Are Marian dogmas wildly un biblical?

[mortonsam]

I don’t think there has been much said here that is contrary to Lutheran theology. Practice is a different matter entirely. The practice of the people here may accurately reflect the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. I’m in the middle of reading a book titled, “The One Mediator, the Saints and Mary”, this is the document that was published reflecting the discussions and conclusions of the 8th round of the Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogue. Both sides discussed this whole contention of Marian dogma and doctrine. The Roman Catholic participants verified orthodox teaching and admitted that at times in the history of the church and at various locales, orthopraxy wasn’t always there. This does not mean that the churches teaching is out of whack.

Point well taken, thank you.

 

[JustaServant]

I never saw or even heard that in my entire life.
Even in my anti-Catholic fundamentalist days I would have doubted that.
Maybe in some backwoods villiage in a third world country…

 

[Mikeoffaith]

Good question, and here’s the best I can give you:
When Christ was on earth people often could not get to Him without help from others in the crowds or from the apostles. Sometimes they could, but how often in the Gospels is He teaching only one person and is not surrounded by His apostles?

We don’t NEED an intermediary to go to Christ. But we SHOULD use one. Using an intermediary to go to Christ shows an extra level of humility. We recognize that we are not worthy of being in His presence, that our sins stain even the best of our works. But by offering these works to Mary, who in her great love does not ever refuse us but rather welcomes us as her children, our sins are removed for our works. When they are presented to Christ, He will recognize us faintly amidst the adornements of His mother just as Isaac faintly recognized Jacob after Rebecca had adorned him with Esau’s clothing and the wool from the lambs.

Does that make sense Mike?

Hi Bryan-

I understand what you are saying, but I’m not buying it.

I don’t think using a blind dying Issac to represent Christ and Rebecca to represent Mary is a good analogy.

As much as I believe that I am not worthy of God’s grace, He nonetheless gives it freely without Mary’s help. If we are not worthy to be in Christ’s presence, then what was the point of Christ at all? It seems from what you are saying, we have no need of Christ. We only need Mary to bring us before Christ and it is her who will make things alright between us and Christ and then Christ will make things alright between us and the Father? If we should have Mary between us and Christ, wouldn’t this have been something of import for Paul to mention when talking about our path to salvation?

 

[Reuben_J]

It was His work and His alone.Christ is God’s salvation. Mary played a part of the incarnation by which God brought about salvation in the Person and sacrificial work of Jesus Christ.

It is just semantic. Mary played a part in the incarnation. No Mary, no incarnation. Therefore Mary had a role in salvation because she played a part there. If you play a part in a production, you are involved in that production and therefore you have a role in it.

You cannot deny Mary’s role because she actually played a part there. Denying her role is to deny God’s work which includes Mary as a part of it.

Salvation is brought about through Jesus. However, to do that there are people and circumstances in place for the scene to happen. Mary was simply one of them.

In fact God’s using people for salvation did not stop there. Jesus made it a point that eventhough his mission is finished on earth, he still needs our cooperation to carry out this mission as his witnesses. We are God’s co-workers in God’s farm. We plant the seed and water the plants but God makes them to grow. We are also asked to go out to the whole world and to baptize people. So the practice of using mankind in the road to salvation of a soul is not uncommon.

But Mary’s role starts from the beginning. She was specially selected and set aside for this great plan of salvation. You can deny all this but you cannot deny the fact that Mary was there. That she suckled Jesus as a child on her breasts. That she tied the sandals on his baby feet which John the Baptist even did not dare. She definitely has a firsthand experienced of Jesus that you or me do not have. Do not take that away from her.

 

[Reuben_J]

I also thought that this observation is out of place in this thread. If we are talking about what certain Catholics do, then that should not be in a thread that asked whether Marian dogma is Biblical or not. Christians of all denominations may individually do things differently that are not in accordance with what their churches teach but if they think that what they do is what their churches believe then they can just be their own popes.

 

[BryanM27]

Hi Bryan-

I understand what you are saying, but I’m not buying it.

I don’t think using a blind dying Issac to represent Christ and Rebecca to represent Mary is a good analogy.

As much as I believe that I am not worthy of God’s grace, He nonetheless gives it freely without Mary’s help. If we are not worthy to be in Christ’s presence, then what was the point of Christ at all? It seems from what you are saying, we have no need of Christ. We only need Mary to bring us before Christ and it is her who will make things alright between us and Christ and then Christ will make things alright between us and the Father? If we should have Mary between us and Christ, wouldn’t this have been something of import for Paul to mention when talking about our path to salvation?

Mike,

I also understand your points. The only one in which I vehemently disagree would be the “without Mary’s help.” Let us remember that God chose to come into this world THROUGH Mary. It follows therefore that our salvation in Christ came first through Mary. This makes her important in our faith. I agree that some have taken this importance too far. We must always remember that Christ is the ultimate end.

As to the letters of Saint Paul, we must remember them in their context. Paul wrote to different communities addressing individual concerns. He was not necessarily writing a code of every important belief of the early church as much as addressing concerns. We have no idea what he actually preached when he was with these communities, only what he wrote to them in answer to their questions or concerns. If we put all our faith in Paul to define our church, then that would make marriage a sin and would also mean Abraham Lincoln is probably in hell for freeing the slaves.

Paul addresses many important points of faith, but to say that he or any writer of the NT letters addressed them all would be a huge mistake.

 

[PRmerger]

Indeed, he did.
(BB codes mine for emphasis)

And there’s nothing there that I disagree with. Honor and respect for Mary. But not bowing to statues of Our Mother of Guadeloupe and petitioning them for special favors or prophesy and surely not crowning large shrine statues of Mary with roses and laying gifts at her feet while bowing and praising her and calling her almighty and Holy Queen of Heaven and Reedemer of souls with Christ. Big gynormous difference between what Luther said and what has taken place on several occasions in the Catholic church.

and he observed them talking to the statue on “many occasions”.

I observed it in my parent’s parish **on many occasions. **The priest was well aware of it and did nothing.

 

[Nicea325]

Originally Posted by JonNC
Where in the early Church is the practice of one patriarch given the power to infallibly declare dogma?

Jon

The teaching of the Vatican Council is to be found in Session III, cap. 4, where it is declared:

“the doctrine of faith, which God has revealed, has not been proposed as a philosophical discovery to be improved upon by human talent, but has been committed as a Divine deposit to the spouse of Christ, to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted by her”; and in Session IV, cap. 4, where it is defined that the Roman pontiff when he teaches ex cathedra:

“enjoys, by reason of the Divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith and morals”

 

[moondweller]

This cannot be true… If that were true and there was no plan for salvation, then there would be no Old Testament. Also, considering you either missed or ignored my post, you forget that we (2000 years later) have the will to believe in it or not. Hence, Redemption of Man could not have ended on the Cross. Otherwise, the only people that could be saved are the people that existed temporally at that time. I certainly do not believe that you believe that this one–for-all act is not eternal.

You need to read my post again, Gregg. I said the work of redemption began and finished at the cross. That finished work through Christ’s shed blood is applied, in full, at the time one personally believes in Him. Through personal faith in Christ the true believer is eternally redeemed and belongs to God.

BUT you are wording it that way. Saying that the Redemption of Man by the Son of Man was His work ALONE is denying that a plan for salvation and, hence, the Old Testament.

The plan of salvation included Divine redemption through Christ’s shed blood. Those who believe in Christ are “purchased” (redeemed) by the price of Christ blood. That work covers O.T. believers, as well.

It is ultimately His work but God had a plan for salvation. Without Mary’s consent, the Son of Man/Son of God would not have come to this world. Is this unbiblical?

Mary had nothing to do with the work of salvation which began and ended on the cross. The incarnation saved no one. If Jesus would have ascended back to heaven prior to the cross no men would have been saved. Salvation was wrought through Christ’s sacrificial work on the cross; a work which Mary had nothing to do with, but along with the others could only watch on and then learn afterwards what had Divinely transpired through that sacrificial work. That work which was Godward: propitiation; and that which was manward: reconciliation & redemption.

But I think this is all probably flying right over your head.

You yourself said this: “Mary played a part of the incarnation by which God brought about salvation”. YOU said this. Now, you are taking it back? Without the Incarnation, there is no Jesus. And according to your statement, there is no Incarnation without Mary. This is why we call her Co-Redeemer because “God brought about salvation” through Mary. BROUGHT salvation through Mary.

Mary had nothing to do with man’s salvation. That’s was Christ’s work. And “redemption” is only one part of it. What do you think redemption is?

 

[PRmerger]

I will let you tackle that thread, since it’s an issue for you and not for me.

'kay.

Here it is: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=7339808#post7339808

 

[PRmerger]

No, it’s not unbiblical. Christ’s work of redemption began on the cross and ended on the cross.

Well, moon, the Bible disagrees with you. One cannot prescind God’s love for Israel with Christ’s redemptive death on the cross.

It was His work and His alone.Christ is God’s salvation.

Well, yes and no.

Mary played a part of the incarnation by which God brought about salvation in the Person and sacrificial work of Jesus Christ

Yes! :dancing:

Acts 4:12 “And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.”

Indeed. This is very Catholic of you to say that!

YOU?

Yup. Little ole me. My role in the salvation of my family is paramount. Just look at what happens to the family when the mama does not have faith. (Although, of course, the daddy is supremely important in the salvation of his children. Studies show that if the daddy doesn’t go to church, his children, in the end, won’t either.)

Christ’s work of redemption on the cross was perfect.

Amen!

It lacked nothing.

St. Paul says otherwise.

And, clearly, it lacked *your *participation in it.

Otherwise, even a non-believer is saved, right?

 

[GreggAlvarez]

You need to read my post again, Gregg. I said the work of redemption began and finished at the cross. That finished work through Christ’s shed blood is applied, in full, at the time one personally believes in Him. Through personal faith in Christ the true believer is eternally redeemed and belongs to God.

I did read and understood exactly what you said. You need to understand that we Catholics am more intelligent than you think. My point still stands. YOU can go back and try to understand my point. “Christ’s shed blood is applied” means absolutely nothing to me. We have His Blood. You just believe in His Blood. Who does His flesh come from again?

The plan of salvation included Divine redemption through Christ’s shed blood. Those who believe in Christ are “purchased” (redeemed) by the price of Christ blood. That work covers O.T. believers, as well.

Now we are getting somewhere because now you say there is a “plan of salvation.” God is all-knowing… Therefore, He had a plan.

Mary had nothing to do with the work of salvation which began and ended on the cross. The incarnation saved no one. If Jesus would have ascended back to heaven prior to the cross no men would have been saved. Salvation was wrought through Christ’s sacrificial work on the cross; a work which Mary had nothing to do with, but along with the others could only watch on and then learn afterwards what had Divinely transpired through that sacrificial work. That work which was Godward: propitiation; and that which was manward: reconciliation & redemption.

“The Incarnation saved no one”? But just a post ago you were saying that by the Incarnation “God brought about salvation”. You are such a hypocrite.

That’s was Christ’s work. And “redemption” is only one part of it. What do you think redemption is?

What does it matter? If I say what the Church believes, you are going to say something that is against the Church anyway. I am surprised that we are on the same wavelength that Christ died for us because the Church teaches it.

 

[GaryTaylor]

PRmerger…

I wanted to comment on your statement above about female/male=family in Church. It is a valid point that I didn’t miss. Honestly I wouldn’t need to see those statistics, the proof has been clear in past years. But I do wonder if statistics show any improvement recently in regards?

Anyway I also see that the recitation in the Catholic Church is also more of a female reverence and always has been. Do you think the reverence to the Blessed Mother is more female orientated? I believe so by about a 60/40 split. All facinates me and speaks volumes in regards to male ego.

 

[Good_Fella]

** 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.

First of all, in his pastoral letters, Paul is addressing the specific concerns of certain communities in primary matters of faith and morals. The contexts of his letters do not necessarily require the apostle to refer to the person of Mary. Second, Luke implicitly presents Mary as a type of new Eve (woman of promise) in his Infancy narratives, which the early Church Fathers of the 2nd century, Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, cite in their explications of the text, as they elaborate on this traditional belief of the early Christians expressed by the evangelist in literary form. Luke was a companion of Paul and recorded what the apostle intended to preach about Mary.

Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp. who was ordained Bishop of Smyrna by the apostle John. So he, too, was well acquainted with what the apostles preached about Mary when he developed more fully in a theological capacity the motif of the New Eve found in Luke’s gospel. In fact, the Church Father perceived a link between Paul’s Letter to the Romans and the Gospel of Luke. It was in the context of the recapitualtion of all things in Christ, the New Adam, that he further clarified the role of the Blessed Virgin Mary in God’s plan of salvation in and through Christ by referring to the Eve-Mary parallel that germinated with Luke and was more informally treated by Justin Martyr about thirty years earlier.

“Adam had to be recapitulated in Christ, so that death might be swallowed up in immortality, and Eve in Mary, so that the Virgin, having become another virgin’s advocate, might destroy and abolish another virgin’s disobedience by the obedience of another virgin.”
Proof of the Apostolic Preaching, 33

“In accordance with this design , the Virgin Mary was found obedient when she said, ‘Behold your handmaid, O Lord; let it be done to me according to your word’ (Lk 1:38)…And so the knot of Eve’s disobedience was untied by Mary’s obedience. What Eve bound by her disobedience, Mary loosed by her faith.”
Against Heresies, 3:22 [inter A.D. 180/190]

"I swear by myself declares the LORD, that because you acted as you did…all the nations of the earth shall find blessing – all this because you obeyed my command."
Genesis 22, 15-18

If Abraham had refused to sacrifice his son Isaac, the Annunciation would not have happened. In the order of redemption, active and faithful human participation is a requisite by the will of our heavenly Father in his infinite wisdom. And let us bear in mind that it is in his mercy that God desires all human beings to be saved, although in his justice God does not necessarily have to save us from the consequences of the sin of Adam and Eve if he so pleases. But by the Divine pleasure we have been granted the opportunity to work out our salvation “in fear and trembling” by cooperating with God’s infused grace in our lives. Individuals who accept Jesus as their Lord and Saviour too personally see themselves as passive spectators in the economy of salvation and as having been exonerated of their sins by Christ who was “punished” in our place, sending God’s mercy to exaggerated heights. The result of these false and unbiblical Protestant notions, grounded on human despair and the gnostic sense of being totally corrupt in nature as anything consisting of matter is, naturally leads them to subscribe to the equally exaggerated doctrine of sola Christu.

In strict justice, Christ has redeemed the world, but by right of friendship with God we can, so to speak, redeem ourselves by proving ourselves worthy before God and bringing the merits of Christ’s Passion and Death to completion in our own lives - now that Christ has made atonement for our sins. Mary helped save the world by being the anti-type of Eve in her collaboration with the Holy Spirit and divine grace. Like Abraham, she had the freedom to refuse, but instead sincerely felt not to through God’s sufficient grace. Thus Mary deserves to make satisfaction for us, just as we deserve to receive even greater graces in our lives through our sincere efforts to please God with the help of his actual grace, in and through Christ as our co-Redemptrix by right of friendship with our heavenly Father.

“All are said to have a share who have deserved to be sanctified by his grace.”
Origen, First Principles, l: 1,3 [A.D. 230]

PAX :heaven:

 

[brumano]

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

I know I’m interjecting here between specific exchanges, but really the earliest begining of Catholic Church is not really dated and I don’t know if it can be actually determined moreso than discerned… we might wonder; well, did the Catholic Church begin at the Annunciation or maybe at the crucified Lord’s giving of His mother to St John the Beloved? Or was it in the upper room on Holy Thursday? Or does it really as The Universal Church recover all generations throughout time and really have it’s actual beginning with Adam and Eve?
The same kinds of inquiries could be made about the begining of The Roman Catholic Church, but on this matter we have hard scriptural proof of the Church which the Lord Jesus Himself instituted, but again, was it when He had called the twelve together, or when He designated Peter? Well, by this time in the chronology of the Gospel we can identify a distinct church, although of course it was not called Catholic, but it is the church that would become Catholic.
The Roman Catholic Church is primarily (but not exclusively) remaining in the authority of Peter at this time, although he had not yet gone to Rome. Where he went becomes the seat of authority, and as we all know he was destined for Rome and for many extremely important reasons.
Now a side note should be added if anyone would think that well, The Catholic Church can’t be the true Church because in the scriptures we don’t see the word “Catholic” at all of course, and I would venture that those who wrack their mind trying find the true church by trying think what that exact right name should have to be, would appear to have a strong disclaiming arguement against Catholicism; that is until the name for this new church is searched for in the New Testament. This is because a formal and uiniformly agreed upon name for this church is not given; the members are refered to variously…for instance the Apostles were labelled “those who taught in his name”, or “believers in him,” in The Acts of the Apostles they are as a sect (a sect which certainly qualified as a church) called: followers of “the way”. They called each other: “brother” and “sister” or more often by their own individual proper names, and the church that is now known historically as “Christian” is the Catholic Church.

 

[Mikeoffaith]

Mike,

I also understand your points. The only one in which I vehemently disagree would be the “without Mary’s help.” Let us remember that God chose to come into this world THROUGH Mary. It follows therefore that our salvation in Christ came first through Mary. This makes her important in our faith. I agree that some have taken this importance too far. We must always remember that Christ is the ultimate end.

As to the letters of Saint Paul, we must remember them in their context. Paul wrote to different communities addressing individual concerns. He was not necessarily writing a code of every important belief of the early church as much as addressing concerns. We have no idea what he actually preached when he was with these communities, only what he wrote to them in answer to their questions or concerns. If we put all our faith in Paul to define our church, then that would make marriage a sin and would also mean Abraham Lincoln is probably in hell for freeing the slaves.

Paul addresses many important points of faith, but to say that he or any writer of the NT letters addressed them all would be a huge mistake.

Hi Bryan-

i agree with what you are saying here. I’m not saying that Paul and Friends are the be all end all. And Abraham Lincoln may be in hell, I can’t be one to judge.

And please don’t get me wrong, I am not putting your belief down. If you truly believe that Mary is an aid and mediator between you and Christ, GREAT!. I’m saying for myself that I don’t find her necessary to mediate between Christ and myself, but I do need her in a desperate way to show me how to always say Yes and to trust in God completely. She is the model that I should strive for, to surrender myself completely to the will of God.

 

[Mikeoffaith]

The teaching of the Vatican Council is to be found in Session III, cap. 4, where it is declared:

“the doctrine of faith, which God has revealed, has not been proposed as a philosophical discovery to be improved upon by human talent, but has been committed as a Divine deposit to the spouse of Christ, to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted by her”; and in Session IV, cap. 4, where it is defined that the Roman pontiff when he teaches ex cathedra:

“enjoys, by reason of the Divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith and morals”

Nicea he asked early church not church circa 1860 CE.

 

[JonNC]

The teaching of the Vatican Council is to be found in Session III, cap. 4, where it is declared:

“the doctrine of faith, which God has revealed, has not been proposed as a philosophical discovery to be improved upon by human talent, but has been committed as a Divine deposit to the spouse of Christ, to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted by her”; and in Session IV, cap. 4, where it is defined that the Roman pontiff when he teaches ex cathedra:

“enjoys, by reason of the Divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith and morals”

Hi Nicea,
I’ve been reminded that this is off the topic of the thread, so I am sending you a PM.

Jon

 

[BryanM27]

Hi Bryan-

i agree with what you are saying here. I’m not saying that Paul and Friends are the be all end all. And Abraham Lincoln may be in hell, I can’t be one to judge.

And please don’t get me wrong, I am not putting your belief down. If you truly believe that Mary is an aid and mediator between you and Christ, GREAT!. I’m saying for myself that I don’t find her necessary to mediate between Christ and myself, but I do need her in a desperate way to show me how to always say Yes and to trust in God completely. She is the model that I should strive for, to surrender myself completely to the will of God.

Mike, no worries. You didn’t come across as putting down my beliefs. I was simply trying to help (and any others) understand to the best of my ability. It’s great that you look to her as the example you should be striving for. Trust in God is hard, yet she made it look so easy.

 

[PRmerger]

PRmerger…

I wanted to comment on your statement above about female/male=family in Church. It is a valid point that I didn’t miss. Honestly I wouldn’t need to see those statistics, the proof has been clear in past years. But I do wonder if statistics show any improvement recently in regards?

I think the fact that if the father attends church the children will also as adults has not changed.

How many fathers attend church today compared to, say, the 1950’s…my guess is a lot less!

Anyway I also see that the recitation in the Catholic Church is also more of a female reverence and always has been. Do you think the reverence to the Blessed Mother is more female orientated? I believe so by about a 60/40 split. All facinates me and speaks volumes in regards to male ego.

I think that Marian devotion is more slanted in favor of females. However, the males I know who have a great devotion to Mary are very, very devoted to her.