Against Mary - "Totus tuus, Mary"

[justasking4]

Tantum ergo;2551946]Your contention that the Bible contains “all teachings” still remains to be proven. The Bible itself denies it.

I never claimed this. What i’m saying is that the scriptures do not refer to Mary in the same way with what the catholic church does. It is Rome that makes all these claims about her not the scriptures.

There is enough evidence from the Bible as to what the deposit of faith and teachings is–the Church founded by Christ has the authority to teach the deposit as given by Christ and expounded on–brought to full fruition and truth–by the Holy Spirit.

This is the claim but many of the claims that the catholic church makes about Mary are not found nor taught in the Scriptures.

Second, we have over and over demonstrated to you, through written evidence of continuous teachings from the earliest times, that these doctrines you complain as not ‘being there for hundreds of years’ were, in fact, there, and were taught then, and only had to be formally declared when there was a difficulty with the ‘protestants’ calling them into question with their ‘Bible only’ olatry.

What you have not acknowledged is that many if not most of the claims your church makes about Mary are not found in the Scriptures. What you have not also demonstrated is that these early writings of the fathers was the belief of the entire church. Just because a father may speculate about her in some sermon does not make it true nor true for the entire church. We also know that the fathers had different opinions about Mary. For example, some believed she did sin orthers did not. When you don’t have the support of the inspired-inerrant Scriptures you have the teachings of men. Even claiming the Holy Spirit does not make something true nor inspired.

 

[justasking4]

I pray a whole lot more now that I am praying with Mary… PRAYER = TIME WITH GOD, more of it is good… Or are you going to claim that is false too?

Let me answer this way: There are many in non christian religions that make this same kind of claim you do. They claim to pray “with” their angel or avatars help. Would you claim that is right and true even though these are false beliefs?

 

[justasking4]

Axion;2552016]

Not true.

Hippolytus, Orat. Inillud, Dominus pascit me (before A.D. 235)
“He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption.”

Origen, Homily 1 (A.D. 244)
“This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one.”

Ambrose,Sermon 22:30 (A.D. 388),
Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin."

Did you notice the dates and the contexts for these sayings. Over 200 years after the fact. Secondly, Look at the context when these statements were made. These look like they were said in a church service. Am i to believe that just because these words were said in some kind of worship service that this is true? Since these statements are not grounded in the scriptures i.e. free from sin, what you have here is speculations that run counter to the scriptures that all men are sinners. See Romans 3:9-10.

As far as Revelation 12 is concerned, you do realise that Revelation was not universally accepted as a Scriptural book until 382 AD, when the contents of the New testament were settled by Church Councils. Therefore it would not be used for proofing doctrine until after this date.

If my info is correct about it not being mentioned without any authority until the 8th century that is about 400 years. That is a long long time not to be used as a proof text for Mary.

Even so, St Augustine draws the Mary link with Reveleation 12 in a Sermon to catechumens.

Ye have also received the creed, which protecteth your travailing Mother against the venom of the dragon. In the Apocalypse of the Apostle John it is written: And the dragon stood before the Woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as it was born. That this dragon is the devil ye all know. Ye likewise know that by the Woman is signified the Virgin Mary, who, herself a Virgin, bore our Virgin-Head, and who is revealed unto us as a type of the Holy Church; for even as Mary bore a Son and yet remained a Virgin, so the Church doth in all times give birth to her members, and yet is ever presented a chaste virgin to Christ.

Same problem as what i said above. The idea that Mary was ever a virgin cannot be supported by scriptures. However, this is another topic for another time.

 

[heisenburg]

They claim to pray “with” their angel or avatars help. Would you claim that is right and true even though these are false beliefs

But who is the focus… their focus is not the God of Abraham, Issac, Moses, etc

If I were praying with you. silent or not, who is the focus on… God. the correct God… The one True God

You are a member of the body of Christ, so this is ok and even commanded by the bible

Are those in heaven of a different body of Christ? Of course not! so, If my asking you to pray with me is OK, and if there is a Cloud of Witnesses that is aware of what is going on, and this Cloud of Witnesses is part of the body of Christ, When I ask a member of this cloud of Witnesses to pray WITH/FOR me how has the focus now changed?

The Focus is the same if I asked you, or if i asked Mary/Joseph/Paul et al to pray with me.

Would you say that because I asked you to pray with me that the focus is no longer on God?

They are one and the same. Separating the two is impossible because you are separating the body of Christ.
Can the Arm say to the Foot, I do not need you?

In Christ

 

[zemi]

Axion;2552016]

Did you notice the dates and the contexts for these sayings. Over 200 years after the fact. Secondly, Look at the context when these statements were made. These look like they were said in a church service. Am i to believe that just because these words were said in some kind of worship service that this is true? Since these statements are not grounded in the scriptures i.e. free from sin, what you have here is speculations that run counter to the scriptures that all men are sinners. See Romans 3:9-10.

If my info is correct about it not being mentioned without any authority until the 8th century that is about 400 years. That is a long long time not to be used as a proof text for Mary.

Same problem as what i said above. The idea that Mary was ever a virgin cannot be supported by scriptures. However, this is another topic for another time.

Justasking,

once again, you’re just sawing off the branch on which you are sitting.

You can’t then believe in the Trinity (decided in 325), trust the canon of the Scripture (397), that the Holy Spirit is God (381), nor can you know for sure that Christ had two natures (451), (there are also other non-explicit things in the Biblie e.g. God’s omnipresence).

Your argument that e.g. Mary is not Theotokos (decided in 431) because it is a “late” developement would be completely and totally inconsistent if you adhere to the decisions of above-mentioned councils.

Honestly, I think you just pick and choose things to fit your beliefs.

 

[reluctant_saint]

What i’m saying is that the scriptures do not refer to Mary in the same way with what the catholic church does. It is Rome that makes all these claims about her not the scriptures.

I wonder if justasking4 has read my posts. I wonder if anybody has read my posts. Maybe they’re a little too long. But then again, isn’t the truth usually the hardest thing to explain?

Justasking4, if you want a biblical explanation of Catholic Marian beliefs, read my posts. The Bible has more to say about Mary than you think.

 

[zemi]

I wonder if justasking4 has read my posts. I wonder if anybody has read my posts. Maybe they’re a little too long. But then again, isn’t the truth usually the hardest thing to explain?

Justasking4, if you want a biblical explanation of Catholic Marian beliefs, read my posts. The Bible has more to say about Mary than you think.

I read but we’re in the same boat

 

[terri_fortner]

Let me answer this way: There are many in non christian religions that make this same kind of claim you do. They claim to pray “with” their angel or avatars help. Would you claim that is right and true even though these are false beliefs?

No they are not true because they are not praying to God. That seems a lot like a no brainer to me. I am not sure of any other religions that are Non Christians that pray with angels… Could you be more specific on what religion that is.

Also, could you comment on my previous two post about the bible and how it came to be a written Sacred Text. Why you keep saying that if it isn’t in the bible then it isn’t true. Show me where the bible backs up that claim.

 

[justasking4]

zemi;2556219]Justasking,

once again, you’re just sawing off the branch on which you are sitting.

You can’t then believe in the Trinity (decided in 325), trust the canon of the Scripture (397), that the Holy Spirit is God (381), nor can you know for sure that Christ had two natures (451), (there are also other non-explicit things in the Biblie e.g. God’s omnipresence).

All of these doctrines are well grounded in the scriptures. The marian doctrines are not.

Your argument that e.g. Mary is not Theotokos (decided in 431) because it is a “late” developement would be completely and totally inconsistent if you adhere to the decisions of above-mentioned councils.

There was some dispute on what this meant. Was this title saying something primarily about Mary or about Christ? I don’t dispute that God chose her to bring Christ into the world by making it possible for Christ to have a human body. What i do dispute are the teachings of the catholic that add on so much more to her that the scriptures never do.

Honestly, I think you just pick and choose things to fit your beliefs.

We must do that. Even you have to pick and chose what you believe your church teaches and reject other teachings. Just take Mary’s supposed sinlessness. Some fathers thought she sinned. Others not. Which will you chose to believe?

 

[justasking4]

heisenburg;2556177]But who is the focus… their focus is not the God of Abraham, Issac, Moses, etc

So what? They may say they don’t believe in your God. Also, what about Islam that claims to be praying to God but denies that Jesus is God?

If I were praying with you. silent or not, who is the focus on… God. the correct God… The one True God

Not if you are praying to Mary.

You are a member of the body of Christ, so this is ok and even commanded by the bible

Yes

Are those in heaven of a different body of Christ? Of course not!

you cannot support your claim here. You do not know specifically who is in heaven and even if you did you would not know if they could hear your prayers.

so, If my asking you to pray with me is OK, and if there is a Cloud of Witnesses that is aware of what is going on, and this Cloud of Witnesses is part of the body of Christ, When I ask a member of this cloud of Witnesses to pray WITH/FOR me how has the focus now changed?

The Focus is the same if I asked you, or if i asked Mary/Joseph/Paul et al to pray with me.

You are making a number of assumption here that are not grounded in Scripture but are purely speculative. Take your reference to “Cloud of Witnesses” which is found in Hebrews 12:1. That verse in context is not speaking about any communication with the departed. Rather it is a reference to those that he mentions in chapter 11. Since this is the case, its pointless to pray to them.

Would you say that because I asked you to pray with me that the focus is no longer on God?

If you want to pray for me as fellow living and breathing human being then that would be biblical.

They are one and the same. Separating the two is impossible because you are separating the body of Christ.
Can the Arm say to the Foot, I do not need you?

In Christ

The problem you have with this example is that you must assume that the dead can hear you. The scriptures never exhort us to pray to those who have died. There is no need to for the mere fact that Christ alone is sufficent.

 

[zemi]

All of these doctrines are well grounded in the scriptures. The marian doctrines are not.

I surely accept that as your opinion. If you are really sincere about looking at the evidence you maybe (i know you have done some reading) have not seen yet, read the articles/debats which are HERE - Dave Armstrong’s site.

I would recommend you to start with THIS one.

Moreover, I already pointed you already to where you can read about Mary as our Mother in my previous post (those 2 articles are HERE - I strongly urge you to read both of them - all.)

You don’t have to read them, but if you’re sincere and you really do what you have in your sig (1 Thes 5,21), then you will read it.

There was some dispute on what this meant. Was this title saying something primarily about Mary or about Christ? I don’t dispute that God chose her to bring Christ into the world by making it possible for Christ to have a human body. What i do dispute are the teachings of the catholic that add on so much more to her that the scriptures never do.

Ok See links above.

We must do that. Even you have to pick and chose what you believe your church teaches and reject other teachings. Just take Mary’s supposed sinlessness. Some fathers thought she sinned. Others not. Which will you chose to believe?

So?! You think this doesn’t apply to other believes you hold as true? Do you think that in the process of the doctrinal developement there weren’t opposite voices to be heard? Take e.g. the canon you accept:

As regards the New Testament, Catholics and Protestants receive the same books as canonical and inspired; yet . . . the degrees of evidence are very various for one book and another . . . For instance, as to the Epistle of St. James . . . Origen, in the third century, is the first writer who distinctly mentions it among the Greeks and it is not quoted by name by any Latin till the fourth . . . Again: The Epistle to the Hebrews, though received in the East, was not received in the Latin Churches till St. Jerome’s time . . . Again, St. Jerome tells us, that in his day, towards A.D. 400, the Greek Church rejected the Apocalypse, but the Latin received it. Again: The New Testament consists of twenty-seven books . . . Of these, fourteen are not mentioned at all till from eighty to one hundred years after St. John’s death, in which number are the Acts, 2nd Corinthians, Galatians, Colossians, 1st and 2nd Thessalonians, and James. Of the other thirteen, five, viz. St. John’s Gospel, Philippians, 1st Timothy, Hebrews, and 1st John, are quoted but by one writer during the same period. On what ground, then, do we receive the Canon as it comes to us, but on the authority of the Church of the fourth and fifth centuries? . . . The fifth century acts as a comment on the obscure text of the centuries before it.

*Newman, John Henry, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, pp.123-126. *

Which books to believe then??! The ones decided by the authoritative council! If you believe the Scripture, then you have every reason to believe the Church council has this authority given by Christ.

In the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:6-30), we see Peter and James speaking with authority. This Council makes an authoritative pronouncement (citing the Holy Spirit) which was binding on all Christians:

Acts 15:28-29: For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity.
*
In the next chapter, we read that Paul, Timothy, and Silas were traveling around “through the cities,” and Scripture says that:
*
. . . they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem. (Acts 16:4)

This is Church authority. They simply proclaimed the decree as true and binding – with the sanction of the Holy Spirit Himself! Thus we see in the Bible an instance of the gift of infallibility that the Catholic Church claims for itself when it assembles in a council.

(Source: socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/11/quick-ten-step-refutation-of-sola.html)

 

[justasking4]

terri_fortner;2556656]No they are not true because they are not praying to God. That seems a lot like a no brainer to me. I am not sure of any other religions that are Non Christians that pray with angels… Could you be more specific on what religion that is.

Type in Google --praying to angels and you find a list of sites. Many in the New Age movement claim this.

Also, could you comment on my previous two post about the bible and how it came to be a written Sacred Text.

i may already. i will check if i did.

Why you keep saying that if it isn’t in the bible then it isn’t true. Show me where the bible backs up that claim.

I’m not saying that. What i’m saying is that if its not grounded in the Scriptures its not biblical nor apostolic. Next we need to see who is making these claims about Mary for instance and why should this mere man be believed? This is the problem with a lot of the support in regards to catholic doctrines and practices. When you venture outside the inspired-inerrant Scriptures you leave yourself open to all kinds of speculations of men.

 

[zemi]

I’m not saying that. What i’m saying is that if its not grounded in the Scriptures its not biblical nor apostolic. Next we need to see who is making these claims about Mary for instance and why should this mere man be believed? This is the problem with a lot of the support in regards to catholic doctrines and practices. When you venture outside the inspired-inerrant Scriptures you leave yourself open to all kinds of speculations of men.

All the teachings of the RCC are grounded in the Scripture. Justasking, will you read when you have time the links in my previous post I posted to you?

 

[heisenburg]

There is no need to for the mere fact that Christ alone is sufficent.

If you take this to the logical conclusion that you seem to be taking it, then isn’t me asking you to pray for me sinful as well? We cannot say in the context you are referring to “Christ alone is sufficient so there is no need” and still say we are to pray for one another. Otherwise you are committing a sin.

So, you have a choice in your logic. Either 1) you can never ask anyone, alive or dead to pray for you, or 2) You cannot use this verse to ‘prove’ your logic.

Remember, any statement you ( or i) make must be completely thought out and taken to its final, logical conclusion. If the logic false anywhere, the entire logic is false. Since your logic on this statement falls apart when taking living saints into consideration, therefore, your logic behind this argument with this verse is also false. This verse makes NO distinctions between living and dead. so therefore, the logic must be held for ALL saints

Simple Logic…

You also seem to believe that those in heaven cannot hear us. While the first verse I mentioned you seem to not agree with, but there are other verses in the bible as well. For starters, are those that have been allowed into heaven like the angels? The answer of course is yes. scriptural. What do the angels in heaven do when someone repents and believes. Rejoice. Scriptural. This means the angels know what is going on here. If we are to be like the angels, and the angels know what is going on, does that not also mean that we will as well? Or is the bible wrong that we will be like the angels.

You also imply that those in heaven are NOT part of the christ. this is heretical as it implies a separated body of Christ. so, while you say i make it on assumptions, the opposite is true, i make the statement on a fact unless you also want to claim that Christ is somehow divided.

That being said, you made an even stranger statement. If I ask you to pray for me… Its ok… assuming they CAN hear me, which there is plenty of scriptural support for, as has been shown to you, why is asking a saint in heaven to pray for me any different.

Are they not members of the Body of Christ?
Does Christ not Command us to ask other members to pray for us?
Isn’t saying that the saints in heaven can’t hear us actually putting limits on God?
Isn’t there only One Body of Christ?

In Christ

 

[justasking4]

zemi;2556811]I surely accept that as your opinion. If you are really sincere about looking at the evidence you maybe (i know you have done some reading) have not seen yet, read the articles/debats which are HERE - Dave Armstrong’s site.

I would recommend you to start with THIS one.

i have read some this and i don’t find his argument compelling. Even he admits that there is speculation involved with Mary’s sinlessness when he writes-
“One possible quibble might be about when God applied this grace to Mary. We know (from Luke 1:28) that she had it as a young woman, at the Annunciation. Catholics believe that God gave her the grace at her conception so that she might avoid the original sin that she otherwise would have inherited, being human. Therefore, by God’s preventive grace, she was saved from falling into the pit of sin, rather than rescued after she had fallen in.”

This is all speculation. There is no proof for this.

Moreover, I already pointed you already to where you can read about Mary as our Mother in my previous post (those 2 articles are HERE - I strongly urge you to read both of them - all.)

You don’t have to read them, but if you’re sincere and you really do what you have in your sig (1 Thes 5,21), then you will read it.

I will read them. However, can you summarize in your own words in 2-3 sentences what you think his best proof is? That would help me to know specifically what compels your believing this is so compelling.

Ok See links above.

So?! You think this doesn’t apply to other believes you hold as true?

Not sure i understand you. can you clarify?

Do you think that in the process of the doctrinal developement there weren’t opposite voices to be heard?

That’s my point. They did have to pick and choose just as they did with the canon.

Take e.g. the canon you accept:

*Newman, John Henry, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, pp.123-126. *

Which books to believe then??! The ones decided by the authoritative council! If you believe the Scripture, then you have every reason to believe the Church council has this authority given by Christ.

I do believe the church got it right in regards to the canon. Its not their authority that made the canon or inspired it but the HS working through the church to discover canon.

(Source: socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/11/quick-ten-step-refutation-of-sola.html)

 

[justasking4]

All the teachings of the RCC are grounded in the Scripture. Justasking, will you read when you have time the links in my previous post I posted to you?

Where is the assumption of Mary mentioned in Scripture?

 

[zemi]

Where is the assumption of Mary mentioned in Scripture?

You said you do not believe everything has to be explicitly stated in the Scripture but it has to be grounded there. That is precisely what we Catholics believe.

So I hope your question is (to be consistent with what you said):
Where do you have Assumption grounded in the Scripture?

Here you have (almost) everything you could ask about Mary. After reading an article from it and having questions, please come back with your questions. But read it first

MARY - Dave Armstrong’s site

 

[justasking4]

zemi;2552262]I tried to show you the opposite by my first 5 premises.

Moreover, if you look at John’s Gospel, you have Mary mentioned there 2 times → at Cana and at Cross. Now for the “Cana-argument”. Jesus called her there “woman” which some Protestants use to point to as some derogatory term Jesus said to Mary. However, on the contrary:

I didn’t say it was derogatory but there is a continual distancing Himself from her in the gospels. In fact where He does have a chance to use her as an example of discipleship He does not.

from: socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/11/dialogue-on-nature-of-development-of.html

Hmm…No one tells you to get circumcised or to go to Jerusalem every year to imitate Jesus. The question is whether you try to imitate Jesus in all things God commanded us except those that were fulfilled in the New Covenant (some were retained (e.g. 10 commandments), some were fulfilled and changed in their form (e.g. animal sacrifices)). You don’t have to imitate him in Jewish customs.

Good point and that is exactly what i mean.

I’d like to ask then - on the basis of which you decide in what you want to follow and imitate Jesus?

The Scriptures. The more you understand the scriptures and know them, the greater you will be able to follow Him. It is in the Scriptures that we can see and know the mind of Christ.

For Mary being our Mother argument see the very first post HERE

 

[zemi]

I didn’t say it was derogatory but there is a continual distancing Himself from her in the gospels. In fact where He does have a chance to use her as an example of discipleship He does not.

I did not say you said it was derogatory either.

God gave her the grace no human ever received before her… More than anyone before her… I think that from that follows that she was the most perfect disciple that ever lived → she was the most holiest person ever (after Jesus).

Well, take only the Cana feast

1. Jesus does what he does on Mary’s insisting
2. Mary is mentioned first among the disciples. Peter is among the Apostles always mentioned first. Judas Iscariot is invariably mentioned last.

Good point and that is exactly what i mean.

The Scriptures. The more you understand the scriptures and know them, the greater you will be able to follow Him. It is in the Scriptures that we can see and know the mind of Christ.

But how? It is not enough to say that. Where do you have that rule in the Scripture that says in what you should imitate Jesus?

 

[justasking4]

You said you do not believe everything has to be explicitly stated in the Scripture but it has to be grounded there. That is precisely what we Catholics believe.

So I hope your question is (to be consistent with what you said):
Where do you have Assumption grounded in the Scripture?

Here you have (almost) everything you could ask about Mary. After reading an article from it and having questions, please come back with your questions. But read it first

MARY - Dave Armstrong’s site

There is so much here that it woudl take some time to read. Why don’t you give me in 2-3 sentences why you believe the assumption is biblical?