original question... is Mary the "Mother of God"? She's the mother of Jesus-- she physically existed before He took human form in the timeline of earth, and gave birth to Him-- but "Mother of God" implies to me that she somehow existed before God or was the origin of God. So that phrase makes me very uncomfortable. So does "Queen of Heaven." That phrase evokes a lot of the pagan religions that worshipped a female deity, the "earth mother" religions. It appears nowhere in scripture but makes a nice stepping-stone for pagan tribes who wanted to embrace Christianity without really giving up their old beliefs.
I certainly think Mary, blessed among women, will occupy a place of honor in heaven, but I don't think she's "the queen" there. God is the King and His power has no rival. The Church is the bride of Christ, but no single human being is a fit consort for deity.
Protestants take a different view. They believe that while Mary was "blessed among women" and chosen for an extremely special task, and was probably a girl of strong integrity and purity, she was still an ordinary imperfect human being. There is Biblical evidence for this. Mark 3:21 and 31-35 say clearly (to me) that at one point in Jesus's career, Mary decided that He'd gone insane and she actually went to rein Him in. You can try to claim that this is an honest mistake rather than a sin, or try to wriggle out of it some other way, but in my mind it just doesn't compute if she was truly "perfect."
More importantly, Romans 3:23 says that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Jesus is obviously the exception to this since He *is* God, but there is no room for other exceptions there. Unless you claim Mary is actually divine, this verse is problematic.
Catholics also say that Mary not only was a virgin at the time she conceived Jesus and remained a virgin until after he was born (which is clearly in the Bible-- see Matthew 1:25), but that she remained a virgin all her life. I even once saw a Catholic scholar explain why Joseph also remained chaste all his life so that the "Holy Family" was "perfect." This is a nice tidy idea that just isn't supported by scripture. For one thing, it assumes that there's something "dirty" about sex and that Mary and Joseph would somehow be degraded if they engaged in it, even as a married couple after the birth of Jesus. I disagree with that view-- God made sex to be enjoyed in the context of marriage, and there's nothing degrading about it. The verse above, Matthew 1:25, says that they did not come together "until" after the birth of Jesus. That does not conclusively prove that they DID have sex afterwards, but the implication is certainly there.
Furthermore, Mark 3 above talks about the "mother and brothers" of Jesus. I've heard this variously explained as Joseph's sons by a previous marriage (in which case they would be step-brothers) or cousins (in which case they're not brothers at all). But James, for example, is referred to as Jesus's brother even outside the Gospels (Galatians 1:19). The most probable explanation to me is that he is Jesus's younger half-brother, the son of Mary and Joseph.
I go through all that to explain the factual basis of my problem with the Catholic teaching, but I don't think any of those details are really very important. What *is* important, in my opinion, is the attitude you take towards Mary now. The tendency in Catholic theology is to put "buffers" between ordinary Christians and God. Direct interaction with God is limited, and a lot seems to go through priests, saints, and Mary. My problem with this is that it's just not the pattern in the Bible. I Timothy 2:5 says clearly that Jesus is the only mediator between God and man. Nowhere in the New Testament do you see people praying to Mary or any other human being. When you put a human being in the place that should be occupied by God, that's idolatry.
As I understand it, Catholic teaching does not actually attribute divinity to Mary. Prayers directed "to" her are actually supposed to be directed "through" her to God. In practice, however, God seems to get left out of the picture. You ask Mary for something and you get it, and you thank her, as if she were the one supplying your needs. I don't see any basis in scripture for that.
So back to your original question... is Mary the "Mother of God"? She's the mother of Jesus-- she physically existed before He took human form in the timeline of earth, and gave birth to Him-- but "Mother of God" implies to me that she somehow existed before God or was the origin of God. So that phrase makes me very uncomfortable. So does "Queen of Heaven." That phrase evokes a lot of the pagan religions that worshipped a female deity, the "earth mother" religions. It appears nowhere in scripture but makes a nice stepping-stone for pagan tribes who wanted to embrace Christianity without really giving up their old beliefs.
I certainly think Mary, blessed among women, will occupy a place of honor in heaven, but I don't think she's "the queen" there. God is the King and His power has no rival. The Church is the bride of Christ, but no single human being is a fit consort for deity.
I think that last bit dealt a hit to nuns and sisters. ):
Rebuttals?
