Against Mary - "Totus tuus, Mary"

[justasking4]

That is absolutely false. The Church has been interpreting Sacred Scripture for 2000 years. I would ask that you qualify what you just said.

I have asked this question repeatedly on this site. If you think they have interpreted the scriptures infallibly, do you know where i can find this source? I’m not speaking of the catehism or any church documents but a manual or commentary on the scriptures that tells you what each verse of the Bible means.

 

[justasking4]

zemi;2576788]You’re right if your talking about a book issued by a Pope called “Interpretations of every verse in the Bible according to the Catholic Church”. There never was one.

What this does is to put everyone in the catholic church in the same boat as protestants.

On the other hand, are you aware that every doctrine of the Catholic Church is stemmed and grounded in the Scriptures? (I know you refuse to accept that…)

Yes. They do claim this but when we look closely at the scriptures (especially in context) you don’t see these various verses and passages used to support the doctrines actually supporting them at all.

 

[justasking4]

zemi;2576778]Could you provide me with the works where it is? I am familiar with Crysostom but also with the fact that the Church Fathers didn’t follow this reasoning and viewed Mary all the time as the New Eve. That is something you have to admit. I’d like to see their quotes in context.

I’ll have to see if i can find them.

The point of the parallel among other things was:

first Eve sinned → first Adam also
Jesus the second Adam didn’t sin → Mary the second Eve did neither.

Major problems with this. Adam and Eve had a relationship of husband and wife while the relationship between Jesus and Mary is one of son to mother. This is not the same parallel.

 

[zemi]

What this does is to put everyone in the catholic church in the same boat as protestants.

From this statement I see you have apparently no idea where the authority of Catholic Church is derived from. Please read Mt 16,18-19

Yes. They do claim this but when we look closely at the scriptures (especially in context) you don’t see these various verses and passages used to support the doctrines actually supporting them at all.

Everything the CC teaches is grounded in the scripture. You just don’t want to look at the evidence I assume.

Not so your Sola Scriptura to be found in the Bible :nope:

 

[LilyM]

Are you aware your church has never interpreted a single of verse of scripture?

‘You are Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church …’ no, the Catholic Church never interpreted that little gem of a verse

 

[paarsurrey]

Hi

Sorry for the interruption.

There is an article:

Jesus Lived in India- Holger Kersten, a German Scholar.
sol.com.au/kor/7_01.htm

This article is a summary of Kersten’s exhaustive research into Christ’s travels after the Crucifixion, his arrival in India with the Mother Mary and finally his death and entombment in Kashmir.

“The historian Mullah Nadini (1413) also recounts a story of Yuz Asaf who was a contemporary to King Gopadatta, and confirms that he also used the name Issar, ie. Jesus. There is also much historical truth in the towns and villages of Northern India to prove that Jesus and his mother Mary spent time in the area. For instance, at the border of a small town called Mari, there is nearby a mountain called Pindi Point, upon which is an old tomb called Mai Mari da Asthan or “The final resting place of Mary”. The tomb is said to be very old and local Muslims venerate it as the grave of Issa’s (ie Christ’s) Mother. The tomb itself is oriented East-West consistent with the Jewish tradition, despite the fact it is within a Muslim area. Assuming its antiquity, such a tomb could not be Hindu either since the Hindus contemporary to Christ cremated their dead and scattered their ashes as do Hindus today.”

This is a new information on Mary, must be looked into.

Thanks

 

[zemi]

Hi

Sorry for the interruption.

There is an article:

Jesus Lived in India- Holger Kersten, a German Scholar.
sol.com.au/kor/7_01.htm

This article is a summary of Kersten’s exhaustive research into Christ’s travels after the Crucifixion, his arrival in India with the Mother Mary and finally his death and entombment in Kashmir.

“The historian Mullah Nadini (1413) also recounts a story of Yuz Asaf who was a contemporary to King Gopadatta, and confirms that he also used the name Issar, ie. Jesus. There is also much historical truth in the towns and villages of Northern India to prove that Jesus and his mother Mary spent time in the area. For instance, at the border of a small town called Mari, there is nearby a mountain called Pindi Point, upon which is an old tomb called Mai Mari da Asthan or “The final resting place of Mary”. The tomb is said to be very old and local Muslims venerate it as the grave of Issa’s (ie Christ’s) Mother. The tomb itself is oriented East-West consistent with the Jewish tradition, despite the fact it is within a Muslim area. Assuming its antiquity, such a tomb could not be Hindu either since the Hindus contemporary to Christ cremated their dead and scattered their ashes as do Hindus today.”

This is a new information on Mary, must be looked into.

Thanks

This is not the mainstream scholarship! Honestly, how many scholars believe it?

I recently heard of one paleontologist (a serious scholar) that started studying the Bible and came up with the thesis that Jesus must have come from the outer space. Shall we look into it also because it is a new information?

 

[jabelltulsa]

I have asked this question repeatedly on this site. If you think they have interpreted the scriptures infallibly, do you know where i can find this source? I’m not speaking of the catehism or any church documents but a manual or commentary on the scriptures that tells you what each verse of the Bible means.

No, there is no Bible commentary explaining each verse of Sacred Scripture. This is precisely what the Teaching Church is for. The Mind of God cannot be contained in a number of volumes. It is left for the Church, and only the Church to interpret Sacred Scripture.

Here’s one, though: How about an action? A repeated action that has taken place ever since the time of Christ? The Sacrifice of the Mass. That is the Catholic interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures as read in the Gospels.

 

[jabelltulsa]

Yes. They do claim this but when we look closely at the scriptures (especially in context) you don’t see these various verses and passages used to support the doctrines actually supporting them at all.

Incorrect use of pronouns, there, sir.

I read this as:

Yes. They do claim this but when I look closely at the scriptures (especially in context) I don’t see these various verses and passages used to support the doctrines actually supporting them at all.

You choose not to accept the interpretations of Sacred Scripture from the authority of the Church - which, by the way, is supported in Sacred Scripture.

 

[justasking4]

LilyM:
‘You are Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church …’ no, the Catholic Church never interpreted that little gem of a verse

Where can i find this in the catholic church’ infallible interpretation “book”?
There are thousands of verses in the scriptures. Do you know of anymore?

 

[justasking4]

Incorrect use of pronouns, there, sir.

I read this as:

You choose not to accept the interpretations of Sacred Scripture from the authority of the Church - which, by the way, is supported in Sacred Scripture.

Where is this interpretation to be found?

 

[jabelltulsa]

Where is this interpretation to be found?

In the constant teaching and writtings of the Church which is protected from error by the Holy Spirit.

 

[justasking4]

DebChris;2575388]I noticed the signoff of a poster on one of the other threads.

“If you want to find Jesus, follow his mother. You will find them together Mother and Child.”

You won’t find this kind of thing in Scripture.

Mary was with her son throughout much of his ministry. It is she who mentioned the shortage of wine at Cana where he worked his first miracle. She was at the Last Supper and on the Via Delorosa.

Just because she may be in close proximity doesn’t mean much. What teaching did Mary herself hand on to the church like the apostles did? What letter did she write?

The main dispute seems to be, where do we find truth if not strictly from the Bible as written?

Actually the issue is: are the marian doctrines grounded in the scriptures?

A question along those same lines is, where does the Bible, as opposed to another book, draw its authority? Who determined which books should or should not be included?
Paul tells Timothy that all scripture is good for instruction and to"…remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it, and that from infancy you have known the sacred scriptures"(2Tim3:14-15).
When the Church speaks about Tradition, it differentiates between that which has been handed to us from the Apostles and the various traditions that may develop over time in various regions. St. Paul writes that we are to “…stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught.”(2Thessalonians3:15)

It may be that you will not find a specific reference to the Assumption, for instance, in Scripture.

So you agree that it is not mentioned at all?

Nevertheless even the earliest Church fathers discussed this mystery. It is held not only by Roman Catholics but by members of the Eastern Orthodox Churches as well.

Would you happen to know the time period for this?

We hold that individually all will be transformed, body and soul, into the new life won for us by the death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ. What is there to keep us from believing that God would raise Mary after “she completed the course of her earthly life (PiusXII)”?

The question is not if God has the power to do so, but did He do so? If you claim that He did, where is the evidence that He did?

I see comments that the Mary whom Catholics honor is not the Mary of the Bible. If not, then who is she?

The Mary as described in the scriptures is not the same as the Mary of the catholic church for the mere fact she is never portrayed like this i.e. queen of heaven, without sin, prayed to, assumed into heaven etc. All of these claims are not found in the scriptures where this is all that we know of her.

Mary, untouched by man, conceived of the Holy Spirit.

Are you saying that she did not have sexual relations with Joseph? That she was conceived by the Holy Spirit also?

Jesus, as her son, was obedient to her. If we dishonor a man’s mother, do we not also dishonor the man? If we dishonor Mary, are we not also dishonoring God who chose Mary as the Vessel to carry the Saviour of us all?

How do you dishonor someone who is no longer part of this world?

The Magisterium “teaches only what has been handed on to it…with the help of the Holy Spirit.”(CCC86)

"
The marian doctrines were not handed down by the apostles. They never taught such things about her.

…you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth."(1Tim3:15)

 

[justasking4]

Re: Against Mary - “Totus tuus, Mary”

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Where is this interpretation to be found?

In the constant teaching and writtings of the Church which is protected from error by the Holy Spirit.

Can you give me a specific example that shows the original source and date?

 

[LilyM]

‘You are Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church …’ no, the Catholic Church never interpreted that little gem of a verse

Where can i find this in the catholic church’ infallible interpretation “book”?
There are thousands of verses in the scriptures. Do you know of anymore?

Try the infallible documents of the Council of Chalcedon, where Pope Leo states he is speaking ‘with the voice of Peter’. Not that all pronouncements of the Council meet the criteria for infallibility, but this seems to.

This statement clearly is an authoritative interpretation of the Biblical passage in two senses -

1. it clarifies that the reference to Peter being the Rock applies equally to Peter’s successors, the Popes, and
2. it gives a definition as to exactly what it MEANS to speak with the voice of Peter (and therefore what his being ‘the Rock’ means) - it means having supreme authority in matters spiritual.

And I don’t need to provide any other definitions of other verses - you were the one who claimed that not a single verse had been interpreted infallibly. I’ve shown that at least one has, therefore your argument is demolished.

 

[justasking4]

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
What this does is to put everyone in the catholic church in the same boat as protestants.

From this statement I see you have apparently no idea where the authority of Catholic Church is derived from. Please read Mt 16,18-19

This claim does not help you though in understranding what a particular verse means. It claims to be the only one to have the authority to interpret scripture and yet it has never done so infallilby.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Yes. They do claim this but when we look closely at the scriptures (especially in context) you don’t see these various verses and passages used to support the doctrines actually supporting them at all.

Everything the CC teaches is grounded in the scripture. You just don’t want to look at the evidence I assume.

The CC is not a source to be used that will tell you what a particular verse or passage means. It is rather a summary of catholic beliefs.

Not so your Sola Scriptura to be found in the Bible

How are you defining Sola Scriptura?

---

 

[HailMary]

How are you defining Sola Scriptura?

---

Sola Scriptura

 

[justasking4]

QUOTE=LilyM;2580303]Try the infallible documents of the Council of Chalcedon, where Pope Leo states he is speaking ‘with the voice of Peter’. Not that all pronouncements of the Council meet the criteria for infallibility, but this seems to.

This statement clearly is an authoritative interpretation of the Biblical passage in two senses -

1. it clarifies that the reference to Peter being the Rock applies equally to Peter’s successors, the Popes, and

Have you looked at this passage and the context? Its says nothing about succession.

1. it gives a definition as to exactly what it MEANS to speak with the voice of Peter (and therefore what his being ‘the Rock’ means) - it means having supreme authority in matters spiritual.

What is this claim grounded on?

And I don’t need to provide any other definitions of other verses - you were the one who claimed that not a single verse had been interpreted infallibly. I’ve shown that at least one has, therefore your argument is demolished.

Not so. Where does it say this?
Secondly even if i’m wrong, there are hundreds of other verses that have not been infallibly defined. That’s why all catholics are in the same boat as protestants on this issue. They have no infallible interpretation of the scriptures themselves that tells them what they mean.

 

[cpayne]

I had the most unusual dream the other night. A discussion was going on, here on CAF, between Christians of different traditions. The discussion revolved around Mary.

One person, who was doing most of the questioning, asked, “Where are all the scripture passages, the church history, the earliest traditional authorities, and so on, for Marian teachings?”

One of the Catholics on the thread answered, “If you go to scripturecatholic.com, jimmyakin.org, socrates58blogspot.com, or catholic.com, you’ll find lists and lists of all these scriptures, including references to earliest authorities, church history, and everything else you want.”

The person doing the questioning said, “Okay, thanks, I’ll research that and do some reading. After all, I’m really interested in getting my questions answered, not just in arguing. Thanks for the websites!”

Of course, then I woke up.

 

[justasking4]

Sola Scriptura

I didn’t find this defintion adequate. Can you put it in your own words what it means?