Discussing Mary

[justasking4]

guanophore;2755757]Apparently you have not studied the apparitions. No one who says “Jesus is Lord” is from “somthing else”.

Isn’t it true that not all apparitions have not been approved by the church?

The one that says that Mary was assumed into heaven to be with her Son.

Was this not unknown to the church for centuries?

Well, of course?! Where do you think you got your NT? The whole NT is produced from Sacred Tradition. The whole canon (old and new) is from Sacred Tradition.

Is not part of Sacred Tradition history?

It is from that tradition that we learn the Apostles baptized infants, revered Mary, and believed that Jesus really gave us his Body and Blood.

What do you do with cases where there are different opinions on these kinds of matters? For example some fathers believed that Mary did sin while others did not.

Jesus promised to lead his disciples into all truth. Either He is a liar, or He kept His promise. I guess that is up to you to decide.

I agree He did do that.

Jesus did not promise that error would not occur. He promised that He would preserve them in all truth. Through the ages we have always known those who are in error by looking at those who have departed from the Teachings of Jesus.

Now apply this method to the marian doctrines and you will see that the catholic church has departed from the Teachings of Jesus. For example, you don’t see in the gospels any elevation of Mary by Jesus. You don’t see Him presenting her as their queen for instance.

Absolutely. Jesus said “my word is Truth”, and we believe Him.

Where does your church say its Sacred Oral Tradition and Teaching Authority are inspiried-inerrant?

Well, speak for yourself!

i have.

YOU do not see it because you have rejected 2/3 of the Divine Revelation. You have fallen for the false doctrine of Sola Scriptura, and cannot accept the rest of the revelation.

I’m not using just the scriptures but challenging these traditions and teachings with church history. If i was a catholic and saw how the church uses speculations to build its doctrines on, i would find this to be very troubling and a house built on sand.

You think not, because the only Apostolic evidence you have is your bible. Catholics (and Orthodox) know differently, because we have never stopped embracing the Sacred Tradition, from which the Scripture was produced.

The problem is that with your Sacred Traditions you look to cannot support these marian doctrines. Just because someone makes some statement about Mary in a sermon that this is the truth. Just because this is done does not mean its true.

See my signature? That part of Divine Revelation not contained in the “letters”.

2 Thess 3:6-7

6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in **accord with the tradition that you received **from us. 7 For you yourselves know how you ought to imitate us; we were not idle when we were with you…"

That divinely inspired example and message that has been handed down to us from the Apostles.

1 Cor 11:2

2 I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.

The behavior, belief, and manner of life that was demonstrated by the Apostles.

What specific traditions was Paul referring to here?

 

[LilyM]

History shows the Church leaders are impeccable. History also show that when the Church teaches on matters on faith and morals, she cannot error. The Holy Spirit preserves that.

You mean infallible, not impeccable, surely Manny.

 

[guanophore]

Isn’t it true that not all apparitions have not been approved by the church?

No, but that would not matter to you anyway, because you don’t accept the Authority Jesus appointed. My point was that, using scripture, we can rule out that the apparitions are demonic, since they proclaim Jesus as Lord.

Was this not unknown to the church for centuries?

No. Things that came up that were unknown were rejected as heresies, and soundly refuted.

Is not part of Sacred Tradition history?

Sacred Tradition can be found in history, but does not emerge from history, and does not depend upon it.

What do you do with cases where there are different opinions on these kinds of matters? For example some fathers believed that Mary did sin while others did not.

We depend upon infallible proclamations of the councils or the Magesterium.

I agree He did do that.

Ok, if we agree that Jesus promised to lead His disciples into all truth,then at what point did disciples fail?

Now apply this method to the marian doctrines and you will see that the catholic church has departed from the Teachings of Jesus. For example, you don’t see in the gospels any elevation of Mary by Jesus. You don’t see Him presenting her as their queen for instance.

It is not necessary for me to see this. I know that the gospels do not contain everything. However, I do see in them that Jesus elevates Mary.

Where does your church say its Sacred Oral Tradition and Teaching Authority are inspiried-inerrant?

In the Catechism. This is how we know the scriptures are inspired and inerrant. They were produced and ratified by an inspired and inerrant source.

I’m not using just the scriptures but challenging these traditions and teachings with church history. If i was a catholic and saw how the church uses speculations to build its doctrines on, i would find this to be very troubling and a house built on sand.

Catholics know that these are not “speculations” but Divine Revelation. The recognition of these truths is what makes us Catholic. People who do not accept them are not Catholic. We know that the Catholic Church is built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, with Jesus (the cornerstone) as the Head. It is not sand!

The problem is that with your Sacred Traditions you look to cannot support these marian doctrines. Just because someone makes some statement about Mary in a sermon that this is the truth. Just because this is done does not mean its true.

There are several errors in this statement. One is that they are not “my” Sacred Traditions, they are Gods. the second is that I am somehow obligated to “support” them, which I am not. However, I do agree that mentioning something in a sermon does not make it true. Equally, however, the fact that you are not able to see these things in our bible does not make them false, either.

 

[juliamajor]

I have no idea.

Who do you think wrote Genesis?

Who do you think wrote genesis and the rest of the Torah?-Your circular reasonings amazes me- you have more moves than a contortionist

 

[JoeyWarren]

I have no idea.

Who do you think wrote Genesis?

If you are anywhere near being a fundamentalist, you have been told that Genesis was written by Moses. There nothing in scripture to indicate that Moses wrote Genesis, but you may believe it nonetheless other than to say that one has to rely upon Oral Tradition to believe that a certain person either wrote in it’s entirety or compiled sporadic writings into one writing.

I can’t speak for Peter Da Rock, but who wrote Genesis little or no bearing. What does have bearing is that all of the events in Genesis were a part of Oral Tradition at the least.

 

[justasking4]

part 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Isn’t it true that not all apparitions have not been approved by the church?

Depends what you mean by “accept”. If they have the facts to back up their statements then i would. If they don’t and they use speculations as a basis for truth then no.

guanophore
My point was that, using scripture, we can rule out that the apparitions are demonic, since they proclaim Jesus as Lord.

I thought i read somewhere where that in one of the major apparitions that the Lady said that all religions are good. I think it was the Medjugorje appearances. If this is the case, would that still mean this apparition is Mary?

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Was this not unknown to the church for centuries?

guanophore
No. Things that came up that were unknown were rejected as heresies, and soundly refuted.

I’m referring to Mary being queen of heaven or immaculately conceived. These things were totally unknown not only to the apostles but unknown to the church for centuries.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Is not part of Sacred Tradition history?
guanophore
Sacred Tradition can be found in history, but does not emerge from history, and does not depend upon it.

How does a catholic know what Sacred Tradition is when he-she reads catholic history? What are the identifying marks of Sacred Tradition in church history?

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
What do you do with cases where there are different opinions on these kinds of matters? For example some fathers believed that Mary did sin while others did not.

guanophore
We depend upon infallible proclamations of the councils or the Magesterium.

Does this mean then that when a church father was saying something that was contrary to what was ultimately proclaimed by the church was teaching falsely? For example, some church fathers said that Mary had sinned. Were they teaching falsely when they taught this?

[/QUOTE]

 

[justasking4]

part 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
I agree He did do that.
guanophore
Ok, if we agree that Jesus promised to lead His disciples into all truth,then at what point did disciples fail?

We know Peter did and was rebuked by Paul in Galatians for not being straightforward about the truth of the gospel. See Galatians 2:14.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Now apply this method to the marian doctrines and you will see that the catholic church has departed from the Teachings of Jesus. For example, you don’t see in the gospels any elevation of Mary by Jesus. You don’t see Him presenting her as their queen for instance.

guanophore
It is not necessary for me to see this.

You don’t see because they never taught it.

guanophore
I know that the gospels do not contain everything.

That may be. However this cannot be used as a support for any of the marian doctrines since you don’t know what else Jesus taught that is not recorded in scripture.

guanophore
However, I do see in them that Jesus elevates Mary.

Would you happen to have chapter and verse for this?

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Where does your church say its Sacred Oral Tradition and Teaching Authority are inspiried-inerrant?

guanophore
In the Catechism. This is how we know the scriptures are inspired and inerrant. They were produced and ratified by an inspired and inerrant source.

Are you saying that the catholic church is “inspired-inerrant”?

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
I’m not using just the scriptures but challenging these traditions and teachings with church history. If i was a catholic and saw how the church uses speculations to build its doctrines on, i would find this to be very troubling and a house built on sand.

guanophore
Catholics know that these are not “speculations” but Divine Revelation. The recognition of these truths is what makes us Catholic. People who do not accept them are not Catholic. We know that the Catholic Church is built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, with Jesus (the cornerstone) as the Head. It is not sand!

How do you know that these claims are of “Divine Revelation” if the scriptures never speak of such things? If these are of “Divine Revelation” then why are these pronouncements included in the catholic Bible? It follows that if what you are saying here is true then what you have in reality is more Scripture.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
The problem is that with your Sacred Traditions you look to cannot support these marian doctrines. Just because someone makes some statement about Mary in a sermon that this is the truth. Just because this is done does not mean its true.

guanophore
There are several errors in this statement. One is that they are not “my” Sacred Traditions, they are Gods.

Not so. If they are of God then they would be Scripture. Do you want to claim this for your Sacred Traditions?

guanophore
the second is that I am somehow obligated to “support” them, which I am not.

What it shows is that these claims are deficent if catholics can’t support them. I have asked many catholics about this particular issue and have yet to see exactly what they are.

guanophore
However, I do agree that mentioning something in a sermon does not make it true.

This is usually where you see the birth of these ideas for the marian doctrines. Thats why its important to see where these ideas start and see how they are expanded by others over the centuries to eventually you see a full blown dogma.

guanophore
Equally, however, the fact that you are not able to see these things in our bible does not make them false, either.

What it means also is that there would be no sciptural support or apostolic support for them either. This gets back to what i said previously. You have men speculating about these things and these speculations are allowed to grow until you have a full blown doctrine that has no support in the scriptures. This is what has happened with the marian doctrines.

---

“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” 2 Thess 2:15

 

[justasking4]

juliamajor;2763787]Who do you think wrote genesis and the rest of the Torah?-
I think the best case can be made for Moses. Now if you don’t believe that, then who do you think did and why?

Your circular reasonings amazes me- you have more moves than a contortionist

:

How so? Give me an example what you are referring to please.

 

[justasking4]

JoeyWarren;2763841]If you are anywhere near being a fundamentalist, you have been told that Genesis was written by Moses. There nothing in scripture to indicate that Moses wrote Genesis,

Moses is the best canidate for Genesis and the 1st 5 books of the OT. Do you deny that Moses had a very close relationship to God? Do you deny that the Law of God came through Moses?

but you may believe it nonetheless other than to say that one has to rely upon Oral Tradition to believe that a certain person either wrote in it’s entirety or compiled sporadic writings into one writing.

If the traditions have good reasons to back them up then i would. However, keep in mind that who the human author was has no bearing on the issue of inspiration-inerrancy. The source of Genesis as in all the books of the scriptures (except the apochyra) is God.

I can’t speak for Peter Da Rock, but who wrote Genesis little or no bearing. What does have bearing is that all of the events in Genesis were a part of Oral Tradition at the least.

How does this help in our discussion on Mary?

 

[JoeyWarren]

juliamajor;2763787]Who do you think wrote genesis and the rest of the Torah?-

JA4 said:
I think the best case can be made for Moses.

Well please do. And please provide that EXPLICIT BIBLICAL proof you keep harping on.

 

[JoeyWarren]

JA4 said: How does this help in our discussion on Mary?

It helps when you realize that you can’t prove from scripture that Moses wrote Genesis. Just think about it instead of asking about it…

 

[juliamajor]

It helps when you realize that you can’t prove from scripture that Moses wrote Genesis. Just think about it instead of asking about it…

He can’t prove it because it is a tradition an oral tradition passed down.-same tradition he eschews in the NT

 

[Larry1700]

In the Profession of Faith, the Sacramentary has, in red “All bow during these two lines;” followed by these two lines

*“by the power of the Holy Spirit *
*He was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man.” *

Good info – thanks.

However, (sorry ), I have watched carefully, and some seem to bow specifically at the “Virgin Mary” part. Yes, I know they’re close in time, but it’s one of those “you’d have to be there” moments.

Next opportunity I get, I will ask the deacon who does it to explain it to me.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Good info – thanks.

However, (sorry ), I have watched carefully, and some seem to bow specifically at the “Virgin Mary” part. Yes, I know they’re close in time, but it’s one of those “you’d have to be there” moments.

Next opportunity I get, I will ask the deacon who does it to explain it to me.

Maybe the Priest should include when it is to be done during his next homily. Take your concerns to the Priest and let him address during the next few homilies.

Benefit of a doubt? Maybe people are too slow to start the bow?

 

[justasking4]

Well please do. And please provide that EXPLICIT BIBLICAL proof you keep harping on.

Can’t do here on this topic otherwise they may shut it down.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Can’t do here on this topic otherwise they may shut it down.

Start a new thread then.

 

[cranster]

justasking. You have been accommodated. No one will shut this thread down. Please feel free to answer with explicit Biblical proof that Moses wrote the book of Genesis. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=186587

 

[JoeyWarren]

Good info – thanks.

However, (sorry ), I have watched carefully, and some seem to bow specifically at the “Virgin Mary” part. Yes, I know they’re close in time, but it’s one of those “you’d have to be there” moments.

Next opportunity I get, I will ask the deacon who does it to explain it to me.

This thought just occurred to me after reading this a second time.

Why are you looking at others while the creed is being said?

Why are you worried about what others are doing and when?

You should be worried about what you are doing, not others. Correct?

IMHO when one is saying the Creed during Mass, one should really have his eyes somewhat closed and meditating and believing what is being said instead of letting your eyes wander.

And if some happen to bowing specifically at the Virgin Mary part, then that is their business and not yours. You will be held accountable for your own actions and thoughts as they will be held accountable for their own actions and thoughts.

If I was you I would be wary about how you are judging your fellow parishoners. It is frightening to me to think about being judge by the same measure. We have no idea how that measure will be assembled in the mind of God. The warning there in scripture is there for good reason.

 

[mlldrl]

However, (sorry ), I have watched carefully, and some seem to bow specifically at the “Virgin Mary” part. Yes, I know they’re close in time, but it’s one of those “you’d have to be there” moments.

The GIRM states the follow:

1. The Creed is sung or recited by the priest together with the people (cf. above, no. 68) with everyone standing. At the words et incarnatus est (by the power of the Holy Spirit . . .became man) all make a profound bow; but on the Solemnities of the Annunciation and of the Nativity of the Lord, all genuflect.

The bow or genuflection is a sign of reverence to the miracle of the incarnation.

Michael

 

[Larry1700]

Thanks for the information mlldrl.