Are Marian dogmas wildly un biblical?

[Alexander_Roman]

You have valid points here no doubt, but in the midst of the larger picture, what are we really doing with Mary and what does it ultimately matter? Did she ever sin or not? Was she a perpetual virgin or was she not? The point for me is does it really matter? My focus is upon our one true Savior Christ. The saints are all to be honored (including Mary) for their contribution to the faith, but to spend so much time away from the focus on God to me is absurd.

I thank you for your candor! I would only say that any honour given to her rebounds to her Son. She is the one holding Jesus in her arms and, according to the Fathers and the tradition of the Church, she did this especially when she was in Egypt, fleeing from Herod. So many miracles came from touching her Son, that she always walked about carrying Him to touch other people to heal them with Him.

In the Gospel of Nicodemus, there story is told about how the mother of Nathaniel was in Egypt and how a child disease killed another child of hers. Nathaniel, as a baby, got the fever as well. She then heard about a “Mary” in the district with a “miracle child.” She went lamenting to Mary who told her, “Just put your baby on my Child’s bed clothes - under that sycamore tree over there.”

When Nathaniel’s mother did so, Nathaniel became well again. In the Gospel of John, as Nathaniel approaches Christ, our Lord tells him, “Now there is an Israelite in whom there is not guile etc.” When Nathaniel asked Him how He knew him, our Lord said, “I saw you under the sycamore tree.” To which Nathaniel replied, “You are the teacher of Israel! etc.”

The NT has data, but it is not there only for data, nor does it contain ALL known data that we have in Tradition and the Church’s living experience.

For me, the fact that Mary was always a Virgin is not only confirmed by the NT and Tradition together, it also shows that she was totally dedicated to the Son she bore in her burning love and devotion to Him.

That she was sinless has to do with the fact of the Incarnation of the Lord Jesus. In the Eastern tradition, we are not born with any “stain of original sin,” but she was “blessed” by God above all others BECAUSE of her role in Salvation history and because the Body of Christ is taken from her body. This is how the Fathers and the Church they represent has always considered the matter.

All her honours are because of the honour we give to Christ, the Incarnate Son and Word of God. For the Church in history, to do less is to somehow not appreciate the dogma of the actual Incarnation of God in Christ.

And it was Solomon himself who honoured his own mother with a throne on his right side. Christ came to us through Mary as well. She is my Mother given to me by Christ under the Cross.

Christ is not an abstraction because He had a mother. The Church is not an abstraction because Mary continues to nurture the Body of Christ that is the Church just as she nurtured the Body of Christ when the Lord Jesus was with us.

My devotional focus is on the One Christ, God and Man. The Virgin Mary always stands to His right and I take a good cue from her as to how to worship and follow her Son!

Oops! My soap-box appears to be in need of repair here. . . Catch you later!

Alex

 

[Good_Fella]

Catholicism has done an effective job of putting together a cohesive Mariology that is impressive to Catholics and to many non-Catholics.

The Catholic Church has done an “effective job of putting together” the canon of Scripture. Unfortunately, the Book of Wisdom, the apostle Paul’s favourite Old Testament book, was rejected by the 16th century Reformers along with the others which belong to the list of Apochrypha in the Protestant Bible.

However, much of it comes from tradition and not the Bible.

Everything contained in Sacred Scripture comes from Sacred Tradition. The early Church Fathers testify to what the Church has always held, that Scripture must be interpreted in light of the Apostolic Tradition of the Church by the ecclesiastic authority.

There are only two references, as I recall, to Mary in the Gospels between the trip to Jerusalem when Jesus was 12 and his crucifixion. Both of them. honestly, strike me as questionable in that they can seem to diminish Mary instead of honoring her. In Matt. 12 Mary arrives and Jesus is informed. His reply begins with: “Who is my mother?” Then he adds: “Here are my mother” etc. Read on. Then, in John 2:4, when Mary says they have no wine, he replies: “Dear woman, why do you involve me…?”

The question Jesus asks in Matthew 12 contains a hidden premise: a true disciple of Jesus is one who hears the word of God and keeps it in emulation of the faithful Handmaid of the Lord. Jesus regarded his mother more blessed in virtue of her faith than he did of her being his biological mother (cf. Lk 11:28). Spiritual ties are more important than biological ties. In the Gospel of John, Jesus is actually speaking declaratively by affirming that his hour has indeed come to beckon him by the Father’s appointment to begin his ministry in the shadow of the cross. It is through Mary’s solicititation that he performs his first miracle which inaugurates his mission on earth. The wine symbolizes his blood (Mt 26: 27-28), the wedding guests represent the elect at the wedding feast of the Lamb envisioned and recorded by John in the Apocalypse (Rev 19: 7-9). The narrative of the wedding feast in Cana is a testimony to the primitive Church’s perception of Mary as being intimately associated with her divine Son in the economy of salvation. Scripture comes from Tradition.

Even re the Jerusalem trip, it used to bother me as a child that Mary and Joseph had traveled a full day’s journey from Jerusalem before they apparently missed Jesus, their only son! That struck me as questionable parenting.

Jesus had the power to walk through an entire mob that wanted to lynch him. Being divine, Jesus had the power to come and go as he pleased to do his Father’s will. After his resurrection, our Lord walked through a door to enter the room where the Apostles were hiding. I don’t believe Mary and Joseph were negligent. More accurately, they were powerless.

The Immaculate Conception and the Assumption are based on extra-Biblical traditions. Most of the other Biblical proofs cited re Mary tend to involve considerable speculation - such as those found in Genesis and Revelation.

On the contrary, the Scriptures affirm the Apostolic Tradition of the Church. Since apostolic time, no Church doctrine has originated from an initial gleaning of the Bible. Marian doctrines had begun to develop over time by the guidance of the Holy Spirit long before the canon of Scripture was established by the “Catholic” Church in the late 4th century.

St. Paul wrote many letters to the early Christians in which he made many points re doctrine and practice. In none of these letters is there even a passing reference to Mary. If she were so central to early Christian doctrine and worship, wouldn’t he have made some mention of her?

Paul refers to her in Galatians 4:4 as woman . Mary’s central role in the economy of salvation as the New Eve was somewhat expounded by Justin Martyr and Irenaeus of Lyons in the 2nd century. These Church Fathers were very familiar with what the Apostles had orally preached, and they contributed to the elucidation of a universal tradition that had already existed by then. Paul orally preached much more than he had written in these few occasional letters of his (2 Thess 2:15), whose topics and themes were primarily Christological in nature and didn’t necessarily have to refer to Mary. Most of the papal encyclicals that have been written never mention Mary. Even most popes have never written Marian encyclicals. That doesn’t mean no Marian traditions had existed at the time they were written and issued to the community. In any event, Paul is the father of the theology of human mediation in the order of redemption, so I’m sure he perceived Mary as a type of new Eve and causative of our salvation in a secondary manner when he referred to her as woman just as Jesus had when he addressed his Mother in Cana and on the Cross.

Scripture says, for example, that “all have sinned” (Romans 3:23 and 5:12), yet the Church insists that she lived a sinless life.

The Greek word for “all” is pantes which leaves room for exceptions. Look who’s speculating!

PAX :harp:

 

[KathleenGee]

Thanks, Publisher…but remember, some times people will speak the truth, but when they act in a rather negative way, many times it can be attributed to in fact having suffered very much.

That is why we have to be careful about seeing being nice as something equal to truthfulness…we also have to look at the whole person and the context in which they are living.

You see in the world all the time diplomacy as being nice, but then all sorts of things, some of them having nothing to do with competency but personal cuts…being said behind their back.

I would rather hear the truth from an angry person than a two face, double dealing forked tongue devil.

 

[Publisher]

Thanks, Publisher…but remember, some times people will speak the truth, but when they act in a rather negative way, many times it can be attributed to in fact having suffered very much.

That is why we have to be careful about seeing being nice as something equal to truthfulness…we also have to look at the whole person and the context in which they are living.

You see in the world all the time diplomacy as being nice, but then all sorts of things, some of them having nothing to do with competency but personal cuts…being said behind their back.

I would rather hear the truth from an angry person than a two face, double dealing forked tongue devil.

“Hearing the truth” is different than “living the truth”. No one said “being nice” is something equal to truthfulness…living in the Light and cultivating the “mind of Christ” in ourselves…living by the Fruit of the Spirit…gentleness, kindness, meekness, self control…etc is Truth in action…not in words alone.

 

[KathleenGee]

True, don’t want to argue…but there are people who have truth speak on their conditions…and I have had to many times turn a deaf ear to negative emotions and try to listen to what the person is trying to say…

the old woman

 

[pablope]

You have valid points here no doubt, but in the midst of the larger picture, what are we really doing with Mary and what does it ultimately matter? Did she ever sin or not? Was she a perpetual virgin or was she not? The point for me is does it really matter? My focus is upon our one true Savior Christ. The saints are all to be honored (including Mary) for their contribution to the faith,** but to spend so much time away from the focus on God to me is absurd.**

but to spend so much time away from the focus on God to me is absurd.

This seems like your perception and misconception. I think Catholics and Orthodox has stated the opposite of what you aver here.

Question: Do you know of anyone, who asked for the intercession of Saints, or for Mary’s, or said thank you to Mary for bringing Jesus our Savior to the world, for standing there at the foot of the cross while Jesus was there crucified, who has been condemned to hell for doing so? Instead, just the opposite has been posted that devotion to Mary actually brings one closer to Christ.

 

[Roy5]

Reading some of these postings leads me to add these notations to my earlier posting.

** 1. It always has interested me (and caused me to wonder a bit) why both genealogies of Jesus - In Matthew and in Luke - trace Jesus through Joseph and not Mary.** The Bible, of couse, doesn’t indicate the names of Mary’s parents but tradition says they were Anna and Joachim. This is known from extra-Biblical books that apparently were not deemed authoritative enough to be included in the canon. Makes one wonder.

**2. I don't wanrt to get into this argument, because I don't care all that much, but the Protestant version of the Hebrew scriptures is identifical with the one you will find in your neighborhood synagogue.** Besides, old Protestant Bibles and various denominations acknowledge these apocryphal books but simply do not include them in their Old Testament.

**
3. If the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption were so essential in the early and medieval church why was it not until 1864 and 1950 that those two doctrines were defined and declared as official dogma of the church?**

** 4. When Paul mentions in Galatians that Christ was ‘born of a woman’ that doesn’t (in my view) add to the argument that Mary should be venerated as she is today.** That was Paul’s opportunity to add more in recognition or praise of Mary, which apparently he chose not to do. He didn’t even mention her by name.

** 5. Some modern Hebrew scholars say that in Isaiah 7:14 the word could be translated ‘young maiden’ instead of virgin. ** Again, I don’t care that much as she and Joseph were husband and wife. I look to Christ and his message more than to concerns involving his genealogy and the precise circumstances of his birth. “Why do you call me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?”

** 6. All those apparitions of Mary.** There have been hundreds if not thousands. I know the Church has recognized only a few, but the frequency in which they are seen has to make one wonder how valid any of them are.

** 7. I still have to be disturbed by how Mary and Joseph could travel a day’s journey from Jerusalem and not notice that their 12-year-old son (only son) was not among them.** Today, likely such parents would be investigated, maybe even arrested, or their child taken from them.

** 8. As for the two references (only) to Mary between that trip to Jerusalem and the crucifixion, I presume it depends on how they are read.** I see Christ, in both instances, as being a bit abrupt with his mother instead of a loving response. Re-read Matt. 12:46-50 and John 2:4 and see what you think. In the gospels more attention seems to be given to other women than Mary…

** 9. I think the strongest argument to bolster Mary is that she was placed under the care of John by Jesus when he was on the cross.** That also helps meet the argument some Protestants make that the Bible clearly says that Christ had brothers. If so, why wasn’t Mary wasn’t placed under their care? Or, forgive this, but could this have been another illustration of the distance between Jesus and his biological family? Read Matt. 12:46-50 once more.

** 10. I have to admit that I suspect that Mariology has been influenced over the years by the mystery religions, by cults in which goddesses played a major role, and by various superstitions - so strong in the ancient and medieval world.** Personally, I as soon would have Mary a wholly human being, like you and me, who was given the supreme honor of bearing and raising Christ. Could there have been a greater honor? Why do these other doctrines have to be added?
God bless Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox - yes, I would add Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus and all who worship God and do their best to follow the Golden Rule, which in different words is found in all major religions. Love over doctrine any day of the week. May religion be less of a barrier and more of a bridge. Christ certainly would want that. Remember how he honored the Samaritans, a despised sect whose members had intermarried and abandoned traditional Judaism?

 

[brumano]

If Mary were not all and even much more than we as Catholics know her to be, there would be in the Scriptures only very minimal revellation about her, and those scriptures would necessarily define her in limitations, similar to the way that one of the Apostles or one of the Prophets are described for our understanding.
Catholic devotion and contemplation of Mary could no more invent her apart from Scripture then it could the Lord Jesus, not because we have made it so, but because God the Father Son and Holy Spirit has made it so. If not there could be no Scriptural basis for any Marian doctrines at all; how could the Scriptures tell us who Mary is, but somehow according to some others tell us that she is not? The Scriptures do not deceive, nor are they deficient. The Scriptures are sometimes claimed to be deficient in indicating the Mary of the Catholics, but are those Scriptures being read with the awareness of Mary, as being intimately involved and inseperable from the Lord God?
One brief example will surely be agreed upon: in Gen.ch1 we read: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”…in verse 3 He says: “Let there be Light”.
In Jn.ch1 we read: “In the beginning was the Word” and through to ch.14…“And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory as the glory of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth”.
The name of Jesus is not given in either of these two one in the same beginnings, but we know He is present in God and that all things were created “through Him” (Jn.ch1v3). So needless to say we don’t eliminate the Lord Jesus from this Scripture, because we know He is spoken of; and we also recognize Him as “The Light”(Jn.ch1v9).
The name of Mary is not given in either of these two one in the same beginnings, but can we see her? If we haven’t seen the Lord as yet we cannot see Mary, but all true Christians will attest absolutely that the Lord has certainly already been seen in both of these Scriptures.
The Scriptures can go deeper, because God already at the beginning of our time immemorial must have seen Mary in order to create all things through His only begotten Son,Jesus. Mary is clearly understood here as the first dwelling place of “the Word that became flesh and dwelt among us”. Even in the words of Scripture…“became flesh” speaks of Mary because the Lord became flesh in the womb of Mary.
All of this, and of course there’s much more lends tremendous weight to the Doctrine of Mary’s Immaculate Conception, and it is all Scriptural.

 

[mark_a]

but could this have been another illustration of the distance between Jesus and his biological family? Read Matt. 12:46-50 once more.

Even James?

 

[PRmerger]

I said that she wasn’t mentioned at all beyond the book of Acts. That has a definite bearing upon the subject. The Apostles such as Peter and Paul wrote Epistles of Scripture. I think the whole thing really speaks for itself.

And how many times is Philip, an apostle, one sent by Christ to baptize and die for the Gospel, mentioned “beyond the book of Acts”. Does this minimize his contribution to the kingdom?

 

[Good_Fella]

And how many times is Philip, an apostle, one sent by Christ to baptize and die for the Gospel, mentioned “beyond the book of Acts”. Does this minimize his contribution to the kingdom?

It was Philip who had to interpret the text of the prophet Isaiah for the Ethiopian enuch in accord with the Apostolic Tradition of the Church. The Bible alone was formally insufficient for him to gain a full understanding of the Messiah and Suffering Servant. The Jews charge us with wild speculation in our interpretations of the text with regard to Christ, just as Protestants do with regard to our perusal of the Scriptures in connection with the Virgin Mary.Both religious groups, however, fail to realize that the Catholic Church would just as much have the fullness of truth in her possession without the Scriptures ever having been written and consulted, for the teachings of the Church originate from the Paraclete and develop over time with the ecclesiastic traditions. Appealing to the Bible alone is a faulty premise which naturally leads to false conclusions, which is evident in Protestant division.

PAX :heaven:

 

[PRmerger]

Yes I have…but not in condemnation toward them…but to determine how I measure up in the Light.

Of course.

The salient point is, Publisher, that even though someone professes that he does not use his own yardstick to measure others’ walk with God, in truth, all thinking, believing, moral folks do.

For as Chesterton said, “Tolerance is the virtue of a man with no convictions.”

 

[moondweller]

Many of the Marian teachings are from Holy Tradition which historically preceeds the writting of the NT.

Precede the writing of the N.T.? Proof?

 

[Good_Fella]

Precede the writing of the N.T.? Proof?

The Catholic Church was born on the first Pentecost Sunday when the Holy Spirit descended upon Mary and the Apostles circa A.D. 29-33. The first Gospel written was that of Mark circa 65-70 A.D. The last New Testament book written was Revelation circa 90 A.D. That 's a difference of about 40+ years of ecclesiastic tradition before the New Testament was started and about 60+ years before it was completed.

PAX :heaven:

 

[mortonsam]

And how many times is Philip, an apostle, one sent by Christ to baptize and die for the Gospel, mentioned “beyond the book of Acts”. Does this minimize his contribution to the kingdom?

Absolutely not. But I am not advocating elevating him to near-divine status either. That is the point.

 

[mortonsam]

The Catholic Church was born on the first Pentecost Sunday when the Holy Spirit descended upon Mary and the Apostles circa A.D. 29-33. The first Gospel written was that of Mark circa 65-70 A.D. The last New Testament book written was Revelation circa 90 A.D. That 's a difference of about 40+ years of ecclesiastic tradition before the New Testament was started and about 60+ years before it was completed.

PAX :heaven:

The Catholic church was born on 33 AD? What about the Orthodox church?

 

[PRmerger]

Absolutely not. But I am not advocating elevating him to near-divine status either. That is the point.

Then you have no objection to the CC’s teachings on Mary, for it is clear that she is not near-divine either.

Clearly, your paradigm that someone has to be mentioned beyond Acts in order to have a pre-eminent position in Christianity is nonsense.

 

[mortonsam]

Then you have no objection to the CC’s teachings on Mary, for it is clear that she is not near-divine either.

Clearly, your paradigm that someone has to be mentioned beyond Acts in order to have a pre-eminent position in Christianity is nonsense.

On the contrary. Firstly, you are placing much focus upon Mary or otherwise this topic wouldn’t be such a stickler for you and secondly, the fact remains that Mary is not mentioned once past the book of Acts. If that doesn’t say anything to you about the obvious differences between the Bible and Catholic theology, then so be it. It is what it is.

 

[Roy5]

I couldn’t help but notice the quote from Martin Luther King, Jr., in the last posting. Today, Dec. 1, marks the 55th anniversary of the refusal of Rosa Parks to give up her seat on a Montgomery bus because of the color of her skin. Some suggest that this brave act marked the beginning of the modern civil rights movement.

We often forget that both Martin Luther King, Jr., and his Dad were named after the Augustinian monk who kicked off the Reformation. No further comment, but thought it was worth mentioning, especially on this particular day.

 Okay. One additional 'summary' comment. Personally, I think it is quite enough that Mary was the mother of Christ and that this alone merits reverence and honor. I'm not convinced that the Church had to add on a wide variety of other doctrines, some of them like Immaculate Conception (1864) and Assumption (1950) not defined until recent times. I understand how the Church justifies them, but such accretions over the centuries makes Mary seem more like a goddess than a fellow human being. And doesn't the Bible say, more than once, that all humans are sinners? E. g., Romans 3:23 and 5:12.

 

[mortonsam]

The Orthodox do have reverance for Mary yes and so do many mainline Protestants, but Orthodox Christians do not follow many of the Marian dogmas that Catholics do such as the IC. That is the real difference.