5th Marian Dogma

[Liraco]

There is no marriage in heaven…She was espoused to Joseph…I don’t base my faith on assumptions…But on the scripture given to the original apostles breathed by the Holy Spirit…Some of your doctrines/dogma scare me…

Fear not, as our Lord says. Your fears may be well-founded because what you understand of us is indeed wrong, so let me try to explain further.

No marriage in heaven? Yes and no. Jesus said himself in response to those asking about the 7 men who took the same woman, that they won’t marry in Heaven.

Yet marriage is one of the biblical metaphors used to describe the covenant relationship between God and his people. There is certainly going to be a wedding in Heaven, when our Lord received his bride the Church. Look for yourself in scripture at Revelation 19:7-9
Let us rejoice and be glad and give him glory. For the wedding day of the Lamb has come, his bride has made herself ready.
She was allowed to wear a bright, clean linen garment." (The linen represents the righteous deeds of the holy ones.)
Then the angel said to me, “Write this: Blessed are those who have been called to the wedding feast of the Lamb.” And he said to me, “These words are true; they come from God.”

Was he not present in the caravan ‘worried and searching for Jesus’ when Jesus was twelve and stayed behind in the temple?

You didn’t read my words, I said that Joseph as a foster-parent in the eyes of the Jews is THE SAME as being a biological father.

This does not actually depict the Holy Spirit as a spouse.

It describes God making a virgin conceive a child.

Is God not the true Father? Is the child not His?

I feel we’ll only continue to argue as you ahven’t read the link I proposed to you. This teaching is NOT NEW.

what you are posting here explains her being the source of All Graces. I’m starting to get worried that is being missed here.

I hope I can explain this right, I think I know the problem. Mary as the “source of all grace” is indeed referring to her birth of Jesus. The thing is, Jesus IS the source. The source came from her but through God, not by her own doing.

If God (the Head, the true SOURCE) chose to have all graces flow through Mary (the “neck”), to the body (His Church), who are we to say He can’t? He already brought the Messiah through her. I’d imagine mediating grace would be small potatoes compared to bringing the almighty, eternal, infinite creator to be born as a tiny baby in our world.

You mention the crucifixion, you say that has nothing to do with her. She gave birth to Jesus; no Jesus, no crucifixion, simple as that. He is indeed the source of Grace, but without Mary there would be no Jesus to crucify. Look at this not as Mary being necessary but as how God willed it. If you look for “necessity” you’ll find our entire universe is unnecessary yet God willed it.

Please do forgive me if I drive you crazy Strawberry, I’m trying to address your issue but please excuse my lack of wisdom. At the very least, I hope this is of some use. God bless.

 

[Hiskid1973]

Revelation 19:7-9
Let us rejoice and be glad and give him glory. For the wedding day of the Lamb has come, his bride has made herself ready.
She was allowed to wear a bright, clean linen garment." (The linen represents the righteous deeds of the holy ones.)
Then the angel said to me, “Write this: Blessed are those who have been called to the wedding feast of the Lamb.” And he said to me, "These words are true; they come from God."God bless.

Like Bro Heychios says…I have no problem with metaphors, making dogma out of them is what is scary…Scripture tells who she was espoused to and it isn’t the Holy Spirit…People knock us as bible fundies, but at least we stick to the teachings of the original apostles…Somehow I can’t see God fault us for following His word…

 

[bookgirl32]

So why this new dogma?

It isn’t new dogma! And the Pope has also implied several times that it won’t be. That being said, it also is not “untrue” because it is not dogma.

I wouldn’t say that Catholics think that the fact that Mary gave birth to Jesus is in question. But I would say that Catholics think that God’s chosen role for Mary in all of salvation history, meaning her role in our lives, is in question. Her actions immediately affected every single one of us, personally. Why would this “role” just suddenly discontinue? Why would God want her up to that point and then just discard her because she is no longer needed? Catholics see the role she played 2000 years ago as proof that she still, and always will, play a role. This is what’s in question.

If all it is defining is that she gave birth to him? All the other marian dogmas say that very same thing!

Yes, that’s been my point this entire thread! It’s also why I believe it won’t be defined as dogma, the other dogmas already cover it!

This is the question no one “against” this idea (and I never claimed to be “for” it) has been able to answer: People keep saying, “fine, some graces come through Mary, but not all graces”. So, if it’s fine that some do, which ones are okay to do so, and why? And what are the ones that shouldn’t, and why? I’m not asking this to be facetious, I really mean it.

 

[bookgirl32]

but at least we stick to the teachings of the original apostles…Somehow I can’t see God fault us for following His word…

You do? Where did the original Apostles teach that God’s word was limited to the Bible?

 

[bookgirl32]

God is the source of ALL Grace.

To say that Jesus is the source of ALL Grace is problematic. Not that it is wrong (Christ is the Word of God, after all), but can be interpreted poorly.

Would it be better to say that the Incarnation is the sole reason that we as humans now again have access to all graces? I could be wrong in that, but that’s my understanding.

 

[Hiskid1973]

You do? Where did the original Apostles teach that God’s word was limited to the Bible?

Show me where they say other things are given by inspiration of God, and are profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness

We know what we read came from the original apostles was spoke via the Holy Spirit…

 

[bookgirl32]

Show me where they say other things are given by inspiration of God, and are profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness

We know what we read came from the original apostles was spoke via the Holy Spirit…

“stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” 2 Thess. 2:15

“So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ”
Rom. 10:17

Now why don’t you show me the passage that states that “all scripture” is the books of the Bible we have now, in the order they’re in now. ???

Oh, and also, where “all scripture” somehow implicitly includes the statement “and absolutely nothing else”.

And while we’re at it, the verse you’re referring to is itself referring to the Gospel of John. Do you mean to say that you think that only the Gospel of John is sufficient?

Now, back on topic .

 

[Hiskid1973]

“stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” 2 Thess. 2:15
Yes we have what was taught by the original apostles in the scriptures, you church even agrees in the authority of scripture…You wonder who the us is?

“So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ”
Rom. 10:17
Yes we have the preaching of Christ in the sacred scriptures

Now why don’t you show me the passage that states that “all scripture” is the books of the Bible we have now, in the order they’re in now. ???What else is the original apostles teaching…Do you feel the Holy Spirit directed godly believers at the time to what was scripture and was was not…I guess your are referring to the books like enoch…Does your church put them as the level of scripture?

Oh, and also, where “all scripture” somehow implicitly includes the statement “and absolutely nothing else”. Guess it’s the whole issue you have with the word all, like in all sinned…They use the word for all for a reason

And while we’re at it, the verse you’re referring to is itself referring to the Gospel of John. Do you mean to say that you think that only the Gospel of John is sufficient?How do you figure Timothy was only talking about the book of John

Now, back on topic .

OK back to topic…Don’t want to nosy or rude but how long has your been studying the sacred scriptures…

 

[lil_flower_luv]

Hiskid1973:

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness

We know what we read came from the original apostles was spoke via the Holy Spirit…

Who decided Scripture was Scripture? The Catholic Church. And it took us several centuries to do so. “It was not until the Council of Carthage (397) and a subsequent decree by Pope Innocent I that Christendom had a fixed New Testament canon. Prior to that date, scores of spurious gospels and “apostolic” writings were floating around the Mediterranean basin: the Gospel of Thomas, the “Shepherd” of Hermas, St. Paul’s Letter to the Laodiceans, and so forth. Moreover, some texts later judged to be inspired, such as the Letter to the Hebrews, were controverted. It was the Catholic Magisterium, guided by the Holy Spirit, which separated the wheat from the chaff.” ~George Sim Johnston

With that said, on what basis do you accept the canon of the New Testament? Both Luther and Calvin were fuzzy on this subject.

Anyway ~ I felt that had to be pointed out.

Let’s get back to Mary.
Now that we have to defend both the Word of God and her…

 

[Hiskid1973]

Who decided Scripture was Scripture? The Catholic Church. And it took us several centuries to do so. “It was not until the Council of Carthage (397) and a subsequent decree by Pope Innocent I that Christendom had a fixed New Testament canon. Prior to that date, scores of spurious gospels and “apostolic” writings were floating around the Mediterranean basin: the Gospel of Thomas, the “Shepherd” of Hermas, St. Paul’s Letter to the Laodiceans, and so forth. Moreover, some texts later judged to be inspired, such as the Letter to the Hebrews, were controverted. It was the Catholic Magisterium, guided by the Holy Spirit, which separated the wheat from the chaff.” ~George Sim Johnston

With that said, on what basis do you accept the canon of the New Testament? Both Luther and Calvin were fuzzy on this subject.

Anyway ~ I felt that had to be pointed out.

Let’s get back to Mary.
Now that we have to defend both the Word of God and her…/QUOTe

I believe what the scriptures say about Mary, not what was added along the way…What was added was beyond scripture…As for your bible comment lets see what the orthodox say about it…Remember your just defending your dogmas and such about Mary, not what scripture teaches,…peace to you

 

[lil_flower_luv]

I believe what the scriptures say about Mary, not what was added along the way…What was added was beyond scripture

No, what was added was necessary. “All generations will call me blessed” How is it possible to understand her full position in Heaven and Earth, if she is not explained more in depth, which is what the Catholic Church has done?

Bless you

 

[Hiskid1973]

No, what was added was necessary. “All generations will call me blessed” How is it possible to understand her full position in Heaven and Earth, if she is not explained more in depth, which is what the Catholic Church has done?

Bless you

OOOOOkay…seems they do that with a lot of things and that’s what get’s them wondered about by the rest of the churches…I’ll not bother you anymore…We search the scriptures for in them we have eternal life…And God bless you to and draw you closer to Him…

 

[lil_flower_luv]

OOOOOkay…seems they do that with a lot of things and that’s what get’s them wondered about by the rest of the churches…I’ll not bother you anymore…We search the scriptures for in them we have eternal life…And God bless you to and draw you closer to Him…

Funny that you couldn’t answer my scripture question Don’t let staying on topic stop you…PM me! This has happened many times…I ask a question and it never gets answered. Actually, I do get an answer! Silence says it all.

One Church. Free will.

You are not bothering me, friend. I will speak for as long as you let me.

God Bless you and yours

 

[Vico]

The petition for the Marian dogma by Dr. Mark Miravalle has these words:

“…we humbly request that you solemnly declare the dogma of Mary as the Spiritual Mother all peoples, specifying that she is the Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix of all graces, and Advocate…”

And mediatrix of all graces means one working with The Mediator Of All Graces (Jesus Christ) for our reconciliation as a handmaiden of the Lord.

There are several ways she takes on these roles, all in scripture, and all recognized by the Catholic Church:

Predicted mother role to bring the crushing of the serpent (Genesis 3:15, Isaiah 7:14) and the mother of “a male child, destined to rule all the nations with an iron rod” (Rev 12) the same One who will “rule them with an iron rod” in Psalm 2:7.

The role of virgin Mother of God and handmaiden of the Lord (Annunciation Luke 1:26-38, Nativity Luke 2:1-12)

Bringing Jesus to John the Baptist (Visitation Luke 1:39-56)

Cana: reveals Jesus the miracle worker at the wedding (John 2:1)

Calvary: declared as mother (“behold thy mother” John 19:25-27)

Through the Seven Sorrows she shares in the suffering of Christ: (Sword or sorrow, flight to Egypt, loss of Jesus in Jerusalem, meeting Jesus on the road to Calvary, with Jesus during the crucifixion, mourning Jesus at his removal from the cross and at the tomb), just as Paul states he does in Col. 1:24.

Ark of the new covenant and Queen of Heaven (Rev. 11:19, Rev 12).

Mary interceeds in prayers with all (Acts 1:14), and is at the Pentacost (Acts 2:4).

 

[Good_Fella]

Moses or Abraham, What is the point?

Abraham. The point is: No* fiat*, no Incarnation. Because Mary obeyed the will of God in a true spirit of faith working through love, the Word was made flesh.

 

[Hiskid1973]

I ask a question and it never gets answered. Actually, I do get an answer! Silence says it all.

Please show me what scripture question I missed

 

[Good_Fella]

Like Bro Heychios says…I have no problem with metaphors, making dogma out of them is what is scary**…Scripture tells who she was espoused to and it isn’t the Holy Spirit**…People knock us as bible fundies, but at least we stick to the teachings of the original apostles…Somehow I can’t see God fault us for following His word…

“The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore the holy child to be born will be called the Son of God.”
Luke 1, 35

To “lay one’s power over a woman” was an ancient Hebraic euphemism for “to have a marital relationship with her”. And “to overshadow” by spreading the "wing’ or “cloak” over a woman was an ancient euphemism for marital relations. God and Mary entered into a mystical form of marriage upon the conception of Jesus by virtue of this supernatural event. The Gospel of Luke reflects a sacred tradition of the Church that had already existed before the evangelist penned the gospel.

Not everything the apostles orally taught or what the Church traditionally believed was explicitly written down in definitive terms.

PAX :harp:

 

[Hiskid1973]

"The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore the holy child to be born will be called the Son of God."
Luke 1, 35

To “lay one’s power over a woman” was an ancient Hebraic euphemism for “to have a marital relationship with her”. And “to overshadow” by spreading the "wing’ or “cloak” over a woman was an ancient euphemism for marital relations. God and Mary entered into a mystical form of marriage upon the conception of Jesus by virtue of this supernatural event. The Gospel of Luke reflects a sacred tradition of the Church that had already existed before the evangelist penned the gospel.

Not everything the apostles orally taught or what the Church traditionally believed was explicitly written down in definitive terms.You do know that really opens the door to really get out there…I still wonder why the orthodox doesn’t claim all this “out there” type of things

I have been walking with the Lord and studying His word for nearly 40 years and I never heard anything like that. Could you give me sources for that…Jewish historical non biased sources…Mary having a mystical marriage , your getting way out there…
Also could you show me the teachings from the original apostles that never were sacred scripture that you are talking aboout…Are they suitable for reprove correction and instruction in righteousness…

PAX :harp:

 

[StrawberryJam]

Abraham. The point is: No* fiat*, no Incarnation. Because Mary obeyed the will of God in a true spirit of faith working through love, the Word was made flesh.

And, we already have plenty of dogma to back that obvious claim. “We” meaning believers.

 

[StrawberryJam]

You wrote: “It was not her will to bear the Messiah.” Sounds like Mary had no choice, or even desire; that it was strictly God’s will without any conformity of her will with His. One can “agree” to do something for someone and “cooperate” with him while being coerced. But Mary fully and freely consented out of perfect love for God and humankind. The Incarnation was as much Mary’s will as it was God’s will now that he had made his intentions known to her. Perhaps you should be a little more consistent in what you mean to say, then we won’t have to drive you crazy.

Let me make this as plain as I can. It was not Mary’s idea. Yes, she conformed to God’s will, but she did not will this herself. She did not desire to do this of her own imagination.

And, she did not get on the cross. I keep wondering the point of stations of the cross, if it is not even a grace. If it is not a grace, why have that tradition?