The Holy Mother Mary - Worship or just honouring/ respecting?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ken S.

Puritan Board Freshman
Allow me to post a purhaps-too-familiar question:
The other day I was a bit shock to hear even my brother in my church said that the Catholics don't really worhip the holy mother Mary, but they just honour or highly respect her. So, bace on what official teaching in the Catholic church do we judge the Catholics worship Mary?

Take the world as an exemple. If you enjoy wearing branded clothes and shoes, like Prada, Giorgia Amarni and Nike, all the time, watch lots and lots of holy-wood movies and play lots of Xbox and Playstation game, you can't deny that you love the world by simply saying "oh, i'm just highly appreciating the world pop culture." If the Catholics place Mary's statue at the centre of the church, pray to her and praise her, how could they deny worshipping Mary? Seems it's just a game of terminology, isn't it?
 
Mary, according to official Catholic doctrine, is co-redemptrix with Jesus. Furthermore Catholic doctrine says that she intercedes for us with her Son.
 
I mentioned in the sermon today that both Joseph and Mary were sinners in need of the grace of God. That was deliberate.
 
Is there really any difference between the Catholic doctrine of Mary being co-redemptress and the Arminian doctrine of so and so got saved by such and such a preacher? It seems to me both are a case of worship.
 
Is there really any difference between the Catholic doctrine of Mary being co-redemptress and the Arminian doctrine of so and so got saved by such and such a preacher? It seems to me both are a case of worship.

I would venture to say they are different as one is a declaration that a preacher's words led one to Christ as St. Paul states to Timothy.

(1Ti 4:16) Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.

The other is a matter of worship given to a woman who bore Christ in the flesh.
 
Is there really any difference between the Catholic doctrine of Mary being co-redemptress and the Arminian doctrine of so and so got saved by such and such a preacher? It seems to me both are a case of worship.

Good point. I have yet to hear ANY answer to the question "What is the difference between you (believer) and a non believer?" Not ONE has EVER been able to answer why they believe and the unbeliever does not outside of the IDOL of free will. Now that is worship par excellence.
 
Is there really any difference between the Catholic doctrine of Mary being co-redemptress and the Arminian doctrine of so and so got saved by such and such a preacher? It seems to me both are a case of worship.
maybe I'm missing something but it seems to me that there's a huge difference.
Does anyone, even an arminian, pray fervently to a preacher to save their families or friends or to be with them in death?
 
I was addressing the point of co-redemptress, and that was God plus some other agent.
 
On a personal note, it troubles me to see the word "Virgin" capitalized in our Trinity Hymnal. That directs my thoughts toward the way references to deity are capitalized in many English Bible translations. It must be my hatred of popery bubbling to the surface.
 
But that shouldn't be her title. It was a temporary condition, so I'm with Rich.
 
But that shouldn't be her title. It was a temporary condition, so I'm with Rich.

I am curious Tim, when your church repeats the Symbolum Apostolorum or the Symbolum Nicaenum do you individually or as a church skip over the word “virgin” as it corresponds with Mary? Sorry Rich, I cant include you on this question because I know how baptist are about ancient creeds of the church in our church sevices. Also Tim am wondering what you think of the term Θεοτόκος (Theotokos)? Do you deny it as an orthodox term and title for Mary?
 
But that shouldn't be her title. It was a temporary condition, so I'm with Rich.

I am curious Tim, when your church repeats the Symbolum Apostolorum or the Symbolum Nicaenum do you individually or as a church skip over the word “virgin” as it corresponds with Mary? Sorry Rich, I cant include you on this question because I know how baptist are about ancient creeds of the church in our church sevices. Also Tim am wondering what you think of the term Θεοτόκος (Theotokos)? Do you deny it as an orthodox term and title for Mary?

To say that Mary was the "mother of God" is inaccurate, as God has no mother. It is accurate to say that she was the mother of Jesus Christ. While Jesus Christ is God, she was not the mother of the God "part" of Him.
 
Richard, you just committed the Nestorian heresy. Seriously. The 3rd Ecumenical Council (Ephesus, 431) re-affirmed the title Theotokos. Every major Christian group assents to it. Cyril of Alexandria, who is absolutely crucial for understanding post-Chalcedonian Christology, led the charge.
 
Richard, you just committed the Nestorian heresy. Seriously. The 3rd Ecumenical Council (Ephesus, 431) re-affirmed the title Theotokos. Every major Christian group assents to it. Cyril of Alexandria, who is absolutely crucial for understanding post-Chalcedonian Christology, led the charge.
While I am ashamedly weak in Christology, I fail to see how it is Nestorian to say that Mary is only the mother of the Word's human nature. I think that such a statement is only clarifying that the Word existed before Mary conceived.
 
This is a commonly misunderstood matter: the Virgin Mary was the Mother of God in the sense that the One she bore was the eternally begotten Second Person of the Blessed, Holy, Undivided Trinty. Christ was God who became a man. Various adoptionists (was Nestorius himself one? if not, he had followers who were!) taught at the time (referencing Charlie above) that Jesus was a man who became God (usually conceived to have happened at His baptism).

The Council of Ephesus and Cyril as its leading figure were concerned to make it clear that the One that Mary bore was deity at His conception and that He did not give up deity by such a conception but added humanity to deity (receiving his humanity, in fact, from Mary His mother). Those who refused to agree with the formulary Theotokos (arguing for say, Christotokos, "Christbearer," instead of "God-bearer") had an inferior Christology, one that denied that the One the virgin bore was fully God. A bit of historical investigation will make all this clear.

This is not a Romanist doctrine but a truly catholic doctrine (like the Trinity). That Rome subsequently promulgated Mariological errors does not detract from the ancient confession that the our Lord was God in the womb of the Virgin Mary, and that He remains forever God and man in one person.

It's late and I must retire.

Peace,
Alan
 
I agree Alan. And so many, not wanting to appear Roman Catholic, refuse to use a term which is Biblical, in that it acknowledges that He was born of Mary was and is both God and man. There is not a God "part" and a human "part". There is one Person Who is both God and Man. So many evangelicals are unknowingly saying things that are very Nestorian and are just ignorant of what the Church has always believed about Jesus.
 
Take the world as an exemple. If you enjoy wearing branded clothes and shoes, like Prada, Giorgia Amarni and Nike, all the time, watch lots and lots of holy-wood movies and play lots of Xbox and Playstation game, you can't deny that you love the world by simply saying "oh, i'm just highly appreciating the world pop culture."

That's a bit presumptuous.
 
Roman Catholic doctrines are not right.

I mentioned in the sermon today that both Joseph and Mary were sinners in need of the grace of God. That was deliberate.


I say amen to Tim Philips
Roman Catholic doctrines are not right. They directly contradict the scriptures. The Roman Catholic religion teaches multitudes to pray to "Mary" instead of in the name of Jesus. It calls its Mary "the Queen of Heaven". In Jeremiah chapters 7 and 44, the Queen of Heaven is revealed to be a devil.

Of the scores and scores of doctrines taught by the Roman Church without one shred of authority from the Scriptures, the exaltation of the Virgin Mary, mother of Jesus, is one of the most prominent, and certainly one of the most unscriptural. It is often referred to as Mariolatry, which means the worship of Mary.

Undoubtedly many Roman Catholics themselves do not even know that there was a time when the Pope excommunicated members of the Church for praying to the Virgin Mary. The worship of Mary, today acclaimed as an infallible dogma, was once condemned by the same 'infallible' Church as a deadly sin.

There is no record of any exaltation of the Virgin Mary until the fifth century, when she was first called the 'Mother of God'. The traditions concerning her were added from time to time until the latest pronouncement by Pope Pius XII on October 11, 1954, relating to the Assumption of Mary..

Much of what being Protestant has historically meant has involved a protest against the Catholic devotion to Mary. Nevertheless, the Second Vatican Council declared in Lumen Gentium that Mary is a potential ecumenical bridge, a source of the future unity of all Christians. I think that suggestion is ridiculous or insulting to Protestants. But recently there has been a flurry of publications by Protestants on Mary, works that suggest she could be an ecumenical bridge -- or at least that the Protestant aversion to Marian devotion is eroding.

The Immaculate Conception another Roman catholic deceit by Satan. Dec 8th in the Roman catholic church they celebrate what they call the feast of the Immaculate Conception. They give devotion and they worship Mary on that day.

The Most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.

-- Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus (1854)
According to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, Mary was born without the stain of original sin. Both Catholics and Orthodox accept this doctrine, but only the Roman Catholic Church has solemnly defined the teaching, and the title "Immaculate Conception" is generally used only by Catholics. Most Protestants reject the idea as having no foundation in Scripture.

I totally reject the teaching of the Immaculate conception as well as the assumption and other Marian teachings in the papist church of the Romanists because they have no basis in scripture.

I also believe the RCC is trying to make Mary a co-redemtrix with Christ. That would be a major heresy.

I do not accept at all the position by the Romanists that Mary can be an ecumenical bridge between protestants and Catholics.

Catholic belief in Mary apparitions is also such a blasphemy and I believe it is as I think most of Roman Catholicism is a deceitful lie of Satan himself.

The Bible warns us that the devil can appear as an angel of light (2 Corinthians 11:14). Therefore, we should not be surprised if the devil and his demons can appear in the form of the Virgin Mary. The Bible warns us that there will be lying signs and wonders whose purpose is to deceive people and draw them away from God (Matthew 24:24; 2 Thessalonians 2:9-10).

I think that ecumenism itself is a lure by the devil to corrupt the Protestant fold and I do think that the very notion of Mary as a bridge of understanding between protestants and Roman catholic’s is again a trick of Satan himself.

---------- Post added at 10:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:14 PM ----------

On a personal note, it troubles me to see the word "Virgin" capitalized in our Trinity Hymnal. That directs my thoughts toward the way references to deity are capitalized in many English Bible translations. It must be my hatred of popery bubbling to the surface.

I understand your feelings my brother, I too have a hatred of popery and it often bubbles to the surface. I say amen to you also Rich! I agree the Romanists try to deify Mary.
 
Last edited:
But that shouldn't be her title. It was a temporary condition, so I'm with Rich.

I am curious Tim, when your church repeats the Symbolum Apostolorum or the Symbolum Nicaenum do you individually or as a church skip over the word “virgin” as it corresponds with Mary? Sorry Rich, I cant include you on this question because I know how baptist are about ancient creeds of the church in our church sevices. Also Tim am wondering what you think of the term Θεοτόκος (Theotokos)? Do you deny it as an orthodox term and title for Mary?

To say that Mary was the "mother of God" is inaccurate, as God has no mother. It is accurate to say that she was the mother of Jesus Christ. While Jesus Christ is God, she was not the mother of the God "part" of Him.

Amen brother Richard “she was not the mother of the God” "part" of Him. However this is evidence again that Rome is not the Church of Jesus Christ let alone the true Church, but rather the synagogue of Mary, a cult of papal invention.

In the true Church of Jesus Christ our Lord Jesus Christ has all the preeminence. In the Church of Rome Mary

, by order of the Roman Antichrists, has all the preeminence.

God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit are demoted to secondary places by the order of the self-professed infallible popes. The entire Godhead must stand aside for Mary – note it must be emphasized not Mary, the virgin mother of the Christ Child but a woman of Rome’s own invention as far apart from the Mary of the New Testament as heaven is from hellThe following are a few of the appellations of the Virgin: Holy Mother of God; Refuge of Sinners; Comforter of the Afflicted; Queen of Angels, of Patriarchs, of Apostles, of all Saints; Mirror of Justice; Seat of Wisdom; Mystical Rose; Tower of Ivory; House of Gold; and others equally extravagant. In the former, the honour due to Father, Son, and Spirit is given to a mortal – to the Virgin Mary; and the latter are too ridiculous to require comment. Popery is the same now as it was in the dark ages of the church; and the worship of the Virgin is still one of the favourite tenets of Romanism
 
Last edited:
But that shouldn't be her title. It was a temporary condition, so I'm with Rich.

Amen Tim and Rich...After showing that Christ was born of a virgin, the evangelist Matthew goes on to say that Joseph "knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus" (1:25). "Knew her" is the biblical expression for the act of marriage. Joseph did not know Mary "till" she gave birth to her firstborn, Jesus. The implication is clear enough.

---------- Post added at 01:28 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:10 AM ----------

Mary, according to official Catholic doctrine, is co-redemptrix with Jesus. Furthermore Catholic doctrine says that she intercedes for us with her Son.

Did Jesus ever say that his mother should be worshipped or served? Matthew 4:10 plainly states; "[...] it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve."
 
This is a commonly misunderstood matter: the Virgin Mary was the Mother of God in the sense that the One she bore was the eternally begotten Second Person of the Blessed, Holy, Undivided Trinty. Christ was God who became a man. Various adoptionists (was Nestorius himself one? if not, he had followers who were!) taught at the time (referencing Charlie above) that Jesus was a man who became God (usually conceived to have happened at His baptism).

The Council of Ephesus and Cyril as its leading figure were concerned to make it clear that the One that Mary bore was deity at His conception and that He did not give up deity by such a conception but added humanity to deity (receiving his humanity, in fact, from Mary His mother). Those who refused to agree with the formulary Theotokos (arguing for say, Christotokos, "Christbearer," instead of "God-bearer") had an inferior Christology, one that denied that the One the virgin bore was fully God. A bit of historical investigation will make all this clear.

This is not a Romanist doctrine but a truly catholic doctrine (like the Trinity). That Rome subsequently promulgated Mariological errors does not detract from the ancient confession that the our Lord was God in the womb of the Virgin Mary, and that He remains forever God and man in one person.

It's late and I must retire.

Peace,
Alan

Good history, pastor. I believe the intent of the creed was to say more about the child than the mother. To the OP, it is clear that Rome "honors" Mary in a very different way than we do.
 
This is a commonly misunderstood matter: the Virgin Mary was the Mother of God in the sense that the One she bore was the eternally begotten Second Person of the Blessed, Holy, Undivided Trinty. Christ was God who became a man. Various adoptionists (was Nestorius himself one? if not, he had followers who were!) taught at the time (referencing Charlie above) that Jesus was a man who became God (usually conceived to have happened at His baptism).

The Council of Ephesus and Cyril as its leading figure were concerned to make it clear that the One that Mary bore was deity at His conception and that He did not give up deity by such a conception but added humanity to deity (receiving his humanity, in fact, from Mary His mother). Those who refused to agree with the formulary Theotokos (arguing for say, Christotokos, "Christbearer," instead of "God-bearer") had an inferior Christology, one that denied that the One the virgin bore was fully God. A bit of historical investigation will make all this clear.

This is not a Romanist doctrine but a truly catholic doctrine (like the Trinity). That Rome subsequently promulgated Mariological errors does not detract from the ancient confession that the our Lord was God in the womb of the Virgin Mary, and that He remains forever God and man in one person.

It's late and I must retire.

Peace,
Alan

Actually, He was deity before His conception. Sounds nit-picky, I know, but it's important.

---------- Post added at 11:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:23 PM ----------

Richard, you just committed the Nestorian heresy. Seriously. The 3rd Ecumenical Council (Ephesus, 431) re-affirmed the title Theotokos. Every major Christian group assents to it. Cyril of Alexandria, who is absolutely crucial for understanding post-Chalcedonian Christology, led the charge.
While I am ashamedly weak in Christology, I fail to see how it is Nestorian to say that Mary is only the mother of the Word's human nature. I think that such a statement is only clarifying that the Word existed before Mary conceived.

What he said.

---------- Post added at 11:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:24 PM ----------

Richard, you just committed the Nestorian heresy. Seriously. The 3rd Ecumenical Council (Ephesus, 431) re-affirmed the title Theotokos. Every major Christian group assents to it. Cyril of Alexandria, who is absolutely crucial for understanding post-Chalcedonian Christology, led the charge.
While I am ashamedly weak in Christology, I fail to see how it is Nestorian to say that Mary is only the mother of the Word's human nature. I think that such a statement is only clarifying that the Word existed before Mary conceived.

What he said.
 
Originally Posted by Alan D. Strange
This is a commonly misunderstood matter: the Virgin Mary was the Mother of God in the sense that the One she bore was the eternally begotten Second Person of the Blessed, Holy, Undivided Trinty. Christ was God who became a man. Various adoptionists (was Nestorius himself one? if not, he had followers who were!) taught at the time (referencing Charlie above) that Jesus was a man who became God (usually conceived to have happened at His baptism).

The Council of Ephesus and Cyril as its leading figure were concerned to make it clear that the One that Mary bore was deity at His conception and that He did not give up deity by such a conception but added humanity to deity (receiving his humanity, in fact, from Mary His mother). Those who refused to agree with the formulary Theotokos (arguing for say, Christotokos, "Christbearer," instead of "God-bearer") had an inferior Christology, one that denied that the One the virgin bore was fully God. A bit of historical investigation will make all this clear.

This is not a Romanist doctrine but a truly catholic doctrine (like the Trinity). That Rome subsequently promulgated Mariological errors does not detract from the ancient confession that the our Lord was God in the womb of the Virgin Mary, and that He remains forever God and man in one person.

It's late and I must retire.

Peace,
Alan

Actually, He was deity before His conception. Sounds nit-picky, I know, but it's important.

Of course, Br. Richard. If He was deity at his conception, He was deity before, already established in my first paragraph in several ways, including noting His being eternally begotten, in which I concluded, "Christ was God who became a man."

I don't think that you are being nit-picky, it's just that I had already stated such in the first paragraph. He was God before so He was God at the conception, at which point he added humanity to his deity.

As another brother said above, the formularly Theotokos or mater Dei had in view, in the fifth century, the One she bore much more than she who bore Him.

At any rate, good, as always, to hear from you.

Peace,
Alan
 
While I am ashamedly weak in Christology, I fail to see how it is Nestorian to say that Mary is only the mother of the Word's human nature.

To strengthen the Christological backbone of this discussion, this is our position -- Christ was, and continues to be, God and man in two distinct natures, and one person for ever. Christ is a divine person and full possessor of the divine nature from everlasting to everlasting. In the fulness of time this divine person was made of a woman. He did not become an human person but assumed an human nature.

Now, to put some flesh on this backbone, let's see how this Christologically strong position is affected by the statement that Mary is only the mother of the Word's human nature. What is such a statement actually saying? It is saying one of two things: either that the mother gave birth to a mere human nature separated from the person of Christ, or that the mother gave birth to an human nature which was personal in some way.

Now, the advocate of this statement is free to choose which consequence he is willing to accept, but he is bound to explain himself one way or the other. Either way, the strong Christological position of two natures and one person is threatened by this statement, and this is the reason it has been rejected by the true Christian church throughout the ages.
 
While I am ashamedly weak in Christology, I fail to see how it is Nestorian to say that Mary is only the mother of the Word's human nature.

To strengthen the Christological backbone of this discussion, this is our position -- Christ was, and continues to be, God and man in two distinct natures, and one person for ever. Christ is a divine person and full possessor of the divine nature from everlasting to everlasting. In the fulness of time this divine person was made of a woman. He did not become an human person but assumed an human nature.

Now, to put some flesh on this backbone, let's see how this Christologically strong position is affected by the statement that Mary is only the mother of the Word's human nature. What is such a statement actually saying? It is saying one of two things: either that the mother gave birth to a mere human nature separated from the person of Christ, or that the mother gave birth to an human nature which was personal in some way.

Now, the advocate of this statement is free to choose which consequence he is willing to accept, but he is bound to explain himself one way or the other. Either way, the strong Christological position of two natures and one person is threatened by this statement, and this is the reason it has been rejected by the true Christian church throughout the ages.

Thank you for explaining that. I always appreciate your posts and critiques. So is it then how are we to say that Mary is Jesus' mother?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top