Discussing Mary

[justasking4]

No, the guidance of the Holy Spirit by preserving the Magisterium of the Church from error. It was the Church that defended the divinity of Jesus and defined His nature in the Trinity. Atheist use the same argument to discredit the Bible itself.

All you are doing is making a claim about your church and not giving any evidence or proof. Without that all you have is speculation.

 

[NotWorthy]

How about this verse from the hymn:
Mary, you source of endless blessing.

Do you believe this?

Why sure! Why not? As Mother of God, who gives us His endless blessing, wouldn’t she be the source of endless blessing?

 

[NotWorthy]

Don’t you find it troubling that none of the aposltes nor anyone for centuries knew that Mary was the “source of endless blessing”?

What makes you think that they didn’t know this?

 

[NotWorthy]

If you don’t have any support for your claims you don’t have a case. What you do have are the speculations of men. As its been shown this idea was unknown for centuries.

JA4, we don’t call Mary the “source of endless blessing” because it says it in Scripture. We call her the “source of endless blessing” because she is.

Why is that hard to believe?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Isn’t it strange that Catholic doctrines and dogma --which were the only Christian doctrines and dogma prior to 1054, and which remained the major accepted Christian doctrines and dogma of all Christians who were the ‘ancestors’ of Protestants, for another 500 years–were suddenly challenged and questioned. . . and not even at first by the ‘first’ reformers?

Isn’t it strange that, as years go by, all those who strayed from those doctrines and dogmas to put up their own contradictory dogma have been plagued such that virtually everything they put up as ‘true’ they have CHANGED?

Even prior to 1930 all Christians, Protestant and Catholic alike, believed that contraception was an evil, and based that belief on Scripture.

But AFTER 1930, group after group of Protestants have changed their belief. . .by either ‘changing’ the Scripture interpretation that was held for 1900 years, by finding some ‘reason’ that we cannot follow the teaching now, or that it was ‘imperfectly understood’, etc.

Even the concept of Sola Scriptura. . . few Protestants will agree as to what it even IS, and fewer still will take a given Scripture passage and come up with identical interpretations. The more passages, the wider the divergence overall.

 

[justasking4]

What makes you think that they didn’t know this?

There are no records of it.

 

[justasking4]

JA4, we don’t call Mary the “source of endless blessing” because it says it in Scripture. We call her the “source of endless blessing” because she is.

Why is that hard to believe?

On what grounds do you believe this? Who said this since its not in the scriptures?

This is a classic example of someone making something up since there is no proof for it.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Hi,
A catholic on another forum posted this and I wanted to know if you guys agreed with his statements.

Mary has an essential role in God’s plan for your salvation. Catholics and Protestants on this forum both deny Mary her due recognition as the New Eve and the Dispenatrix of God’s graces and also as the portal by which we can know Jesus Christ. If you think Mary is an insignificant dead person who is no longer living and no longer has a role, then your tragically mistaken. All of the Early Church Father’s acknowledged Mary’s essential role and it is also plain as day in the scriptures. You cannot know Jesus without knowing Mary. So, if you are disrespecting Mary just to distance yourself from Catholicism or to try to appease Protestants and their man-made beliefs then think about this. When you are pleading your case before God after you die do you want to be all alone pleading your case or would you prefer to have God’s mother on your side? Obviously, God would give the words of Mary far more credit than he would give you. I know a lot of Catholics on this forum deny are embarrassed about the traditional Catholic view of Mary and prefer the Protestant view. Here are some quotes from a canonized saint of the Roman Catholic Church about Mary.

Obviously the RCC would not canonize someone it considered a heretic or liar. So, obviously the RCC agrees with these views:

Saint Louis-Marie De Montford

Quote:
28. Mary has authority over the angels and the blessed in heaven. As a reward for her great humility, God gave her the power and the mission of assigning to saints the thrones made vacant by the apostate angels who fell away through pride. Such is the will of almighty God who exalts the humble, that the powers of heaven, earth and hell, willingly or unwillingly, must obey the commands of the humble Virgin Mary. For God has made her queen of heaven and earth, leader of his armies, keeper of his treasures, dispenser of his graces, worker of his wonders, restorer of the human race, mediatrix
on behalf of men, destroyer of his enemies, and faithful associate in his great works and triumphs.

1. “This one and that one were born in her.” According to the explanation of some of the Fathers, the first man born of Mary is the God-man, Jesus Christ. If Jesus Christ, the head of mankind, is born of her, the predestinate, who are members of this head, must also as a necessary consequence be born of her. One and the same mother does not give birth to the head without the members nor to the members without the head, for these would be monsters in the order of nature. In the order of grace likewise the head and the members are born of the same mother. If a member of the mystical body of Christ, that is, one of the predestinate, were born of a mother other than Mary who gave birth to the head, he would not be one of the predestinate, nor a member of Jesus Christ, but a monster in
   the order of grace.

1. Moreover, Jesus is still as much as ever the fruit of Mary, as heaven and earth repeat thousands of times a day: “Blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.” It is therefore certain that Jesus is the fruit and gift of Mary for every single man who possesses him, just as truly as he is for all mankind. Consequently, if any of the faithful have Jesus formed in their heart they can boldly say, “It is thanks to Mary that what I possess is Jesus her fruit, and without her I would not have him.” We can attribute more truly to her what Saint Paul said of himself, “I am in labour again with all the children of God until Jesus Christ, my Son, is formed in them to the fullness of his age.” Saint Augustine, surpassing himself as well as all that I have said so far, affirms that in order to be conformed to the image of the Son of God all the predestinate, while in the world, are hidden in the womb of the Blessed Virgin where they are protected, nourished, cared for and developed by this good Mother, until the day she brings them forth to a life of glory after death, which the Church calls the birthday of the just. This is indeed a mystery of grace unknown to the reprobate and little known even to the predestinate!

Quote:
36. When the Holy Spirit, her spouse, finds Mary in a soul, he hastens there and enters fully into it. He gives himself generously to that soul according to the place it has given to his spouse. One of the main reasons why the Holy Spirit does not work striking wonders in souls is that he fails to find in them a sufficiently close union with his faithful and inseparable spouse. I say “inseparable spouse”, for from the moment the substantial love of the Father and the Son espoused Mary to form Jesus, the head of the elect, and Jesus in the elect, he has never disowned her, for she has always been faithful and fruitful.

 

[NotWorthy]

Originally Posted by NotWorthy forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
What makes you think that they didn’t know this?

There are no records of it.

You mean, from the 1% of the 1% of the records that have survived, you know everything that was known back then?

I’m impressed.

But then again, this seems to be selective proof-texting you are using. They certainly believed in the Real Presence in the Eucharist.

 

[NotWorthy]

On what grounds do you believe this? Who said this since its not in the scriptures?

This is a classic example of someone making something up since there is no proof for it.

Do all blessings come from Christ? Is Mary the Mother of Christ?

Then, Mary is the source of all blessings.

 

[MariaG]

Hi,
A catholic on another forum posted this and I wanted to know if you guys agreed with his statements.

Hi,

I have to admit, I am a little tired and my critical reading skills are low. So I am "responding to your post, to mark it more than anything else until I have the energy and time to critically read what you have posted.

Sorry. But I WILL get back to you on this.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Hi,

I have to admit, I am a little tired and my critical reading skills are low. So I am "responding to your post, to mark it more than anything else until I have the energy and time to critically read what you have posted.

Sorry. But I WILL get back to you on this.

God Bless,
Maria

Thank you–just keep in mind this is from another catholic. I have more clips from him that seem very outlandish and I dont really think the CC teaches. But I will wait:thumbsup:

 

[BrownR]

Justasking4, as a former life long Protestant (Presbyterian no less…) I’d like to recommend this book which is a Marian debate between a Catholic and an Evangelical. It’s by far the most balanced, respectful, and fair debate I’ve ever read and I’ll preface it by saying that I don’t think anyone necessarily comes out a “winner” but it would give you a much greater appreciation for why Catholics hold their particular views about Mary; which ones are Scripturally based and which ones are Traditionally based and why. It’s called “Mary: a Catholic-Evangelical Debate” On the other hand, it might also strengthen your own Protestant convictions and remind you of why you believe what you believe as a Protestant.

Open your mind and heart and let God guide you. It’s extremely difficult to objectively look at many of the Protestant teachings and realize just how unstable a foundation they are built on in the context of logical reasoning. “Sola Scriptura” is one such teaching that still boggles my mind that Protestants adherently and stubbornly insist that the Bible is the source of ALL Truth, yet nowhere in the Bible does it make such a claim. Most Protestants don’t realize that Luther and Calvin both believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary, yet most Protestants will cling to teachings that they are most familiar with and have been exposed to in their own lifetime without standing back and looking at the entire history of the Church. You won’t find all your answers explicitly or implicitly stated in Scripture and I would suggest standing back and looking very hard at what the early Church father’s taught on these matters. After all, who would you rather believe? Luther who came along 1500 yrs later or the early Fathers who were much more chronologically near to the Apostles. You’ll find that many of these teachings on Mary are not dogmatic teachings that popped out of nowhere. They might have had an official ruling in an ecumenical council at one point or another but they are based on teachings that have permeated the history of the Church which was set on earth to guide Christians and they always most closely reflected the stance of the early Church.

Finally, I sympathize with your fundamental problems with Marian theology. It was a huge stumbling block to me and that book that I mentioned earlier was one of the only initial books that I could read on the subject because I felt as if it didn’t contain an overt Catholic bias. Check it out.

 

[justasking4]

NotWorthy;2666307]You mean, from the 1% of the 1% of the records that have survived, you know everything that was known back then?

The only evidence we have is what was written down. That’s all we have to go on. This is a significant blow to marian claims. They are not found in scripture nor even in historical docs of the period. All that leaves us is with speculations. Speculations are not proofs.

I’m impressed.

But then again, this seems to be selective proof-texting you are using.

HOw so? Can you give me an example?

They certainly believed in the Real Presence in the Eucharist.

 

[justasking4]

JA4, we don’t call Mary the “source of endless blessing” because it says it in Scripture. We call her the “source of endless blessing” because she is.

Why is that hard to believe?

Since the scriptures never make such a claim about her like this, then who is making this claim and how do they know?

 

[justasking4]

Do all blessings come from Christ? Is Mary the Mother of Christ?

Then, Mary is the source of all blessings.

So much speculation here. Scripture is quite clear that in Christ we are blessed beyond imagination. See Epheisans for example. There is not one verse in scripture that these blessings come to us through Mary. Not one.

 

[LilyM]

So much speculation here. Scripture is quite clear that in Christ we are blessed beyond imagination. See Epheisans for example. There is not one verse in scripture that these blessings come to us through Mary. Not one.

I am amazed that you would confuse crystal clear deductional logic, in this particular case, as I was taught it by specialists in the subject at university level, with speculation.

 

[NotWorthy]

HOw so? Can you give me an example?

Examples of selctive proof-texting of Justasking4 looking to the Early Church (lack of) teachings to prove that this is an invention of man.

I thought I gave an example. The Real Presence in the Eucharist. The Church has written about this doctrine in every generation for 2000 years, and yet you ignore it. Meanwhile, you look to the lack of written records to dis-prove the Assumption.

Once again, I’m impressed.

 

[NotWorthy]

So much speculation here. Scripture is quite clear that in Christ we are blessed beyond imagination. See Epheisans for example. There is not one verse in scripture that these blessings come to us through Mary. Not
one.

Did I say that “these blessings come to us through Mary”? I don’t recall making that claim.

I said Jesus provides the Belssings. Mary is His Mother. So Mary is the “Source of Blessings”.

Think of the Mississippi River. If you go to it’s source, you’ll find a stream that you could walk across. If you go to it’s mouth, you’ll find a huge river. Does all this water come from the source? No.

 

[justasking4]

NotWorthy;2673369]Examples of selctive proof-texting of Justasking4 looking to the Early Church (lack of) teachings to prove that this is an invention of man.

Even though the fathers writings can be profitable their writings are not inspired-inerrant. Is it not true that all fathers agree on everything?

I thought I gave an example. The Real Presence in the Eucharist. The Church has written about this doctrine in every generation for 2000 years, and yet you ignore it.

This is not the topic of this thread though. The same question as above applies to it.

Meanwhile, you look to the lack of written records to dis-prove the Assumption.

You are the one who is making the positive assertion that she was assumed not me. I have shown that its not in scripture which is all we really know of her. When we look at history for evidence we don’t find it but we do find speculations centuries later after the supposed assumption.

Once again, I’m impressed.