But… when was the last time a Protestant called Mary blessed among women? All generations will call her blessed, y’know (cf. Luke 1:42,48). Catholics and Orthodox in every generation have been fulfilling that prophecy, but Scripture extends an open invitation to all who profess faith in Jesus Christ.

If Paul can be an example for us (as he offered himself in Phil 3:17 and 2 Thess 3:9), why not Mary?

Mary herself is fairly neutral. She’s not really a matter of theology;. she simply is who she is. I honestly think that the main reason that Protestants tend to be nervous about her is that she’s too bound up with their idea of Catholicism.

But she’s not Catholic, at least not exclusively. She’s the (adoptive) mother of the whole Church, Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, and all the others. Anybody who loves Jesus ought to love her, and I doubt she makes a lot of distinction either.

As a convert to Catholicism from Evangelicalism last year, I find Bekah’s statements exactly right.

“Mary did nothing for redemption and does nothing now for redemption.”

And I would agree that Scot can’t have Mary saying Yes to the incarnation of God within her, being the Mother of God, and then not “doing anything” for redemption. That’s ridiculous (he says in Christian love). Without Mary’s Yes would God have simply chosen the virgin next door? Of course not. So I’d like to see Scot flesh out what he’s saying here.

To those of you who don’t see where the Scriptures teach anything resembling the Catholic view of Mary - that is the point where we begin to talk past each other. The issue is of authority. We Catholics certainly believe that the Scriptures are the Word of God written, but we also believe that Christ and the apostles taught more than (not different from) what was put to page and passed that teaching on orally - this view is supported by the Holy Tradition written, the Scriptures (Lk 10.16; 1 Cor 11.2; 1 Thess 2.13, 15, among others). It is part of the Deposit of Faith and it does not change (though it can develop). The disagreement is largely assumed by some Protestants because they believe that oral Holy Tradition is contrary to the Scriptures. It is not. It might not, however, be found in the Scriptures explicitly. (Hence the “oral” part of it.)

This is also why we Catholics find the early Fathers so compelling. Some of these men were witnesses and disciples of the apostles themselves. So when they speak about baptism or the Eucharist or Holy Tradition, we listen. When we hear a Marian prayer (the Sub Tuum Praesidium) that is already part of a liturgy by A.D. 250, we listen.

But I’m digressing - because the doctrines are not found explicitly in the Scriptures, some Protestants such as Scot McKnight (whom I respect and consider a blog-friend) will not accept them. But as I’ve told Scot, I’m still praying for him. : )

I appreciate the work that Scot is doing. He is helping some Protestants open their eyes to this holy woman who we call the Mother of God. Opening some eyes who before, as he said, simply wouldn’t get on a bus with “Mary” written on it.

The early churches understanding of Mary as the ark is a real eye opener. Remember that Jesus incarnation is the biggest event in all of history and beyond. You think we can give room to let God prepair the way for his Son in a most holy way and that is biblical? There is nothing unbiblical about Orthodox/Catholic tradition here. Remember all believed it for 1500 years and so did Luther. The protestant tradition has tied our minds and our hearts in a sad way. We have become nothing less than a product of post reformation polemics.

Sorry about the confusion. In the future, I will refrain from using too many abbreviations (it’s called “lazy fingers” :)).

Best,

Discerner

I see….you sent the note through comments and I sent it on.

My fault. Sorry. I’ll remove it.

While a RC I never heard the gospel. […] I knew the Apostle’s Creed by heart.

Interesting. I definitely heard the Gospel message as an RCC kid. Mind you, we also used the Nicene Creed instead of the Apostle’s, but I thought the Nicene was standard in American RC churches these days.

My relative said that she would always believe in the transubstantiation of the eucharist and the wine. And that she would always believe that Mary was a virgin and never had any other children. […] is it possible that indoctrination still happens in the RCC?

Depends — if by “indoctrination” you mean “the teaching and instilling of doctrine,” then I would certainly hope so.

What suggestions would you have as to how Protestants should show proper respect to Mary?
What would such respect look like if you were looking for it?

How do we respect the pantheon of faithful? Abraham, Jacob, Elijah, Moses, Peter, John, Paul? (And let’s not forget Rahab.)

I respect these saints by trying to emulate their faith. I respect Mary by striving to emulate her faith.

And as a Protesting Christian I would counter that the Roman view of Mary goes far beyond respect, and in fact the mythologizing of Mary into some sort of co-redeemer, co-mediator, and co-advocate is inherently disrespectful of the Mary taught to us in the Gospels.