Why do prots hate theotokos?

I think they just like to be contrarian.

the actual state of catholics

The absolute state of bible-idolaters

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.

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.

Attached: messagefrominnerearth.jpg (599x600, 98.14K)

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.

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 (tertullian.org/fathers/origen_on_prayer_02_text.htm):

Attached: 5_Humanizatoin750px.jpg (700x868, 465.17K)

Attached: babyblueeyes.jpg (449x600, 62.72K)

Attached: entangled-LoRes (1).jpg (700x426, 269.7K)

God bless Origen. And God bless you user.

Attached: 3_Cassieopia750px.jpg (700x872, 577.4K)

Keked

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:

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.

Attached: reformationpepe.png (560x366, 323.79K)

10/10 post that will more than likely be deleted

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.

Exceptional post here, good work

What say you of the various (corroborated) apparitions?

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.

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.

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.

(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.

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.

Hard disagree, and the reason why is partly (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.

i for one appreciate the effort

She isnt Jesus user.
The heresy of romanists is outstanding.

Keep calling God's mother is sinner and see how well that ends for you.

Mary addressed Christ as her Saviour, thus Mary knew she had sin from which she needed rescue

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.
Why don't you go over kecharitomene? 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?
In Apocalypse 12 she is crowned with twelve stars. In the Davidic Kingdom, the mother of the King was the Queen.
Luke painted a picture of the Blessed Virgin. It was carried all the way to India by Thomas.
She is told of in Ezekiel (Ezekekiel 44:1-3 is on her perpetual virginity*) Sirach (mostsacredheart.com/bible/verses/ecclesiasticus24.html + taylormarshall.com/2011/02/immaculate-mary-and-personified-wisdom.html + psallitesapienter.blogspot.com/2009/07/ecclesiasticus-xxiv-1-31.html + 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)

Attached: MaryGrace.jpg (2560x1440 3.07 MB, 3.07M)

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.

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:
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.

Attached: MotherOfTheEucharist2.jpg (459x388, 115.84K)

interesting argumentation, lets break it down a little

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

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

(1/3?)

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.

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.

Attached: kek.jpg (994x529, 145.29K)

(2/)

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 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.

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.

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.

Attached: rome.jpg (800x533, 138.31K)

(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:

And again:

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:

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.

Attached: ambrose-1.jpg (800x594, 81.43K)

(2/)

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):

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.

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?

Attached: Saint_Augustine_Portrait.jpg (424x577, 49.25K)

(3/)

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.

Attached: confusion.jpg (1200x617, 60.12K)

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.
They did that to themselves when they decided to disobey God’s commandment to honor your father and mother. Besides, protestants aren't christians

Most "prots" are indifferent to her.
Indifference ≠ hate.

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

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.

Attached: d0ecb6544721ec2f961fee0b63dd16ab3266f582149ab43528aaff7836965c74.png (459x499, 136.38K)

Indifference is worse then hate.

Very informative thread. I'm surprised the mods let it stay up.

Why do papists worship Mary?

Attached: mary idolatry.jpg (400x268, 38.41K)

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.

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.

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 (

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 entire reason Ambrose started a consecrated virginity congregation was because of his devotion to Mary.
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.

Attached: madonna-and-child-marianne-stokes-1908.jpg (1000x1393, 506.03K)

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.
">[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]).
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.
From the Divine Liturgy of Chrysostom.

Attached: Mary-queen.jpg (802x1036, 512.04K)

I actually made that thread already.

Anyways:

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 (

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.
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.

“There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)
One sigh of the Blessed Virgin Mary is worth more than the prayer of all the Angels and Saints in Heaven.

Attached: Pichon_Auguste_The_Annunciation.jpg (1023x1301, 147.25K)

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"

Attached: earlychurchmary.jpg (592x696, 99.27K)

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 user.

We are only talking about the immaculate conception here, so I will only address the points relevant to that doctrine.

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.

So when St. Ambrose was commenting on Luke 1:35:

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.

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?

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:

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.

Again, here he is clearly speaking to the truth that only Christ was born without original sin, of which Mary is excluded.

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.

Attached: augustine.jpg (900x1208, 190.88K)

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)

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.

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.

(1/?)

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:

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: books.google.com.au/books?id=sUCQS0X1BLMC&pg=PA52&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=2#v=onepage&q&f=false

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:
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'.

Attached: Origen-1.jpg (400x480, 21.52K)

(2/?)

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:

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?

Again, I will refer you to what I said in the first paragraph in response the the Justin Martyr quote.

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.

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:

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.

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?

Im glad to know where you really stand.

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.

All Christians have to accept the dogma of the Immaculate Conception under pain of heresy and automatic expulsion from the Body of Christ.

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.

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.

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?

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

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:

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:

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.

Attached: Ulm.jpg (2837x4265, 1.99M)

"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.

Attached: BC316605-9B55-4822-B35D-B42FB60F9A4F.jpeg (769x1087, 140.66K)

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 user 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:

newadvent.org/fathers/2806061.htm

Letter 59 also refers to the commemoration of Mary. If that user'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,

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 user 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

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,

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,

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,

And not much later,

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

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,

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.

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,

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.

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,

And after this, similar to Proclus himself, Cyril have this to say about Mary,

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.

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,

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

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.vii.xx.html

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

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

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,

preteristarchive.com/Books/pdf/0205_hippolytus_commentary-on-daniel_2010.pdf

He also does this with Nebuchadnezzar,

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

Now we get to the real issue of Mary in Scripture.

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 user, "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.

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.

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.

Check:

>>>/christianity/

>>>/orthodox/

>>>/baptist/

Bump