Are Marian dogmas wildly un biblical?

[Good_Fella]

I already explained that sufficiently from a biblical point of view, which you disagree with. You avoided the question, “how can God be born and be eternal?” Because the answer is so evident that you must side-step it and use a profusion of words to walk around the obvious. God has no Mother, if He did He would be a CREATURE; Jesus the God-man was born in the likeness of human flesh because this is the “tool” or “means” which He chose to reveal Himself into our little time-space box rather than in the holy of holies. You obviously are unable to comprehend the two natures and the relationship and importantance this has for man. I suggest you read and study your Bible on this topic before you continue on wit this discussion, which is really not a discussion.

Let us not deny that Jesus Christ is a divine Person who was born of the Virgin Mary. Mother’s give birth to persons, not natures. Jesus was not a divine and a human person - two individuals occupying one body. The Virgin Mary is the mother of a single individual, who is a divine Person and whose human nature is an attribute of his assumed through his mother by the power of the Holy Spirit - not Joseph. Thus she is the Mother of God: the Divine Word made flesh (God incarnate) and the second Person of the Holy Trinity. Jesus did claim to be one with God the Father. It is fitting that this truth has been proposed as the first Marian dogma of the Church, for all the privileges Our Lady has been granted by the divine pleasure rest on her Divine Maternity.

"And how does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?"
Luke 1, 43

Mary’s cousin Elizabeth was “filled with the Holy Spirit” when she pronounced these words. Luke wrote his gospel in the Greek, but Elizabeth spoke Aramaic or Hebrew on this occasion, which the evangelist translated into the Greek. In her native tongue she would have used Adonai which means Lord God. This Old Testament term is also used in reference to YHWH in the Hebrew. The Greek word* kyrios* means the same thing.

PAX
:harp:

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Dear Friends,

In fact, I think that our Quaker friend, Publisher, has done two things admirably here: 1) he has maintained his Quaker tradition and yet, 2) demonstrated an even sympathetic understanding for Catholic teaching, even though he does not accept them.

His comments on the influence of other, non-Christian cultures etc. are fair ball.

He has shown nothing other than sympathetic open-mindedness here.

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Yes, but my devotion to them is to become closer to them. But I don’t devote myself to them in order to get closer to Christ. I devote myself to Christ in order to get closer to Christ.

AGAIN: One devotes himself to the one he desires to be closer to - not another.

Dear Moondweller,

Well, I think it is sad that I will probably never get the opportunity to discuss things with you over lunch . . .

I know that other Christians understand something other than what Catholics understand when they say “devotion.” I don’t pretend to know what that is, but I can be taught!

On the face of it, however, I’d have to say that the God-become-Man in Christ truly has made closeness to humanity and therefore the saints a condition for getting close to Him.

I think that is the central teaching of the New Testament. The Communion of Saints is the context in which we experience salvation in Christ. Salvation does not come directly from an Invisible God, but from an incarnate God. A God Who we may touch, see, hear etc.

Salvation is mediated through what is seen and through other people. We are all called to be “little Christ’s” (as Martin Luther once wrote) in bringing the world to Christ. It is not, and cannot be, an individualistic enterprise.

You are more than correct about what you said re: inspiration. For me, the inspiration of the saints means that I also have a relationship with them on a spiritual plane. They bring me close to Christ not only by their inspiring example of how they lived the Life in Christ, but also by their intercession for me that God bless me, forgive me my sins, and pour out His Spirit of holiness on me all the days of my life.

Alex

 

[pipper]

Publisher, do you beleive in the Holy Trinity, that Jesus is divine?

 

[benidict]

The Yearly Meeting I belong to does have what you call “liberal” beliefs…however…the majority of Friends in the world are conservative in theology.

hi publisher. i can understand that. alot of us Catholics can have the same dilema. it makes it very hard at the voting booth at times…Peace

 

[Good_Fella]

I do not equate devotion to Mary as “pagan worship”…but her acceptance as “theotokos” by the common people certainly offered a devotion which they longed for…a “Mother” to call upon…so they now had Mary isntead of Isis or Diana.

Indeed, devotion to Mary and the invocation of her as Mother of God and Mother of the Church certainly appealed to the pagan converts in the Roman-Greco world and helped facilitate their initiation into the Christian faith, but these traditions originated with the Jewish converts of the primitive Church in Palestine during apostolic time (Lk 1:43; Jn 19:25-27) as did their traditional beliefs in Christ’s divinity, his virgin birth, sacrificial death of atonement, and resurrection from the dead - similar to some extent to pagan belief in the person and life of Mithras. Muslims, for instance, argue that Christianity altogether was heavily infuenced and reshaped by the pagan mystery religions, and they attribute the perversion of the original faith to the apostle Paul who was a Roman citizen. In any event, the Christian Jews in Palestine perceived Jesus and Mary as fulfilling Old Testament prophecies and the roles of key figures of the Old Covenant (Jesus in the persons of Isaac and David, Mary in the persons of Sarah and the Jewish heroines such as Judith, not to mention the roles of Adam and Eve in the economy of salvation), just as the pagan Gentiles saw a fulfillment of their ancient religious beliefs in them. The full realization of the law of the New Covenant in Christianity was something that the pagan converts had deeply longed for in their hearts by the sufficient grace of God which provided a sigh of relief from the immorality that was prevalent in the practices and rituals of the mystery religions. They saw a true and vivid restoration of the image of God in man portrayed in the Mother and the Son fully cognizant of the fact that the gods and godesses of their former beliefs were merely projections of our egoistic and vain selves confused with the absolute. Both Jesus and Mary were accepted by the pagan converts as real and living spiritual models to emulate, as they rejected the mythological deities and demi-gods for what they truly were: models of fallen us created by man.

PAX :heaven:

 

[bjryman]

Remember, the most debated teachings are of the Immaculate Conception and Mary’s Assumption. Since these declarations were made under the then newly conceived Pope Infallibility, and under very suspicious voting conditions (read the transcripts about the whole council proceedings), one should not be surprised that there is the greatest push back on these two teachings.

And since the Church will defend its “past precedence” vehemently rather than review and admit that perhaps the men involved in that particular discourse were not lead by the Holy Spirit, it will never reverse its teaching.

Previous posts showing Scripture passages mentioning Mary, will not show any direct referential support therein for these two teachings. Parallel philosophical hypothesis (comparing Mary to Arc Of Covenant) are just that … hypothetical rumination.

So, once again we fall back on Church Tradition and teaching therein. Since the Church mandates acceptance of all dogma, as a matter of faith…well, there you go. Again, I don’t worry much about all this as Marian teachings have virtually nothing to do with my personal salvation or following my own personal and community pathway to holiness. Thus, I can live with it being inside the Faith and wait until the judgement day to be further enlightened. I do tend to get agitated when I see our parish support pageantry for Our Lady of Guadeloupe observance that is more ostentatious than even Easter Vigil. If one only viewed our parish from the outward trappings, it would most likely seem that we do more than just honor her.

Marian doctrine is certainly no reason to separate Christian religions.

 

[Good_Fella]

Remember, the most debated teachings are of the Immaculate Conception and Mary’s Assumption. Since these declarations were made under the then newly conceived Pope Infallibility, and under very suspicious voting conditions (read the transcripts about the whole council proceedings), one should not be surprised that there is the greatest push back on these two teachings.

And since the Church will defend its “past precedence” vehemently rather than review and admit that perhaps the men involved in that particular discourse were not lead by the Holy Spirit, it will never reverse its teaching.

Previous posts showing Scripture passages mentioning Mary, will not show any direct referential support therein for these two teachings. Parallel philosophical hypothesis (comparing Mary to Arc Of Covenant) are just that … hypothetical rumination.

So, once again we fall back on Church Tradition and teaching therein. Since the Church mandates acceptance of all dogma, as a matter of faith…well, there you go. Again, I don’t worry much about all this as Marian teachings have virtually nothing to do with my personal salvation or following my own personal and community pathway to holiness. Thus, I can live with it being inside the Faith and wait until the judgement day to be further enlightened. I do tend to get agitated when I see our parish support pageantry for Our Lady of Guadeloupe observance that is more ostentatious than even Easter Vigil. If one only viewed our parish from the outward trappings, it would most likely seem that we do more than just honor her.

Marian doctrine is certainly no reason to separate Christian religions.

You sound more Protestant than Catholic.

 

[RevDrNorth]

I think it would be important when discussing who the church says Mary is to refer to official Roman Catholic doctrine and not what a particular saint is alleged to say. For instance, Martin Luther was a great intellect and responsible for a great movement in the Christian faith that lead to the self reform of abuses within the RCC. Would protestants like to refer to everything he said (eg anti semitism) as characterizing the non RCC faith. I think not. So why refer to statements of a saint (which may or may not be accurate) as official Catholic doctrine. Saints are not infallible. Just read some of the occasionally strange things church fathers said to know they are NOT infallible.

Similarly, just because an elderly women in Toledo believes Mary appeared on her over cooked toaster strudel does NOT mean that the RCC believes Mary is running around appearing on pop tarts, tortillas and rusted septic tanks across the nation.

There are abuses in some Catholics understanding of Mary but they are NOT Roman Catholic doctrine. Even when Mary is alleged to have appeared with a message, these are deemed after investigation worthy of belief but you do NOT have to believe them.

When we talk about Mary to be fair we must ask what does the Catechism of the Catholic Church teach. What do official papal statements teach and so on.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I believe you are addressing these faith issues with an intellectual side that is blind to the reality of what has taken place in the revelation of these Marian Apostolic doctrines.

What you fail to mention or “see” in these Marian doctrines from a mystical faith of the blessed Virgin Mary were already revealed and believed in and practiced. The Church used these divine biblical revelations of the Virgin Mary to defeat man’s new doctrine that “God does not exist” and that “God does not commune with man”.

The Immaculate Conception defeats this “communistic” man made ideology, by making it a doctrine that God has intervened with our humanity in time through the blessed Virgin Mary. Those who deny this revealed and defined doctrine, deny God’s intervention with our humanity through Immaculate Mary. Thereby leaving this later position watered down from the Apostolic Traditions and mystical revelations of Jesus Christ being born. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception will forever defeat such man made doctrines in every age past, present and future.

The Assumption of Mary is another already believed Apostolic biblical revelation that separates “always” the goats from the sheep. These doctrines have proven signs and miracles that followed them. Including “Infallibility” of the Pope, which was never a “new” conception of the Church, but made doctrine so as to separate the secular powers from the divine powers of the body of Christ in the binding and loosing, with the Keys of Peter.

It is your argument raised here in regards to debates, suspicions and misconceived notions against these revealed biblical teachings that is new from man made freedoms to reject God’s divine revelations or exchange them for man’s ideologies to self.

The problem I see with your reading of the council transcripts, conflicts with the faith at large already believing, and the council defended what is and has already been believed in the Catholic Church. Try reading them again, with the Saints Catholic faith prior to the Council defending them and defining them as doctrine, once and for all.

bjryman;7307030]Remember, the most debated teachings are of the Immaculate Conception and Mary’s Assumption. Since these declarations were made under the then newly conceived Pope Infallibility, and under very suspicious voting conditions (read the transcripts about the whole council proceedings), one should not be surprised that there is the greatest push back on these two teachings.

This argument makes no sense to me? If the Church were to take your argument, she would have to revisit the “Trinity doctrine”, the sacraments, the canon of the bible, the authenticity of the apostolic Traditions that Jesus was born “incarnate”, performed miracles, was crucified, buried, and raised from the dead? You see how false your “past precedence” does not hold water?

If Jesus can use a sinner such as “Saul of Tarsus” to spread his gospel message. Why do you doubt? That Jesus has never left his Catholic church (us orphans)? Do you question the Holy Spirit? which confirmed these doctrines with signs and wonders? which is a biblical teaching period. That the Holy Spirit will confirm Jesus teachings with signs and wonders from heaven.

And since the Church will defend its “past precedence” vehemently rather than review and admit that perhaps the men involved in that particular discourse were not lead by the Holy Spirit, it will never reverse its teaching.

cont,

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I challenge your refutation here; because Jesus revealed “ALL” the scriptures to his disciples after the resurrection.(see Luke 24 all). It is from here that Apostolic Tradition comes to us. It was Jesus himself who revealed to Catholic (universal) Church how to read and interpret the scriptures. It is from these divine revelations that Jesus did well, to hand Peter and the apostles to bind and loose on earth as He bind and loosed from heaven.

Your philosophical, hypothetical ruminations fall short from the divine revelations of reading the scriptures as Jesus taught His Church through “typology” to mention one here, as St. Paul teaches “typology” when he compares Jesus to the new Adam. Mary is the New Ark of the Covenant because scriptures reveal Jesus is the bread from heaven, Jesus is the Word of God, not written on stone, but the Word now made flesh. Besides John See’s the blessed Virgin Mary in heaven when the Ark “IN HEAVEN” (not earth) gets revealed.

Your philosophical, hypothetical understandings are very very far from the 2000 Apostolic Catholic Faith. I would recommend studying Paul’s theology and the early Church Fathers on how to read Jesus revelations through the study of “Typology”. Then prayerfully the Holy Spirit will reveal these magnificent revelations of God’s Love for you and me.

Previous posts showing Scripture passages mentioning Mary, will not show any direct referential support therein for these two teachings. Parallel philosophical hypothesis (comparing Mary to Arc Of Covenant) are just that … hypothetical rumination.

I can’t speak for you and your faith here, but as for me and my house we will serve the Lord and continue to follow the revelations of Jesus Christ as He revealed the mysteries of God through His Mother the blessed Virgin Mary and His body the Catholic Church.

Peace be with you

So, once again we fall back on Church Tradition and teaching therein. Since the Church mandates acceptance of all dogma, as a matter of faith…well, there you go. Again, I don’t worry much about all this as Marian teachings have virtually nothing to do with my personal salvation or following my own personal and community pathway to holiness. Thus, I can live with it being inside the Faith and wait until the judgement day to be further enlightened. I do tend to get agitated when I see our parish support pageantry for Our Lady of Guadeloupe observance that is more ostentatious than even Easter Vigil. If one only viewed our parish from the outward trappings, it would most likely seem that we do more than just honor her.

Marian doctrine is certainly no reason to separate Christian religions.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

cont;

Remember, the most debated teachings are of the Immaculate Conception and Mary’s Assumption. Since these declarations were made under the then newly conceived Pope Infallibility, and under very suspicious voting conditions (read the transcripts about the whole council proceedings), one should not be surprised that there is the greatest push back on these two teachings.

And since the Church will defend its “past precedence” vehemently rather than review and admit that perhaps the men involved in that particular discourse were not lead by the Holy Spirit, it will never reverse its teaching.

Previous posts showing Scripture passages mentioning Mary, will not show any direct referential support therein for these two teachings. Parallel philosophical hypothesis (comparing Mary to Arc Of Covenant) are just that … hypothetical rumination.

So, once again we fall back on Church Tradition and teaching therein. Since the Church mandates acceptance of all dogma, as a matter of faith…well, there you go. Again, I don’t worry much about all this as Marian teachings have virtually nothing to do with my personal salvation or following my own personal and community pathway to holiness. Thus, I can live with it being inside the Faith and wait until the judgement day to be further enlightened. I do tend to get agitated when I see our parish support pageantry for Our Lady of Guadeloupe observance that is more ostentatious than even Easter Vigil. If one only viewed our parish from the outward trappings, it would most likely seem that we do more than just honor her.

Marian doctrine is certainly no reason to separate Christian religions.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I beg to differ with you here; The doctrines of the Catholic Church are made doctrine for the simple fact that the Apostles and the early Church Fathers, Saints and Martyrs (witnesses) already believed in them, taught them, and practiced them before they became doctrines.

Why would you want to exclude the witnesses and signs from heaven which followed these apostolic teachings and revelations.

The CCC is our guideline of our Catholic faith rest assured. But without these witnesses and miracles that give testimony and witness of them, makes for a false text book faith not a Catholic “living” faith, just as Jesus lives.

True the Saints while they walked the earth were not infallible, but their gospel message was infallible. The beauty to this is, is that Jesus gave Peter and His apostles the power to bind and loose. Through the Catholic doctrines is when and where you see these apostolic Keys from heaven being exercised, who were able under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to infallibly define the canon of the bible, Trinity, etc… thereby forever separating the goats from the sheep who reject these revealed divine revelations from God.

In other words, the Catholic Church from her apostolic authority on binding and loosing, is always able to determine those things from God infallibly from those things from man. Not all what the great saints wrote was accepted by the Catholic Church as coming from Apostolic Tradition or sacred scripture. But she infallibly confirmed the apostolic teachings followed by signs and wonders. Thus Jesus named her well “Rock”, is what you and another poster is referring to, because she (the Catholic Church) cannot and will not change what Jesus has revealed to her from heaven on earth.

RevDrNorth;7307140]I think it would be important when discussing who the church says Mary is to refer to official Roman Catholic doctrine and not what a particular saint is alleged to say. For instance, Martin Luther was a great intellect and responsible for a great movement in the Christian faith that lead to the self reform of abuses within the RCC. Would protestants like to refer to everything he said (eg anti semitism) as characterizing the non RCC faith. I think not. So why refer to statements of a saint (which may or may not be accurate) as official Catholic doctrine. Saints are not infallible. Just read some of the occasionally strange things church fathers said to know they are NOT infallible.

There are abuses of false beliefs who deny the biblical revelations of Mary, revealed in the apostolic doctrines of the Catholic Church. But you would error tremendously, should you doubt the faith of any Catholic no matter how expressed by private devotion to the blessed Mother of Jesus in the Virgin Mary who always points us to Christ our savior, especially when we are not worthy to approach Jesus True presence. God is a family, and God has never left His Children orphans without a Mother the blessed Virgin Mary.

The Catholic base her salvation on “Faith” which comes to her from hearing and hearing the Word of God, practiced and lived by her witnesses in the Saints, Martyrs, Apostles as revealed by Jesus. The Catholic faith is never a text book faith, that is why she has rejected the man made theologies of “So la Scriptura” among others.

Peace be with you

There are abuses in some Catholics understanding of Mary but they are NOT Roman Catholic doctrine. Even when Mary is alleged to have appeared with a message, these are deemed after investigation worthy of belief but you do NOT have to believe them.When we talk about Mary to be fair we must ask what does the Catechism of the Catholic Church teach. What do official papal statements teach and so on.

 

[Nevermore22]

I think it would be important when discussing who the church says Mary is to refer to official Roman Catholic doctrine and not what a particular saint is alleged to say.
Similarly, just because an elderly women in Toledo believes Mary appeared on her over cooked toaster strudel does NOT mean that the RCC believes Mary is running around appearing on pop tarts, tortillas and rusted septic tanks across the nation.

There are abuses in some Catholics understanding of Mary but they are NOT Roman Catholic doctrine. Even when Mary is alleged to have appeared with a message, these are deemed after investigation worthy of belief but you do NOT have to believe them.

When we talk about Mary to be fair we must ask what does the Catechism of the Catholic Church teach. What do official papal statements teach and so on.

I have been following this thread, and just wanted to say that this is a very good point.

In Christ,
Nevermore

 

[Hesychios]

… Even when Mary is alleged to have appeared with a message, these are deemed after investigation worthy of belief but you do NOT have to believe them.

I just wanted to point out here that the message contains points worthy of belief when they are already taught by the church, and this is a basic requirement. The religion does not come from these apparitions, it can not. There is always the danger that this does not come from some supernatural source and we might be honoring the creation of someone’s imagination.

So basically something you or I state could be worthy of belief, and if we dream it or hallucinate over it we might think it is the word of some saint, or angel, or even Jesus Christ. The church, when investigating, might not be able to tell that it is my hallucination (or yours) but will investigate what we state and reject it outright if they can detect heresy in it. If all they can find is accurate doctrine mixed with harmless pious opinion it can be deemed “worthy of belief” without being certified as absolutely true.

In other words, if my vision states that Jesus Christ is the Son of God that can be ‘worthy of belief’ not because my vision states it, but because the church has already determined this through it’s own reception of Apostolic teaching and a prior rational process of deliberation.

The rest of what the vision says, such as encouraging people to go to church every Tuesday, might be considered a good thing because it encourages piety, but the church recognizes that it does not have the ability prove or disprove that this message actually came from a real supernatural visitation, so it leaves us free to believe it is not true, or believe it as we wish.

When powerful prelates, such as a Pope or Cardinal, visit sites or shrines of these events, they are making a public statement that they personally believe them. But in fact, the man’s predecessor, successor or even some of his attendants at the event might not believe it themselves, and that’s OK too.

 

[KathleenGee]

Point is, Hesychius…is that the Church deliberated for more than 1850 years on the Immaculate Conception.

Parallel to this deliberation is that the Church doctors elaborated on the personal relationship of Jesus Christ, and His fruits, the consequences of sin on our souls, our purgative, illuminative walk in God and into the unitive. Many saints down through the ages, though through different charisms, expressed these fruits of Jesus Christ consistently.

If you are not open to studying the lives of the Catholic Church or in studying Church Doctors in depth, then you do not understand the premise of the Immaculate Conception.

 

[Hesychios]

Point is, Hesychius…is that the Church deliberated for more than 1850 years on the Immaculate Conception.

I was not addressing the recent dogma of the Immaculate Conception in my post. Thank you very much …

I was addressing the phenomena of apparitions.

Since you brought it up, as for the dogma of the IC, in keeping with the traditional Christian faith I believe that she was as immaculately conceived as you were.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

There is biblical foundation of approved apparitions in the Catholic Church which confirms God is the same yesterday, today and forever more;

To name a few apparitions from the New Testament which confirms the Catholic faith having a biblical foundation of apparitions begins with “Zechariah”, Mary the Catholic approved apparition of Gabriel in the “annunciation”. The gospels follow with another apparition of Jesus “transfiguration” with both Moses and the prophet Elijah, then follows the apparition from heaven to St.Peter who recieved instruction from heaven “FROM AN APPARITION” to allow the genitles into the Catholic Church. In fact St. Peter continued to be visited by apparitions from heaven while in prison. St. Paul himself never walked with Jesus, yet it was not until AFTER THE RESURRECTION, PAUL RECIEVES AN APPARITION FROM JESUS, WHO WAS PERSECUTING HIS BODY, THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

These heavenly biblical apparitions continued with St. Stephen who saw the resurrected Jesus seated at the right hand of the Father. Do we need to continue the biblical apparitions as accounted by St. Philip, and St. Johns Revelations?

So not only are the Catholic dogmas of the blessed Virgin Mary revealed from scripture, they are confirmed by heavenly apparitions, just as the Gospel message was confirmed with signs and wonders to the apostles, not to mention with “APPARITIONS” recorded from the sacred scriptures.

The Catholic approved apparitions are nothing new to the Catholic biblical faith, they confrim the hope promised from heaven to the Catholic Church. These approved apparitions prove that God continues to live with the human race and has never left us orphans. The religion does not come from apparitions, the apparitions confirm the Catholic faith comes from heaven.

I have never heard of a “powerful prelate such as a pope or cardinal”? This apparition, or your vision of the popes and cardinals is never worthy of any belief. Because it has no biblical foundation nor is it a revelation from God revealed to our humanity. The good news is that we have an “infallible teacher” that has confirmed these approved apparitions as worthy of belief, and an office with keys to the kingdom of God to bind and loose on earth the things of God from the things from men.

The proper definition to be related from these heavenly apparitions, is that the approved apparitions are “not binding” on the believers. We have the freedom to learn of them, and to be enlightened by them. What this reveals is that although some Christians do not understand, nor are taken back by these approved apparitions, the Church does not excercise her binding and loosing God given authority to bind them on all believers.

Just as the biblical apparitions were given to each apostle individually was for them. Then they in turn gave witness of them, just as the blessed Virgin apparitions does today. The approved heavenly apparition messages, as you stated Hesychios, is the same heavenly gospel message. Yet it may appear new to a people distant from the apostles and who may be under persecution and lead astray from the gospel message, that the Church Triumphant repeats the gospel message from an apparition from heaven to a people under extreme circumstances that the divine will intervene to spare and protect those children of God marked with the seal of God on their foreheads, just as heaven intervened with its apparitions to the apostles in their times of great distress.

Each apparition revealed from scipture addresses a circumstance of persecution in the body of Christ. So it is with the apporved apparitions in the Catholic Church, which is the gospel of message of hope.

In summary, if one looks into these matters of the Catholic approved apparitions of the blessed Virgin Mary, you will find Christians or the Catholic Church under persecution. When the evil powers and principalities seen to overcome the Catholic Church, heaven intervenes sometimes with an apparition from heaven confirming, God has never left (His Catholic Church) us orphans.

Peace be with you

Hesychios;7310173]I just wanted to point out here that the message contains points worthy of belief when they are already taught by the church, and this is a basic requirement. The religion does not come from these apparitions, it can not. There is always the danger that this does not come from some supernatural source and we might be honoring the creation of someone’s imagination.

In other words, if my vision states that Jesus Christ is the Son of God that can be ‘worthy of belief’ not because my vision states it, but because the church has already determined this through it’s own reception of Apostolic teaching and a prior rational process of deliberation.

When powerful prelates, such as a Pope or Cardinal, visit sites or shrines of these events, they are making a public statement that they personally believe them. But in fact, the man’s predecessor, successor or even some of his attendants at the event might not believe it themselves, and that’s OK too.

 

[mark_a]

Remember, the most debated teachings are of the Immaculate Conception and Mary’s Assumption. Since these declarations were made under the then newly conceived Pope Infallibility, and under very suspicious voting conditions (read the transcripts about the whole council proceedings), one should not be surprised that there is the greatest push back on these two teachings.

I can’t think of a single Church dogma that’s easy to swallow. If I can accept that the one God of the universe is a Trinity of persons, I can surely accept that one of these persons wanted his Mother with him.

Which original apostolic Church has her relics? Or has ever claimed to have had them?

 

[Good_Fella]

Since you brought it up, as for the dogma of the IC, in keeping with the traditional Christian faith I believe that she was as immaculately conceived as you were.

"He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle [the Blessed Virgin Mary] was exempt from putridity and corruption."

• Hippolytus, Orations Inillud, Dominis pascit me {ante A.D. 235}*

"Thou alone and thy Mother are in all things fair, there is no flaw in thee and no stain in thy Mother."

• Ephraem, Nisibene Hymns, 27:8 {A.D. 370}*

"Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin* whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin***."

• Ambrose, Sermon 23:30 {A.D. 388}*

"We must exempt the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know* what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her*** who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin."

• Augustine, Nature and Grace, 4 2 [36] {A.D. 415}*

"As He formed her without any stain of her own, so He proceeded from her contracting no stain."

• Proclus of Constantinople, Homily 1 {ante A.D. 446}*

"A Virgin,* innocent, spotless, free of all defect, untouched, unsullied, holy in soul and body***, like a lily sprouting among thorns."
Theodutus of Ancrya, Homily Vl:11 {ante A.D. 446}

"She is born like the cherubim, she who is of a pure, immaculate clay."
Theotokos of Livias, Panegyric for the Feast of the Assumption, 5:6 {ante A.D. 650}

These Fathers of the Church, among others, regarded Mary as an exception to the universal rule of sin and corruption and death. I’m afraid you have severed yourself from the traditional Apostolic faith in your belief. :sad_yes:

PAX :harp: