CHALLENGING mary's assumption

[justasking4]

Tantum ergo;2696829]It depends on what you mean by “The Marian Doctrines and practices”, just. There are plenty of practices which are pious devotions but not ‘essential’ things like attending Mass, receiving the Eucharist, being baptized etc. but which are not totally ‘unessential’, and can be helpful in focusing one’s mind or leading people to a stronger faith. Also there are things which are called doctrines and aren’t, there are apparitions which are approved (and those which are not), etc., so that just because somebody ‘claims’ something is an approved Marian devotion doesn’t mean it is.

That being said. . .I trust in Christ, who told me that He would send His Spirit to guide us to all Truth, and who appointed St. Peter, upon the ‘rock’ (both Peter and Peter’s faith) Christ built His Church, against which the gates of hell would not stand.

You see, when you speak of ‘essentials to the faith’, I’m wondering just how you yourself came up with what is 'essential."

One essential would be John 3:16 and I Corinthians 15:1-4. Baptism would another. These and others are quite clear in scripture.

By what authority can you interpret Scripture and come up with what is essential to a mature faith?

There are some excellent teacher-pastors in protestant churches. Protestant seminaries and commentaries are just some of the resources that help in this area.

And why cannot I claim as my authority that which I believe Christ Himself gave us, and hold to its teachings as to what is essential?

You can. I realize the catholic church has an authority. One of the things i disagree with is its claim that it cannot err in matters of faith and morals.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Yeah, and not one bishop opposed it. Not one council taught against it. Not one pope spoke out against it. Even though the legend took a couple of hundred years (your own words) to be fully accepted into the Church, not once during those couple of hundred years did anybody say, “hey wait, this isn’t the faith handed down by the Apostles!”

And when you can explain how the Church absorbed a lie (legend, as you say) over a couple of hundred years without the slightest peep of protest, then we might view your own story here as more than a Protestant legend.

But not until then.

This would also be rather odd, as the Gnostics thought created matter (e.g. the Virgin) was evil, and to be released from. Why would they teach that her BODY would be assumed, since they thought only the spirit counted, so much that they denied that the Word became flesh?

 

[LilyM]

Thanks for helping me understand where you are coming from. Now let me give you my perspective on these matters. There are a number of passages in the Scriptures that warn that false teachers will come into the church itself and decieve many.

The scriptures also say that IN SPITE of all that, Christ’s ONE church as founded on Peter and the Apostles would prevail, and that the Apostles (and hence the Apostolic Churches) would be preserved in all truth.

The many who are deceived are the ones who have been persuaded to separate themselves from Peter the Rock and the other Apostles upon which Christ’s church would be founded.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

The scriptures also say that IN SPITE of all that, Christ’s ONE church as founded on Peter and the Apostles would prevail, and that the Apostles (and hence the Apostolic Churches) would be preserved in all truth.

The many who are deceived are the ones who have been persuaded to separate themselves from Peter the Rock and the other Apostles upon which Christ’s church would be founded.

The only problem is that the dogma of papal supremacy and infallibility has no need of the Apostles, their Churches and as long as one is “united” to one, namely Peter, being seperated from the other Apostles is not an issue.

 

[LilyM]

The only problem is that the dogma of papal supremacy and infallibility has no need of the Apostles, their Churches and as long as one is “united” to one, namely Peter, being seperated from the other Apostles is not an issue.

All the Apostles were and are and should always be united under Peter their head, whose Christ-given task was (as his successor’s is) to ‘strengthen your brethren’ - the other Apostles. To suggest they could ever be disunited is a falsehood - Christ’s church is one in faith, not many.

Peter was given also the task of feeding the sheep (the other Apostles) as well as the lambs (laity). Didn’t he have the final word at which everyone else fell silent at that first Council?

None of the others is charged with this task of headship over the whole. None of the others is to be the Rock upon which the Church is built.

 

[Good_Fella]

Why is that?John 2:12

After this He went down to Capernaum, He and His mother and
His brothers and His disciples; and they stayed there a few days.In what way are Jesus’ brothers (Gk adelphoi), in that verse, different from His disciples
[Gk *mathātai]

?

His brothers are his male relatives, such as cousins. His disciples may or may not be related to Jesus. He may have had disciples who actually were related to him. The term “brothers” could also be used to refer to those disciples who were closest to him, as distinguished from the whole group of followers, like his chosen Twelve. Its use was idiomatically interchangeable.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Good_Fella]

So you believe all the things you wrote about Mary here? You believe for example from above:
Mary is like a plane tree whose leaves act as shields. She defends all who take refuge in her from the power of darkness. Woe to those who abandon this refuge and no longer recommend themselves to her in the occasions of sin.
???

In Galatians 4, St.Paul is alluding to Mary as the New Eve, although he may not have conceived of Mary’s salvific role as it had developed by the middle of the second century with the Church Fathers, Justin Martyr and Iraeneus. The Apostle never uses the name “New Eve” when recognizing the vital part Mary played in bringing the “New Adam” into the world. But neither did he even call the Holy Spirit “God”. Yet it seems Paul must have shared the same conception of Mary’s mediating role in God’s plan of salvation, for he in fact did lay the foundation of human mediation in the divine plan: “I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions in the Church” (Col 1:24). “For we are labourers together with God” (1Cor 3:9). Paul’s teaching on the activity of the Holy Spirit helped the Church articulate the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, just as his teaching on human mediation in God’s salvific plan enabled the Church to understand the significance of Mary’s mediating role of grace in our salvation. Most Protestants suffer from a ‘pantheistic denial of all human mediation’. The principle of ‘sola Christus’ (Christ alone) has been interpreted to deny any role of human beings, including Mary, in God’s plan of salvation. Everything is done by the Lord through passive instruments. Christians are not seen as free and responsible beings who can cooperate with God. He is the only actor. So then it is impossible for Mary to have been granted a mediating role in the order of grace and futile for us to turn to her for the dispensation of the plentitude of grace which originates from her Son. Well, according to blind Fundamentalist notions, we better scrap some of Jesus’ parables, notably the one in which we read “Well done, my good and faithful servant.”

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[guanophore]

You have a commitment to “tradition” with respect to Jesus having siblings; furthermore, you have a dogmatic declaration which states that Mary was a perpetual virgin, and you must believe that upon penalty of making shipwreck of your faith, and anathema.

If the dogmatic declarations of the RCC were that Mary had other children, then, brothers and sisters could mean to you what they naturally mean.

This is easily demonstrated by citing this verse:Mark 3:17

…James, the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James……and by asking these questions…***Does James have a brother?

If so, why doesn’t Jesus?***

I don’t know! Who can claim to know the mind of God? You are right, if the Church taught that he had uterine brothers, then that is what I would be required to believe. As it is, I embrace the faith that was handed down by the Apostles, and they taught that she had no other children. I suspect that it has to do with her being the Spouse of the HS, and that He only wanted an only Son, so He did not impregnate her again. Joseph, recognizing that Mary had become the spouse of the HS, knew that he would be guilty of adultery if he laid a hand on her.

 

[guanophore]

In John 7:3-4; Mark 3:21, we see that younger “brothers” were advising Jesus. But this would have been a very disrespectful thing for them to do in public as devout Jews if they had actually been our Lord’s biological brothers. Moreover, it would have been unpardonable for Jesus to give custody of his mother to a close friend if he had siblings who could have taken care of Mary after his death. ( John 19:26-27)

James and Joseph are Jesus’ cousins, not his brothers. Mary, the wife of Clopas, is the sister of the Virgin Mary (Jn 19:25).

I don’t think it necessarily is read that way. The sister of Mary may be another woman whose name is not mentioned. Howe much sense does it make to name two girls in the same family Mary? More likely, Mary the wife of Clopas, the mother of James and John, is a sister of Joseph, Mary’s husband.

Matthew refers to Mary, the wife of Clopas, as the “other Mary” (Mt 27:61; 28:1) Mary, the wife of Clopas, is the mother of James and Joseph (Mt 27:56; Mk 15:47). James and Joseph are called the “brothers” of Jesus, and so they are his cousins (Mk 6:3). The others can be kinfolk or disciples. Jesus tells Peter to strengthen his “brethren” (Lk 22:32). He is obviously referring to the apostles, not biological brothers. We have the same Greek usage in the verses above ( ‘anepsios’ or ‘adelphos’).

One must also consider that James and Joseph may be son’s of Joseph from a previous marriage, from which he was left an older widow.

Matt 13:54-55
55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?"

In that case, the “brothers” that came to rebuke him or collect him because he had gone crazy would be older, and the appropriate persons to do so, after Joseph, as head of the family, had died.

It is also interesting to note that this is how the holy family is depicted in the earliest icons of the Eastern Church. Joseph is an elderly man, and James, the brother of the Lord, is shown as a young man who accompanied them to Egypt.

The first born children of Israel were consecrated to the Lord; they would include both Jesus and Mary. She remained a virgin, for her consecration entailed a vow of life-long chastity. Why is it that modern day Protestants find Mary’s chastity repulsive?

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

I don’t know if “repulsive” is the right word. You have to admit that the Catholic Church does have a long and time honored tradition of prudishness about sex. I think that Mary’s consecration is thought to be a reflection of the Catholic “hang-ups” about human sexuality.

One also has to remember that Protestants, by and large, have no monastic tradition and no real understanding of the consecrated life in our family history.

 

[guanophore]

In John 7:3-4; Mark 3:21, we see that younger “brothers” were advising Jesus. But this would have been a very disrespectful thing for them to do in public as devout Jews if they had actually been our Lord’s biological brothers. Moreover, it would have been unpardonable for Jesus to give custody of his mother to a close friend if he had siblings who could have taken care of Mary after his death. ( John 19:26-27)

James and Joseph are Jesus’ cousins, not his brothers. Mary, the wife of Clopas, is the sister of the Virgin Mary (Jn 19:25).

I don’t think it necessarily is read that way. The sister of Mary may be another woman whose name is not mentioned. Howe much sense does it make to name two girls in the same family Mary? More likely, Mary the wife of Clopas, the mother of James and John, is a sister of Joseph, Mary’s husband.

Matthew refers to Mary, the wife of Clopas, as the “other Mary” (Mt 27:61; 28:1) Mary, the wife of Clopas, is the mother of James and Joseph (Mt 27:56; Mk 15:47). James and Joseph are called the “brothers” of Jesus, and so they are his cousins (Mk 6:3). The others can be kinfolk or disciples. Jesus tells Peter to strengthen his “brethren” (Lk 22:32). He is obviously referring to the apostles, not biological brothers. We have the same Greek usage in the verses above ( ‘anepsios’ or ‘adelphos’).

One must also consider that James and Joseph may be son’s of Joseph from a previous marriage, from which he was left an older widow.

Matt 13:54-55
55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?"

In that case, the “brothers” that came to rebuke him or collect him because he had gone crazy would be older, and the appropriate persons to do so, after Joseph, as head of the family, had died.

It is also interesting to note that this is how the holy family is depicted in the earliest icons of the Eastern Church. Joseph is an elderly man, and James, the brother of the Lord, is shown as a young man who accompanied them to Egypt.

The first born children of Israel were consecrated to the Lord; they would include both Jesus and Mary. She remained a virgin, for her consecration entailed a vow of life-long chastity. Why is it that modern day Protestants find Mary’s chastity repulsive?

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

I don’t know if “repulsive” is the right word. You have to admit that the Catholic Church does have a long and time honored tradition of prudishness about sex. I think that Mary’s consecration is thought to be a reflection of the Catholic “hang-ups” about human sexuality.

One also has to remember that Protestants, by and large, have no monastic tradition and no real understanding of the consecrated life in our family history.

Why is that?John 2:12

After this He went down to Capernaum, He and His mother and
His brothers and His disciples; and they stayed there a few days.In what way are Jesus’ brothers (Gk adelphoi), in that verse, different from His disciples
[Gk *mathātai]

?

This is a very good point. His “brethren” are those that are close kinsmen according to the flesh. His “brethren” disciples are close kinsman according to the spirit. The first set He was born into the second He chose after His public ministry began. Also, his “brothers” did not initially believe in Him, but only came to faith later.

 

[guanophore]

So you believe all the things you wrote about Mary here? You believe for example from above:
Mary is like a plane tree whose leaves act as shields. She defends all who take refuge in her from the power of darkness. Woe to those who abandon this refuge and no longer recommend themselves to her in the occasions of sin.
???

Mary, like any of us, cannot do anything for God apart from the HS according to the will of Christ. What mother does not shield her children from the darkness, and near occasions of sin?

When Mary was living with John after the death of Jesus, do you imagine that she taught anything other than the truth she experienced in Jesus? Do you not think that she would want to shield all who came to her to learn of her Divine Son from the power of darkness?

 

[guanophore]

So you believe all the things you wrote about Mary here? You believe for example from above:
Mary is like a plane tree whose leaves act as shields. She defends all who take refuge in her from the power of darkness. Woe to those who abandon this refuge and no longer recommend themselves to her in the occasions of sin.
???

Mary, like any of us, cannot do anything for God apart from the HS according to the will of Christ. What mother does not shield her children from the darkness, and near occasions of sin?

When Mary was living with John after the death of Jesus, do you imagine that she taught anything other than the truth she experienced in Jesus? Do you not think that she would want to shield all who came to her to learn of her Divine Son from the power of darkness?

Thanks for helping me understand where you are coming from. Now let me give you my perspective on these matters. There are a number of passages in the Scriptures that warn that false teachers will come into the church itself and decieve many. Jesus did not promise this would not happen but warned of it. Since this is the case, we must be diligent to be on guard for these teachers and false teachings.

You are right, but since this teaching comes from within the church, and not without, and it is confirmed by the teaching authority that Jesus appointed, we can be confident that it is not false.

What i see in the catholic church is the claim that it can never err in matters of faith and morals.

This is not a “claim”, but a promise of Jesus. He stated that the Spirit would lead the church into all truth. Not accepting that is like calling Jesus a liar!

What this does is to make it impossible for any catholic who suspects false teachings to be in the position of going against God Himself.

This is exactly right.

16 “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”
Luke 10:16

If the catholic church endorses something or even if it is not against something no matter how unbiblical it is, catholics are not to speak against it but to either embrace it or be silent./quote]

Fortuately this will never happen, especially since the Catholic Church produced the New Testament, and therefore, nothing contained within it’s pages contradicts any church teaching. If it seems to do so, it is because the reader either does not understand the scripture correctly (as it was written) or the Teaching.
justasking4;2696795:

The marian doctrines and practices related to it (scapulars for example) are the clearest examples of the catholic teaching falsely.

You have been repeatedly told, justasking4, that the devotionals such as the scapular are part of private revelation, and are not part of the Teaching of the church. By bringing this accusation continually you are now bearing false witness against your neighbore. Either that, or you really are invicibly ignorant, and unable to be educated on the difference between a public and a private revelation.

I suspect that many catholics are also uncomfortable with these teachings especially when they study the scriptures.

If they are really Catholic, they will study the scripture with the guidance of the Teaching Authority of the church, and therefore, will only be uncomforable if they find that their lives are not in conformity with the Church teachign when they read the Bible.

Let me ask you a question in regards to marian doctrines and practices.
Are the marian doctrines and practices essential for you or any catholic to mature in Christ?

This is a trick question, since you are combining apples and pretzels and calling them both fruit. Knowledge of the teachings if the church (doctrine) is essential to maturity in Christ. Personal devotion (prayer and discipleship) are also important to maturity in Christ. There are many devotions that will bring maturity, of which Marian devotions are some.

If the practice of the Brown Scapular does not commend itself to you (or anyone) then it would be more appropriate to select another devotion that will assist in the development of spriitual maturity.

 

[guanophore]

The only problem is that the dogma of papal supremacy and infallibility has no need of the Apostles, their Churches and as long as one is “united” to one, namely Peter, being seperated from the other Apostles is not an issue.

This belongs on another thread. However, it IS an issue. Christ wanted all His Apostles, and their successors to remain one. The Pope is the Servant of the Servants of God, the successors to the other Apostles as well as those of Peter.

 

[savedsinner]

Why is that?John 2:12
When they arrived, they went upstairs to the room where they were staying. Those present were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James.
After this He went down to Capernaum, He and His mother and
His brothers and His disciples; and they stayed there a few days.In what way are Jesus’ brothers (Gk adelphoi), in that verse, different from His disciples
[Gk *mathātai]

?

Acts 1:13-15
When they arrived, they went upstairs to the room where they were staying. Those present were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James. All these with one accord devoted themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers (Gk**** adelphos). In those days Peter stood up among the brethren (the company of persons was in all about a hundred and twenty)

Do the math.

12 Apostles + Mary + other women (lets say 20) + X (Brothers) = 120

X = 120(total) - 12 (Apostles) - 20 (Women) - 1 (Mother) = 87 (brothers of Jesus).

Mary must have been in Perpetual labor.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Jesus having uterine brothers and sister is a total blasphemy of God!

Don’t you think that if He did and they had children that at least one of them would have written about Uncle God?

 

[savedsinner]

Jesus having uterine brothers and sister is a total blasphemy of God!

Don’t you think that if He did and they had children that at least one of them would have written about Uncle God?

“Uncle God’s cabin” by Joses of Nazareth.

 

[sandusky]

Jesus having uterine brothers and sister is a total blasphemy of God!

Don’t you think that if He did and they had children that at least one of them would have written about Uncle God?

Can you name the names of the nephews and nieces of Noah? Isaiah? Jeremiah? Ezekiel? Hosea? Micah? Amos? Daniel? Jonah? Obadiah?

 

[sandusky]

Acts 1:13-15
When they arrived, they went upstairs to the room where they were staying. Those present were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James. All these with one accord devoted themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers (Gk**** adelphos). In those days Peter stood up among the brethren (the company of persons was in all about a hundred and twenty)

Do the math.

12 Apostles + Mary + other women (lets say 20) + X (Brothers) = 120

X = 120(total) - 12 (Apostles) - 20 (Women) - 1 (Mother) = 87 (brothers of Jesus).

Mary must have been in Perpetual labor.

No one has ever suggested that all of those were siblings; just James, Josas, Judas, Simon.

 

[guanophore]

No one has ever suggested that all of those were siblings; just James, Josas, Judas, Simon.

Since Mary did not have any other children, they may have been stepsiblings - son’s of Joseph from a previous marriage, or sons of Joseph’s sister/brother.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;2699732]Mary, like any of us, cannot do anything for God apart from the HS according to the will of Christ. What mother does not shield her children from the darkness, and near occasions of sin?

You realize that what you are saying here and throughout this post are assumptions? You must for example assume that she is the mother of catholics and has power to help you here. There is no such potrait of Mary in the scriptures like this.

When Mary was living with John after the death of Jesus, do you imagine that she taught anything other than the truth she experienced in Jesus? Do you not think that she would want to shield all who came to her to learn of her Divine Son from the power of darkness?

Imagining something doesn’t make it true. There is no evidence that this is true.

You are right, but since this teaching comes from within the church, and not without, and it is confirmed by the teaching authority that Jesus appointed, we can be confident that it is not false.

Have you ever engaged a mormon? They to make this kind of argument against me when i bring up issues. So long as people believe that their leaders are incapable of error, the followers will be incapable of discerning false teachings within their churches. What i have found with catholics is that it always will get down to their church authority no matter what. This is their ultimate defense.

This is not a “claim”, but a promise of Jesus. He stated that the Spirit would lead the church into all truth. Not accepting that is like calling Jesus a liar!

You can search the gosples and you won’t find Jesus promising His church could never err. Leading the disciples (not the church) into all the truth is not the same as being incapable of erring.

This is exactly right.

16 “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”
Luke 10:16

Are you aware of the context in Luke 10?

If the catholic church endorses something or even if it is not against something no matter how unbiblical it is, catholics are not to speak against it but to either embrace it or be silent./quote]

Fortuately this will never happen, especially since the Catholic Church produced the New Testament, and therefore, nothing contained within it’s pages contradicts any church teaching. If it seems to do so, it is because the reader either does not understand the scripture correctly (as it was written) or the Teaching.