Discussing Mary

[justasking4]

NotWorthy;2673396]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”.

Since scripture is all that we really know about Mary, where does it say this? Where does it say Jesus provides blessings through her?

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.

 

[LilyM]

Since scripture is all that we really know about Mary, where does it say this? Where does it say Jesus provides blessings through her?

No no no. Scripture is NOT all we really know about Christ, nor is it all we really know about Mary. Why are you going around in circles and insisting that it is???

We absolutely can and must apply our God-given capacities for logic to scripture and we can and must accept the deductions that plainly derive from it as TRUTH. We believe things like that Mary is the source of all blessings, and you should too, simply because it IS truth, deduced by impeccable logic!

Why would you do otherwise, fail to accept what is 110% logical about Christ and Mary because it’s not written? I really don’t understand your trouble here with accepting logic as applied to Scripture.

St Paul tells us ‘brethren, do not be CHILDREN in your thinking’ (1 Corinthians 14:20). The prime difference between childish thinking and adult thinking is LOGIC! Our brains are a gift from God too you know! He ain’t happy if we fail to use 'em. That means we must accept that truth which is logically derived from Scripture as well as what is directly stated within. Both are capital T Truth, given to us by the Jesus who IS the Truth.

 

[NotWorthy]

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

True, so very true. They are not in-errant, and I’m sorry if I led you to think I was trying to claim this.

But there is no teaching of the Church, from the Her very infancy that is so consistent as the Real Presence of the Eucharist. From the very people that learned by listening and imitating the Apostles to… well, the Reformists. There may have been some dissenters (we both agree on that), but it remains the most consistent teaching of the Church. Again, that’s off topic.

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.

I wasn’t aware that Scripture is the only way to find out what happened in the past.

 

[justasking4]

LilyM;2673698]No no no. Scripture is NOT all we really know about Christ, nor is it all we really know about Mary. Why are you going around in circles and insisting that it is???

i’m not arguing in circles but stating fact. All that we know of Mary is found only in the scriptures.

We absolutely can and must apply our God-given capacities for logic to scripture and we can and must accept the deductions that plainly derive from it as TRUTH.

The problem is that this is not just about deductions but facts. The facts are: Mary as presented in the NT is not the same as the marian doctrines. It does not necessarily follow logically that Mary must be queen of heaven, prayed to or assumed.

We believe things like that Mary is the source of all blessings, and you should too, simply because it IS truth, deduced by impeccable logic!

All that logic can do is to tell us if we are thinking correctly. Logic cannot tell us what is true.

Why would you do otherwise, fail to accept what is 110% logical about Christ and Mary because it’s not written? I really don’t understand your trouble here with accepting logic as applied to Scripture.

The problem is that just because something may be logical and reasonable to believe does not mean its true in the real world. The Scriptures as i have said do not present Mary as catholics do.

St Paul tells us ‘brethren, do not be CHILDREN in your thinking’ (1 Corinthians 14:20). The prime difference between childish thinking and adult thinking is LOGIC! Our brains are a gift from God too you know! He ain’t happy if we fail to use 'em. That means we must accept that truth which is logically derived from Scripture as well as what is directly stated within. Both are capital T Truth, given to us by the Jesus who IS the Truth.

If only you had the scriptures to back up your claims about her then you would have something.

 

[justasking4]

True, so very true. They are not in-errant, and I’m sorry if I led you to think I was trying to claim this.

But there is no teaching of the Church, from the Her very infancy that is so consistent as the Real Presence of the Eucharist. From the very people that learned by listening and imitating the Apostles to… well, the Reformists. There may have been some dissenters (we both agree on that), but it remains the most consistent teaching of the Church. Again, that’s off topic.
I wasn’t aware that Scripture is the only way to find out what happened in the past.

In terms of Mary’s assumption you have to go centuries before we hear about it. The fact of the matter is that there is no historical documentation from the 1st century to back this claim up.

 

[Goth_Catholic]

i’m not arguing in circles but stating fact. All that we know of Mary is found only in the scriptures.

And I suppose all we know of Christ and therefore all we know of God is also only in the scriptures.

The problem is that this is not just about deductions but facts. The facts are: Mary as presented in the NT is not the same as the marian doctrines. It does not necessarily follow logically that Mary must be queen of heaven, prayed to or assumed.

Fact does not hinder Faith. But in this case this is not fact, merely opinion.

All that logic can do is to tell us if we are thinking correctly. Logic cannot tell us what is true.

Neither can opinion.

The problem is that just because something may be logical and reasonable to believe does not mean its true in the real world. The Scriptures as i have said do not present Mary as catholics do.

In your OPINION. The FACT is that you have no evidence to suggest otherwise. Since you do not have the tomb of Mary, nor vocal contact with God, nor the words of Christ, to back up your opinion.

If only you had the scriptures to back up your claims about her then you would have something.

The same can be said for you. You claim the lack of scripture proves your point. It carries the same weight as the Athiest arugment against the existence of God, there is lack of proff, therefore it cannot be.

 

[NotWorthy]

In terms of Mary’s assumption you have to go centuries before we hear about it. The fact of the matter is that there is no historical documentation from the 1st century to back this claim up.

And yet we hear about it as if it had been known for centuries. This could be the result of two things:
Sacred Tradition
Destruction of numerous writings (for example, you’ve heard of the burning of the library of Alexandria), leaving just Oral Traditions to preserve these truths.

 

[LilyM]

All that logic can do is to tell us if we are thinking correctly. Logic cannot tell us what is true.

Of COURSE logic can tell us what is true! Take it from someone who’s studied it intensively at college level. Especially deductive logic of the type I’ll illustrate below:

If I say that A=B and that A also =C, it’s absolutely logically and necessarily true as a result that B also = C. No two ways about it. It’s like a piece of maths. The conclusion necessarily follows from the premises.

Therefore if I say Christ = fullness of all blessings and Mary = source of Christ, it strictly and deductively follows necessarily that Mary is the source of all blessings. The conclusion inescapably follows from the premises.

The problem is that just because something may be logical and reasonable to believe does not mean its true in the real world. The Scriptures as i have said do not present Mary as catholics do.

Logic IS the real world, darlin’. Just like maths. Part of the function of it IS to help us reason in the ‘real world’. 2 plus 2 still equals 4 in the ‘real world’, never 5 or 3. Ask anyone who has to measure a dress or a building. So conclusions still logically follow from their premises in the real world. Everyone who has to argue for a living - lawyers, politicians and so on - can tell you that.

If only you had the scriptures to back up your claims about her then you would have something.

We have truth, we have logic. We don’t need scripture to prove this.

 

[Miserissima]

The facts are: Mary as presented in the NT is not the same as the marian doctrines. It does not necessarily follow logically that Mary must be queen of heaven, prayed to or assumed…If only you had the scriptures to back up your claims about her then you would have something.

Hi, justasking4. I would like to reiterate three items from Scripture:
First, 2 Tim 3:16 doesn’t say that Scripture is the *only *source of revelation.
Second, according to Jn 21:25, not everything Christ said and did is not recorded in Scripture, and
third: St. Paul said in 2 Thes 2:2 that Christian teaching is handed down in the oral tradition of the Church.
Ergo, oral tradition is cited in scripture, and you can take that to the bank.

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.

In the thread titled “Marian Devotions”, you brought up these same questions. I think my answers apply to this thread, as well. You initially challenged me to:

Look up all the references to Mary in the scriptures and compare those verses and passages with the doctrines on her. Be sure to keep the context of the passages in mind when you do. See if they are saying what the catholic church is saying about her. If you have a greek lexicon of the NT that would also help in understanding words in their contexts. If you do this, i’d like to hear about your insights on this.

I did, and used your methodology. I posted it here. Since you’re still on the same topic of discussion in this thread, I don’t believe that you’ve seen my reply as yet, because I believe that it addresses your questions rather concisely – and I"m sure you would have answered by now.

Using the original context of the words found in scripture, we can prove the Immaculate Conception through preservative redemption. And, if Mary was immaculately conceived, then it would follow that she would not suffer the corruption in the grave, which is a consequence of sin (Gen. 3:17, 19).

A + B = C. And I also *feel * that this is true.

 

[LilyM]

If I say that A=B and that A also =C, it’s absolutely logically and necessarily true as a result that B also = C. No two ways about it. It’s like a piece of maths. The conclusion necessarily follows from the premises.

I’ll step up and fess up before anyone else points out the flaw here - this bit is wrong. I meant to say that ‘if A=B and B=C then A must logically equal C’. Don’t shoot me, it’s been a while since I did either algebra or formal logic

My point remains a valid one of course.

 

[justasking4]

Miserissima;2675465]

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
The facts are: Mary as presented in the NT is not the same as the marian doctrines. It does not necessarily follow logically that Mary must be queen of heaven, prayed to or assumed…If only you had the scriptures to back up your claims about her then you would have something.

Hi, justasking4. I would like to reiterate three items from Scripture:
First, 2 Tim 3:16 doesn’t say that Scripture is the only source of revelation.
Second, according to Jn 21:25, not everything Christ said and did is not recorded in Scripture, and
third: St. Paul said in 2 Thes 2:2 that Christian teaching is handed down in the oral tradition of the Church.
Ergo, oral tradition is cited in scripture, and you can take that to the bank.

So we agree then that the scriptures themselves never say anything about her being queen of heaven, being prayed to or assumed into heaven? There is not one scripture verse that says anything about these things. Correct?

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
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.

In the thread titled “Marian Devotions”, you brought up these same questions. I think my answers apply to this thread, as well. You initially challenged me to:

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Look up all the references to Mary in the scriptures and compare those verses and passages with the doctrines on her. Be sure to keep the context of the passages in mind when you do. See if they are saying what the catholic church is saying about her. If you have a greek lexicon of the NT that would also help in understanding words in their contexts. If you do this, i’d like to hear about your insights on this.

I did, and used your methodology. I posted it here. Since you’re still on the same topic of discussion in this thread, I don’t believe that you’ve seen my reply as yet, because I believe that it addresses your questions rather concisely – and I"m sure you would have answered by now.

I just answered it. Did read all the passages in the scriptures that speak of Mary?

Using the original context of the words found in scripture, we can prove the Immaculate Conception through preservative redemption. And, if Mary was immaculately conceived, then it would follow that she would not suffer the corruption in the grave, which is a consequence of sin (Gen. 3:17, 19).

A + B = C. And I also feel that this is true.

What you say here doesn’t prove anything. It may sound reasonable but that is not proof. What you are doing is speculating because you have no facts to support your case. Thats whats lacking.

 

[NotWorthy]

So we agree then that the scriptures themselves never say anything about her being queen of heaven, being prayed to or assumed into heaven? There is not one scripture verse that says anything about these things. Correct?

JA4, you’ve just hit the nail on the head. Since you’re stuck in “Sola Verse-ura” you refuse to accept that Mary, as Queen is literally written into the OT. That Mary is the New Eve. That Mary is the Ark of the Covenant. And finally, that Mary has been Assumed into Heaven.

Will you find a verse that says this? No. Will you find Scripture that explains this? Why, of course, we certainly didn’t make this up out of thin air.

But, since you cling to Sola Verse-ura, there is nothing we can do to convince you. I’m OK with that. It’s Someone Else’s job to do the convincing at this point.

 

[justasking4]

JA4, you’ve just hit the nail on the head. Since you’re stuck in “Sola Verse-ura” you refuse to accept that Mary, as Queen is literally written into the OT. That Mary is the New Eve. That Mary is the Ark of the Covenant. And finally, that Mary has been Assumed into Heaven.

Will you find a verse that says this? No. Will you find Scripture that explains this? Why, of course, we certainly didn’t make this up out of thin air.

But, since you cling to Sola Verse-ura, there is nothing we can do to convince you. I’m OK with that. It’s Someone Else’s job to do the convincing at this point.

Now that its established that there is no scriptural support for the claims that the catholic church makes in regards to Mary, we can turn our attention to their origins outside the NT. Lets look at when they began and by whom. Don’t you think this would be a good avenue to pursue?

 

[LilyM]

Miserissima;2675465]

What you say here doesn’t prove anything. It may sound reasonable but that is not proof. What you are doing is speculating because you have no facts to support your case. Thats whats lacking.

It IS reasonable darl, doesn’t just sound it. We have facts - the fact that Mary is the mother of Christ for one thing. Are you denying that now? Is that not in scripture enough times for you?

Therefore she is the source of ALL that his humanity is - including its blessings! He took ALL his humanity from her, having no human father. That too is a biblical fact - the Bible clearly states that He was her son but had no human father!

So it is there in scripture, grounded in it, you’re just too blind or lazy to join the dots and do the maths.

 

[NotWorthy]

Now that its established that there is no scriptural support for the claims that the catholic church makes in regards to Mary, we can turn our attention to their origins outside the NT. Lets look at when they began and by whom. Don’t you think this would be a good avenue to pursue?

Justasking, is this how you interpret my words? Since it’s not versed, it’s not in the Bible? You mis-interpreted my explanation of “source of all blessings”, too.

And you expect me to trust your interpretations of the Bible? That’s funny…

 

[Miserissima]

justasking4:

I haven’t listened yet.

But I took up your challenge – and researched words from scripture in context. I’d really, really like you to address that I met your challenge and proved my point. I’m…a little taken aback that you threw out another objection, instead!

justasking4:

If you want to apply this to Jesus, then looks at the gospels. Is Jesus presented in the gospels as a king holding court?

Yes. Jesus as king is noted in this link, which is too much to post here (ironically, it’s not a Catholic site). But if you take a look, you’ll see His Kingship was proven to be of the spiritual realm while He was among us physically.

justasking4:

The issue is: are those doctrines grounded in the scriptures?

Yes. In fact, I proved it to you already.

Additionally, "Enoch and Elijah were assumed (taken) bodily into heaven. So Mary’s Assumption, far from being unbiblical, in fact follows a strong Biblical pattern. Furthermore, it appears from the New Testament, (Jude 9), that Moses too may have been assumed into heaven, even though no record of this appears anywhere in the OT. This, incidentally, provides a biblical record of an important teaching that was passed down over an extremely long period purely by Oral Tradition. (from here)

justasking4:

If the Scripture is not the only source of revelation, then what else is?

Oral tradition, as noted in Scripture. The apostles entrusted the sacred deposit of the faith [1 Tim 6:20; 2 Tim 1:12-14] contained in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, to the whole of the Church.

How come scripture plainly notes Oral Tradition and yet you resist it?

justasking4:

Are the Sacred Traditions of the catholic church considered inspired-inerrant Word of God also?

The Church is protected from error by the Holy Spirit. That’s scriptural, too. "I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven.’’ (Matt 16:19). Certainly Christ would not have admonished His followers to "hear the church’’ (Matt 18:17) without somehow making certain that what they heard was the truth — without somehow making the teaching magisterium of His Church infallible. (from here)

Originally Posted by NotWorthy But, since you cling to Sola Verse-ura, there is nothing we can do to convince you. I’m OK with that. It’s Someone Else’s job to do the convincing at this point.

JA4, We have already discussed your *Sola Scriptura *position elsewhere, although I (and many others) have explained each topic with examples from scripture. I, too, must throw in the towel.

When you are answered on your own terms (with Scripture and concordance), you swoop in with another passage – usually taken out of context, negating the solid answers you were given.

I’m not sure what you’re looking for. Most humbly, I have to determine that you are an agitator. You have demonstrated that you are not here to learn, explore, enlighten, or investigate – or even seek to understand.

 

[MariaG]

Now that its established that there is no scriptural support for the claims that the catholic church makes in regards to Mary, we can turn our attention to their origins outside the NT. Lets look at when they began and by whom. Don’t you think this would be a good avenue to pursue?

No explicit verses saying Mary is the Queen does not equal no scriptural support.

 

[justasking4]

No explicit verses saying Mary is the Queen does not equal no scriptural support.

I’m afraid it does.

 

[MariaG]

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

Okay, here goes.

Mary has an essential role in God’s plan for your salvation.

I would agree with this statement. God Choose Mary through whom Christ would be born and Christ is absolutely essential to my 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.

Harder to say if I agree or not because I am not on that forum so I have no idea if the statement is objectively true.

Do I believe Mary is the New Eve? Yes. There are writings from the Early Church that indicate this as well as scriptural typology.

Dispenatrix - I could not find this word in any Catholic dictionary nor the dictionary at all. Probably meant to use the term Mediatrix?

Mediatrix is not a term I like to use. It is a term that brings up immediate thoughts that are incompatible with Christianity. When defined, it is not, but I think the term is misleading and do not care for it. If you wish to get into the definition of the term, I will, but I think you are just trying to see if I agree with this person, yes?

If you think Mary is an insignificant dead person who is no longer living and no longer has a role, then your tragically mistaken.

I agree with this statement. Mary is not dead. No saint is dead. Scripture tells us this. (Lazy, and rushed, but will provide scripture if you like )

All of the Early Church Father’s acknowledged Mary’s essential role and it is also plain as day in the scriptures.

Not sure what he is defining as “essential role” so can’t say.

You cannot know Jesus without knowing Mary.

I disagree with this statement. I know that I knew Jesus before I understood Mary.

I do believe however, that as scripture says, understanding Mary is only magnigying the Lord. (Luke “My soul magnifies the Lord”)

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.

I do think it is a shame when Protestants do not give the Mother of our Lord respect, to seemingly distance themselves from anything Catholic.

Scripture prophecies that all generations will call Mary blessed. There is nothing wrong with doing so, although I find it interesting that usually the same ones who do not believe Catholics are Christians, never use the term blessed, so if it weren’t for the “non-Christians” in their eyes, this prophecy would not have been kept:shrug:

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?

I do not need a mediator except Christ. That is my immediate reaction to that statement. Even though there is valid Catholic theology, with scripture that I could provide to explain that statement, I think this is not an effective way to explain the Catholic position. I don’t care for that statement since I feel it needs too much explanation to make it valid with non-Catholic Christians.

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.

I disagree with this statement. I think that there are many Catholic Christians who don’t care for his statement since it has misleading implications that are long and laborious to explain. We are not embarrassed by the traditional Catholic position. We just do not use the same words because we are completely aware of what the non-Catholic “hears”.

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

This statement is false. A person can be a canonized saint without every word they ever wrote being aproved as “correct”. St. Augustine is a perfect example. He was a “doctor” of the Church yet there are things that he espoused that the Church disagrees with. Examples can be provided if you wish.

 

[MariaG]

Mary has authority over the angels and the blessed in heaven.

I don’t know and have never read this as official Catholic teaching. This sounds like a theory to me, not doctrine, although I could be wrong:shrug:

Mary is Queen of heaven because Christ is King. But the authority is Christ’s. The Queen mother in Hebrew tradition does have the ear of the King. I am unaware of the amount of authority that goes behind this.

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.

Again, this sounds like a pet theory of this saint, or possibly private revelation. I would need to see evidence for this statement before I could agree to it. From Sacred Tradition and Scripture.

I skimmed the rest. I am highly critical of it and would need to see which ECF said this and what the context is, before I could agree with anything else stated.

While there may in fact be things I agree with in further study of those statements when placed in proper context of Catholic teaching, I would not use them for “proof” of anything in conjunction with Protestant/Catholic dialogue as they offer no scriptural references of even specific ECF references.

God Bless,
Maria