[Cicero]

It certainly is tiresome having the same people denigrating the Mother of Jesus every time she is mentioned in any news article. You’d think they’d have better things to do—like reading the Bible, or praying, or something.

As your last post suggest, even Martin Luther respected the Virgin Mary. I went through his works in connection with some scholarly work I was doing at one time, and the ONLY title that Luther denied to Mary was “Queen of Heaven.” He thought that that violated what the prophets have to say about Ishtar as the Queen of Heaven.

All this Mary-hating came into Protestantism at a later time, I’m not sure why. But the mere mention of the name is enough to get them up in arms, I’m afraid.

[BlueDragon]

It certainly is tiresome having the same people denigrating the Mother of Jesus every time she is mentioned in any news article. You’d think they’d have better things to do—like reading the Bible, or praying, or something.

Excuse me sir, but this;

Speaking of the significance of Pope Francis’ decision to entrust the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Tindal-Robertson said...

isn't just some mention of "The Mother of Jesus" in a news article, due to it's theological implications (and please remember too, this site is FreeRepublic--- not "catholic culture") while it is also fair to point out that many others (yourself included?) could also "have better things to do" than either post this Roman Catholic irritation-of-the-day, comment upon it, and even more specifically, comment upon those who don't care for the ongoing deification of Mary process, for theological reasons.

All this Mary-hating came into Protestantism at a later time, I’m not sure why.

It is not that Mary herself is hated (and I resent that characterization -- it is a false accusation in more than a few instances, I am sure) but what Catholicism has done with her which is despised. Stuff like --->http://www.ewtn.com/library/montfort/truedevo.htm and this where it is declared that Mary is now "seated at the right hand of Jesus", while also speaking of her as "neck" to the head of the church (Christ) from which all must flow from Him, through her, etc.

Those are "Gospels" significantly different than Paul and the Apostles taught, even as by the sycretism employed, they still contain elements of the original Gospel, with all of it as well blended as can be. But it is a phony blend, conjured from the darkened minds of fearful men --- not to be confused with the Gospel itself, as was abundantly warned would occur, even within "the church".

You may not agree with my own synopsis, or Christian theology which does not rely upon Mary to be "font from whom all blessings flow" and the like -- that's your choice.

You said you were "not sure why" Mary-hating Hyper-Marianism is opposed...?

Now you have some beginnings of "why". Need I go on? Or do we both have "better things to do"?