Does this make sense? Bear with me at my Sunday School, Church and children’s Church grade school we learn Bible Stories not about dogmas and doctrines.
Surely the two are interwtined?
**There are no newly developed dogmas and doctrines about Jesus all concepts/knowledge about Jesus was put into Scripture **but not all knowledge of Mary, Popes and their duties, the heirarchy of the Catholic Church, Joseph, etc. was in Scripture so it was developed.
If it is important for some reason that you believe this, after all these examples to the contrary have been given to you, then I will commend you to your perceptions. Perhaps this false premise is an integral part of your rejection of the authority of the Church Christ founded.
Code:
It is not tradition because of the gaps - was not passed down directly from one generation to another- it is a **developed teaching.**
There is no “gap” in the Word of God.
Code:
A teaching trying to explain something GOD did not deem necessary to put in HIS Word because it did not deal with the Gospel message of Jesus directly and our salvation.
When I read this, it seems clear that the false premise you cling to is, indeed, an integral element in the Sola Scriptura doctrine.
There is no evidence from the apostles/disciples about the Mary Dogmas because it is not a tradition, but a developed dogmas! Like the book bag story - a teaching that after a few hundred years became a tradition.
Certainly if you refuse to accept the evidence that exists, there will be “no evidence” in your mind. I suppose you think that all the Reformers, who accepted these Apostolic truths, did so on “no evidence”?
It seems that you are not distinguishing between Sacred Tradition (the Word of God) and human tradition (the book bag story).
Also, dogmas (developed doctrines) come out of the Word of God, not human traditions.
The Church is forbidden to add to the once for all Divine Deposit of Faith. This is one of the reasons we cannot “add” modern innovations such as Sola Scriptura.
I had realized on an earlier thread-What is the Sacred Traditions of the Catholic Church all revolve around the authority of the Catholic Church-passng on of keys, the authority to develop new dogmas and doctrines, etc.
Or maybe it is the other way around? Maybe the authority of the Church revolved around the Word of God that is present in the Church.
Which is all very intersting because there was really no need to develop the immaculate conception of Mary.
I find it interesting that you, 1500 years after the fact, find yourself in a position to determine what was necessary for the Church to combat the early heresies.
In Judaism, it is from the father that sinful nature is passed and jewishness is from the mother.
Yes. But, remember the Psalmist? “In sin did my mother conceive me”.
“jewishness” being from the mother was because this was the only certain way to know where the baby came from. There was no way to “prove” who the father was. But, when the baby comes out of the mother’s body, clearly parenthood was established.
**The Doctrines and Dogmas **about Jesus are all supported by Scripture- GOD’s Word whether oral first then written
Of course this is true, not just because it is a Catholic statement, but because the Word of God cannot contradict itself. That is why there are no contradictions between the Scritures and the Sacred Traditions - they are equally the Word of God.
There is evidence the disciples believed this -either they themselves or their students recorded these infallible facts for us in Scripture.
For the record, facts cannot be infallible. Falliblity requries the ability to act (and thus, err). Facts do not act.
Code:
It is not the case with the Dogmas about Mary. We know she was a virgin before and with conception of Jesus. Her remaining perpetually virgin is not, her immaculate conception is not, her assumption is not. We have no proof the disciples believed these things so they are said to have developed later hundreds of years later.
You cannot accept the evidence that exists, schaick. That does not nullify the evidence for anyone but yourself.
You are using another false premise here, that something is not valid because “it developed hundreds of years later”. Yet, at the beginning of this post, you stated that you embrace many Sacred Tradittions that developed centuries later, such as the Creed, the NT canon of Scripture, the hypotsatic union, the Trinity. The amount of time that passes is irrelevant because the Word of God is outside of time.
I have asked repeatedly if the Mary Dogmas had to be believed for your salvation. I found the answer- yes:
Dogmas are not open to dispute as such. They are final. Any disputes with Dogma result in heresy. Heresy can lead to excommunication.
And excommunication does not necessarily mean a person will not be saved, either.
Most modern Catholics excommunicate themselves and dont even realize it.
schaick;7136772:
I don’t but believe in the Mary Dogmas for reasons I have stated elsewhere. BUT if for some reason a Christian needs to believe in the Mary Dogmas to be closer to Jesus:
Romans 14
13Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother’s way.
Are you saying that Mary is a stumbling block to you?
