Discussing Mary

  • Thread starter Thread starter zemi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
There are four ‘official’ Marian dogmas: The Divine Motherhood (Theotokos), Mary’s Perpetual Virginity, The Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. The first two were ‘questioned’ in the early centuries of Christendom and thus were defined once for all then; the later two were not questioned until the 16th century debacles had further split Christendom, and as the splits went on more and more Christian teaching was questioned and errors multiplied; thus, the later two were defined once for all in the 19th and 20th centuries.

All have a relation to salvation history and therefore to the “good news” of the salvific work of Christ.

If you have no problem with the first one (some do but I don’t think most Protestants question it), then why shy at the second, which is of the same approximate dating and which even Martin Luther himself believed??

And then, if you accept that the Church had the authority to teach these two, why cavil at the third and the fourth–which were also teachings of the early Church? Why do you accept that the Church can define one, or two, accurately, and not the others?
 
Now what part do the marian doctrines play in this? That’s why i asked if a person can can be saved in the catholic church if they reject the marian doctrines. It certainly seems in light of what the pope said in 1950 that to reject the teachings on Mary condemns a person. Would that be correct?
You are focusing on the wrong link of the chain.

Part of the Gospel of Christ is the Church He commissioned. To be obedient to that Church is to be obedient to Christ. Period.

So yes, the Pope talks of the Immaculate Conception and her Assumption and he makes it binding on us. Good for him!!! I love the teachings of Mary for they lead me closer to God, for they show just a hint of the great rewards that He offers to give to us.

Now, remember, the Pope cannot condemn a person to hell, he’s just saying that it is sinful to reject this teaching. For to reject the Church is to reject Christ. “He who hears you, hears me. He who rejects you, rejects me”!!! Those words didn’t die with the Apostles. They were meant for His Church.
 
JustAsking4

Do you believe that Jesus was FULLY HUMAN?

Do you believe that Jesus was FULLY GOD?

Do you believe that Jesus was FULLY HUMAN AND FULLY GOD?

or

Do you believe that Jesus was only God after the Ressurection?

Now if you believe that Jesus was FULLY GOD before the Ressurection, then you have no choice to believe that Mary was the Theotokos (translated “God Bearer”) Did Mary bear the FULLY GOD JESUS in her womb?
 
JoeyWarren;2708221]JustAsking4

Do you believe that Jesus was FULLY HUMAN?

Do you believe that Jesus was FULLY GOD?

Do you believe that Jesus was FULLY HUMAN AND FULLY GOD?
I agree with all these statements.
or

Do you believe that Jesus was only God after the Ressurection?
No. He has always been God. In Romans 1:4 Paul does write that:
who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord…
Now if you believe that Jesus was FULLY GOD before the Ressurection, then you have no choice to believe that Mary was the Theotokos (translated “God Bearer”) Did Mary bear the FULLY GOD JESUS in her womb?
What do you mean by “FULLY GOD JESUS”? If you mean that Mary is the mother of the human part of Jesus then yes. She is not the source of His deity though. If you mean something different than this then please state it.
 
There are four ‘official’ Marian dogmas: The Divine Motherhood (Theotokos), Mary’s Perpetual Virginity, The Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. The first two were ‘questioned’ in the early centuries of Christendom and thus were defined once for all then; the later two were not questioned until the 16th century debacles had further split Christendom, and as the splits went on more and more Christian teaching was questioned and errors multiplied; thus, the later two were defined once for all in the 19th and 20th centuries.

All have a relation to salvation history and therefore to the “good news” of the salvific work of Christ.

If you have no problem with the first one (some do but I don’t think most Protestants question it), then why shy at the second, which is of the same approximate dating and which even Martin Luther himself believed??

And then, if you accept that the Church had the authority to teach these two, why cavil at the third and the fourth–which were also teachings of the early Church? Why do you accept that the Church can define one, or two, accurately, and not the others?
A couple reasons. My first concern is how do doctrines line up with what the scriptures teach. Can they properly be grounded in scripture without violating the context of scripture is of paramount importance. Secondly, i don’t accept any church’ claim that it cannot teach error in light of the scriptures warning that false teachers would come into the church and mislead many. Thirdly, i look to the kinds of practices etc that doctrines lead to.
Fourthly is that each part of a doctrine must stand on its own. These marian doctrines are a complex family of beliefs and each part needs to stand on its own.
Without a doubt there are all kinds of unbilical and strange practices the marian doctrines have led to. I personally know many catholics who get uncomfortable and sometimes angry when i bring them up.
 
What do you mean by “FULLY GOD JESUS”? If you mean that Mary is the mother of the human part of Jesus then yes. She is not the source of His deity though. If you mean something different than this then please state it.
We agree. Mary is not the source of Christ’s deity. That is why sometimes using the literal translation - God bearer - makes things clearer.

The term Mother of God is not saying Mary in anyway created the divine Christ. But Christ is ONE person. Two natures. Mary gave birth to the person of Christ, not His nature. Mary bore the person of Christ, fully God and fully human, in her womb. This is what Catholic Christians mean by “mother of God” or “God bearer”.

This was also defined in the Early Church. Those who wish to deny that Mary bore God in her womb, deny that Christ was always God. This is why the term - God Bearer - was coined, to combat heresy about Christ in the early years of the Church.
 
sinful Their own opinion and is not sinfulTheir own opinion and is not sinful.
You can’t deny that it’s POSSIBLE to pray to Mary, and you can’t say that it is wrong or sinful to do such - these beliefs are part of our doctrine regarding the ‘communion of saints’.

But you can choose not to pray to her or to them, certainly, if you so wish. You’re the poorer for it if you neglect them, though - like failing to use a part of your own body (your hand, for example) when you could do so.
 
You can’t deny that it’s POSSIBLE to pray to Mary, and you can’t say that it is wrong or sinful to do such - these beliefs are part of our doctrine regarding the ‘communion of saints’.

But you can choose not to pray to her or to them, certainly, if you so wish. You’re the poorer for it if you neglect them, though - like failing to use a part of your own body (your hand, for example) when you could do so.
Oooh, busted. But you’re right.

I read JA4’s question that someone can reject or simply not pray to Mary instead of actually “rejecting the practice of praying to Mary”. One is a personal choice of a personal preference. The other is a rejection of a teaching among the many.

Good point and thanks for clearing me up on this!!!
 
What do you mean by “FULLY GOD JESUS”? If you mean that Mary is the mother of the human part of Jesus then yes. She is not the source of His deity though. If you mean something different than this then please state it
He used “Fully God” as an adjective for Jesus. IE

FULLY GOD JESUS

Of course she is not the source of his deity. Do you believe that we believe she is?

None-the-less, she bore a God in her womb. Jesus was fully God in the womb just as much as he was outside the womb. Agreed?
 
A couple reasons. My first concern is how do doctrines line up with what the scriptures teach. Can they properly be grounded in scripture without violating the context of scripture is of paramount importance.
This is a very important thing to do. The difference here is that we interpret the scriptures differently thereby you feel that our interpretation has violated the context of scripture, and we disagree with you.

Also important is that when Christians have disagreements, is to look to scripture. Scripture says take it to the Church. Since we both have divergent Churches, we should and can go back to the Early Church to see what they said about these things like asking Saints in heaven to pray for us, The Real Presence, etc.
Secondly, i don’t accept any church’ claim that it cannot teach error in light of the scriptures warning that false teachers would come into the church and mislead many.
Yes, scripture does warn of false teachers. But what does it say about the Church itself? That it is a pillar and foundation of truth. The Church cannot officially teach error without making that scripture false. People can teach error WITHIN the Church. We can see Priests, lay people, people on these forums who do not teach the true doctrine of the Church. But the Church itself, the official teachings of the Catholic Church, must be true, or scripture lies.
Thirdly, i look to the kinds of practices etc that doctrines lead to.
Specifically?
Fourthly is that each part of a doctrine must stand on its own. These marian doctrines are a complex family of beliefs and each part needs to stand on its own.
I disagree. They are complex, but since the Marian Doctrines are trying to explain Christ better, they cannot stand alone, but must needs be first explained in conjunction with Christ, since these doctrines are only magnifying the Lord.
Without a doubt there are all kinds of unbilical and strange practices the marian doctrines have led to. I personally know many catholics who get uncomfortable and sometimes angry when i bring them up
You would need to be specific. And you must also look at them in the light of the teachings of Christ, for the Marian doctrine and devotions do not stand alone, but are fully dependent upon proper understanding of the teachings of Christ.

God Bless,
Maria
 
MariaG;2708796]This is a very important thing to do. The difference here is that we interpret the scriptures differently thereby you feel that our interpretation has violated the context of scripture, and we disagree with you.
Also important is that when Christians have disagreements, is to look to scripture. Scripture says take it to the Church. Since we both have divergent Churches, we should and can go back to the Early Church to see what they said about these things like asking Saints in heaven to pray for us, The Real Presence, etc.
What do you say when there is no scripture or witness in the church of Mary’s assumption for example?
Yes, scripture does warn of false teachers. But what does it say about the Church itself?
These false teachers would come into the church itself and decieve many. See 2 Peter 2:1.
That it is a pillar and foundation of truth.
Have you looked at this verse and the context carefully? Here is the verse and notice that it does not say that the church is the truth but rather to be the support of it.
15 but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.
The Church cannot officially teach error without making that scripture false.
Not so. The scriptures cannot teach error because they are inspired-inerrant by God. Men can pervert their message though. So long as men are fallen and the evil is in the world there will be false teachers in the church.
People can teach error WITHIN the Church. We can see Priests, lay people, people on these forums who do not teach the true doctrine of the Church. But the Church itself, the official teachings of the Catholic Church, must be true, or scripture lies.
This is true in part but it also applies to the catholic church. It has erred throughout the centuries not only in some of its doctrines but practices and application of them.
Specifically?
Many catholics i talk to believe that there have been excesses in marian devotions for example. Even the catholic church has been reluctant to approve some sightings. Would you agree? If not i can show you some specific examples if you wish.
I disagree. They are complex, but since the Marian Doctrines are trying to explain Christ better, they cannot stand alone, but must needs be first explained in conjunction with Christ, since these doctrines are only magnifying the Lord.
I agree that the catholic church tries to do this but they fail miserably. Take Mary’s assumption. Certainly the catholic church beleives this was done by God. The problem is that there is no evidence at all in scripture or history. Its all speculation.
You would need to be specific. And you must also look at them in the light of the teachings of Christ, for the Marian doctrine and devotions do not stand alone, but are fully dependent upon proper understanding of the teachings of Christ.
Lets then look at a couple of statements made by saints in your church on Mary:
Mary is the key to the gates of Heaven.

St. Ephrem

Open to us, O Mary, the gate of Paradise, since you have its keys!

St. Ambrose

God has entrusted the keys and treasures of Heaven to Mary.

St. Thomas Aquinas

No one can enter into Heaven except through Mary, as entering through a gate.

St. Bonaventure

This is the House of God and the Gate of Heaven.

Genesis 28:17

Mary is called “The Gate of Heaven” because no one can enter Heaven but through her means.

St. Alphonsus Maria Liguori

I know catholics who defend this will say this is all dependent on Christ. Saying that it does not make it so. No apostles ever taught such a thing as this. This is the speculations and false teachings of men.
God Bless,
Maria
 
Why yes, for they all are part of the Good News of Jesus!!! 👍
Then why don’t we see this in the NT itself? Paul, for example never mentions Mary as being part of the gospel that saves us or helps us to grow to maturity in Christ. Nor do any of the apostles.
 
Peter Da Rock;2708780]He used “Fully God” as an adjective for Jesus. IE

FULLY GOD JESUS

Of course she is not the source of his deity. Do you believe that we believe she is?
i know what the offical teaching of the catholic church is and they would say she is not the source. However, many catholics have beleifs that don’t always line up with their own church also.
None-the-less, she bore a God in her womb. Jesus was fully God in the womb just as much as he was outside the womb. Agreed
agreed.
 
Then why don’t we see this in the NT itself? Paul, for example never mentions Mary as being part of the gospel that saves us or helps us to grow to maturity in Christ. Nor do any of the apostles.
I wasn’t aware that the NT Scriptures held a monopoly on the Good News of Jesus Christ!!! It’s a shame that it took so many years before the Church could spread it.

I think you may be focusing your eyes too much on one source of the Gospel, JA, and walking right past other wonderful and beautiful sources. This may work for you, but please don’t assume that’s it’s the only path to God. Jesus would have said, “Let those who hunger, read any of the four Gospel. Let those who thirst, peruse Paul’s Epistles”.
 
i know what the offical teaching of the catholic church is and they would say she is not the source. However, many catholics have beleifs that don’t always line up with their own church also.
And that is the fault of those Catholics. Not the Church.
 
NotWorthy;2712623]I wasn’t aware that the NT Scriptures held a monopoly on the Good News of Jesus Christ!!!
It does. It is only by them that we know the good news of Christ.
How would you define this good news?
It’s a shame that it took so many years before the Church could spread it.
I think you may be focusing your eyes too much on one source of the Gospel, JA, and walking right past other wonderful and beautiful sources.
What are these other sources you are referring to?
This may work for you, but please don’t assume that’s it’s the only path to God. Jesus would have said, “Let those who hunger, read any of the four Gospel. Let those who thirst, peruse Paul’s Epistles”.
What other “paths to God” are you referring to?
 
NotWorthy;2712623:
I wasn’t aware that the NT Scriptures held a monopoly on the Good News of Jesus Christ!!!
It does. It is only by them that we know the good news of Christ.
How would you define this good news?
What version of the NT did Paul take with him on his missionary journeys?
 
It does. It is only by them that we know the good news of Christ.
How would you define this good news?
My answer to this is where in Scripture does it say that the Scriptures hold the Monopoly to the Good News of Christ?
 
What are these other sources you are referring to?

What other “paths to God” are you referring to?
Other sources? Why the Church to teach us the truth. This world changes. Doesn’t it require something dynamic and living that can handle these changing needs while adhering to the One Truth of Christ?
 
My answer to this is where in Scripture does it say that the Scriptures hold the Monopoly to the Good News of Christ?
It does not say this specifically. However the source of the good news is spelled out in the NT.

How would you define the good news? What exactly is it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top