Do you have to believe Marian dogma to be a good Catholic?

[Julianah]

I think people need to at least be open to all of the Church’s teachings, even if they don’t understand them. That’s what trust is all about. I think the Holy Spirit informs people when they are ready, but only if they are not attached to their own smarts.

 

[CopticChristian]

Matter of fact PR, as I said on another thread, “I** don’t consider myself to be a Protestant as I was a Christian before I even knew what a Catholic was, and so I really had no basis on which to mount a protest”. However, as compliments are even rarer (?) in my experience I suppose that I could agree to being a pseudo-Protestant to take advantage of the one on offer now, (I think it’s a compliment is it not?). **

Maybe, but I don’t think they’ll beat themselves up about it, because they (apparently) disagree with the Tribunal of Penance, preferring instead to throw themselves on the mercy of God through the mechanism of 1 John 1:9,

or Psalm 32:5,

The trouble is, as you have said,

But then, is it not written,

Anyway, what do I know - I’m not a real Protestant am I?

Protector.

It is the common experience that Protestant that are “just christians” do not know that they have accepted Protestant thought and that the thoughts emanated from Catholic priests and a Lawyer, Knox, Zwingli, Calvin and Luther.

 

[PRmerger]

Matter of fact PR, as I said on another thread, “I don’t consider myself to be a Protestant as I was a Christian before I even knew what a Catholic was, and so I really had no basis on which to mount a protest”.

Ah, well then, you are in good company as you agree with our Catechism:

“However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers. . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.”.

I agree that you did not “protest” against anything theologically when you joined your church.

So would it be more to your liking if I used the nomenclature, “non-Catholic Christian” to apply to you? If so, I’d be happy to do so. I had a Protestant friend here who let me know that he found the term Protestant to be offensive, so I gladly refrained from using that term when in dialogue with him.

However, Protestant is simply easier to type than Non-Catholic Christian, so that’s my default term, until asked to use a different one.

 

[PRmerger]

However, as compliments are even rarer (?) in my experience I suppose that I could agree to being a pseudo-Protestant to take advantage of the one on offer now, (I think it’s a compliment is it not?).

I think I might agree with you, if I could decipher what you’re saying.
Could you please rephrase?

Maybe, but I don’t think they’ll beat themselves up about it, because they (apparently) disagree with the Tribunal of Penance, preferring instead to throw themselves on the mercy of God through the mechanism of 1 John 1:9,

So how does your pastor interpret this? How do you confess your sins?

And how does your pastor believe that sins are retained, a la

“If you retain men’s sins they are retained.”–John 20

 

[CopticChristian]

From only haphazardly observing this thread and glancing at the one you linked to I would simply be patient and allow Arizona Samson’s statement of, “School, ministry, and life in general keeps me extremely busy, so give me a couple of days and I’ll offer a response to each of the verses you’ve cited. Thank you for your patience.” suffice until he answers

Again in the context of this thread the accusation of hypocrite is in this humble opinion unneccessary and unwarranted.

Those are much more accessible reads! The Catholic.org link was simply the first one that popped up in a search. Own the book form myself.

I suggest you consider speaking only for yourself from now on.

 

[Protector]

Originally Posted by Protector
Matter of fact PR, as I said on another thread, “I don’t consider myself to be a Protestant as I was a Christian before I even knew what a Catholic was, and so I really had no basis on which to mount a protest”. .

Your enlargement of the characters in my previous post puts one in mind of the disputed statement in Galatians, where St Paul says,

“You see with what large letters I have written unto you with my own hand.” Gal. 6:11 (KJV) (emboldening mine)

as compared with the same verse from the D-R,

“See what a letter I have written to you with my own hand” Gal. 6:11 D-R

Tradition has it (in Protestant circles I believe) that he suffered with an affliction of the eyes, and so had to use large characters when not using the services of a scribe. Others have described it as a double entendre with the second meaning indicating St Paul showing his love for the Christians at Galatia by writing such a long letter to them in his own hand. Either way it’s a matter for another thread I think.

CopticChristian;8584287]It is the common experience that Protestant that are “just christians” do not know that they have accepted Protestant thought and that the thoughts emanated from Catholic priests …

.
One should hardly be denigrated for an accident of birth; Furthermore, “it is the common experience that” avowed Protestants (as a group) are waning as both sides continue to make concessions with the view to either amalgamation (Protestant view), or re-absorption (Catholic view). However, your obvious dislike of Protestants caused me to research the Coptic Christians and to muse on the possibility that they may also be described as erstwhile “Protestants” if we take the Council of Chalcedon into consideration.

But, despite the forgoing I thank you for your post Coptic Christian; Such a pity that our previous rapport seems to have faded with the passing of time.

God Bless you.

Protector.

 

[Michael_Francis]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Cleaned up a second time of off topic posts. Please stay on topic because you know what will happen if I have to intervene on this thread again.

 

[CopticChristian]

Greetings Coptic.

Thanks for the links but I’m well versed with the arguments that Mr. Madrid and various other lay Catholic apologists use to support their position. Additionally, on a discussion forum it is next to impossible to engage in productive dialog with a link. Wouldn’t you agree?

Michael Francis has pointed out that I was uncharitable to you in judging your actions I take responsibility for this and offer my regrets and ask you to forgive my lack of Charity. Wow if only I was perfect. Thank you.

 

[CopticChristian]

CC I’m not presuming to be alone in this dialog. I do, however, refuse to respond to a link. As I’ve stated above my time is very limited. As such I choose to use it in responding only to those who graciously invest *their *valuable time by presenting their point of view, and not those who simply regurgitate the arguments of others.

I observed that what you protest you have done. I have asked for responses and see none. I would like to see you answer a few questions and not dodge them. Thank you…

 

[Arizona_Samson]

Luke 15:7,10 – if the angels and saints experience joy in heaven over our repentance, then they are still connected to us and are aware of our behavior.

“I tell you that in the same way, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance.” Luke 15:7

PRM “Heaven” in this verse is a circumlocution for God….

**Luke 15:10; “In the same way, I say to you; there is joy before the angels of God over one sinner who repents.” **The Greek literally reads “I say to you, there is joy before the messengers of God….”

When Scripture speaks of being *Before the messengers(angels) of God *it is referring to God’s throne room, the place of eschatological judgment (Luke 12:8-9; Rev 3:5)

Do you have scripture that supports deceased believers being referred to as “messengers of God” or are you claiming believers are to pray to angels?

John 15:1-6 - Jesus is the vine and we are the branches. The good branches are not cut off at death. They are alive in heaven.

Where in those verses do you read King Jesus advocating praying to branches who are alive in heaven??

1 Cor. 4:9 – because we can become a spectacle not only to men, but to angels as well, this indicates that angels are aware of our earthly activity. Those in heaven are connected to those on earth.

Correction: Angels in heaven, as messengers and instruments of God, are connected to those on earth only when God wills them to be. Angels, like deceased believers, are not omniscient (Matt 24:36)

1 Peter 2:9; Rev. 20:6 - we are a royal family of priests by virtue of baptism. We as priests intercede on behalf of each other.

Believers are a family of priests by virtue of the redeeming work of our one and only Mediator and High Priest, Jesus Christ, the God-man who made one sacrifice for sin for all time. (Hebrews 10:12) Neither of those verses speak toward baptismal regeneration or intercession, PRM, to claim so is to attempt to read your theology back into Holy Writ.

 

[PRmerger]

But I am waiting for Samson to provide a verse (or acknowledge that he can find none) that states that we must look to Scripture to verify all our theological beliefs.

Samson, I appreciate your attempt to address the original Scriptures I provided, but you must first offer a verse from the Bible (any?) that states we must look to Scripture to verify our theological beliefs.

Until you do, your attempted refutations are simply begging the question.

 

[Arizona_Samson]

Samson, I appreciate your attempt to address the original Scriptures I provided, but you must first offer a verse from the Bible (any?) that states we must look to Scripture to verify our theological beliefs.

Frankly PRM, if you don’t believe your doctrine has or needs scriptural support why post the verses in the first place? :ehh:

Additionally, now that you’ve stated I’ve wasted my time in responding to your original post, why are you now changing gears by asking me to defend the Sufficiency of Scripture in this thread, especially in light of Mr. Francis’ second request to stay on topic?

Until you do, your attempted refutations are simply begging the question

If you believe offering **“A defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you…” ** equates with petitio principii, we have nothing further to discuss.

 

[CopticChristian]

“I tell you that in the same way, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance.” Luke 15:7

PRM “Heaven” in this verse is a circumlocution for God….

**Luke 15:10; “In the same way, I say to you; there is joy before the angels of God over one sinner who repents.” **The Greek literally reads “I say to you, there is joy before the messengers of God….”

When Scripture speaks of being *Before the messengers(angels) of God *it is referring to God’s throne room, the place of eschatological judgment (Luke 12:8-9; Rev 3:5)

Do you have scripture that supports deceased believers being referred to as “messengers of God” or are you claiming believers are to pray to angels?

Where in those verses do you read King Jesus advocating praying to branches who are alive in heaven??

Correction: Angels in heaven, as messengers and instruments of God, are connected to those on earth only when God wills them to be. Angels, like deceased believers, are not omniscient (Matt 24:36)

**Believers are a family of priests **by virtue of the redeeming work of our one and only Mediator and High Priest, Jesus Christ, the God-man who made one sacrifice for sin for all time. (Hebrews 10:12) Neither of those verses speak toward baptismal regeneration or intercession, PRM, to claim so is to attempt to read your theology back into Holy Writ.

This is true. An understanding of the Covenant Family of God is dependent on an understanding of the OT Church. God wanted his Family to be a family of priests and that is progressively developed in the OT. The Kingdom is also developed in the OT and that includes the priestly King Jesus and His Kingdom. To understand the Kingdom is to know the OT development and forshadowing of the Kingdom as depicted progressively in the OT from Adam to Solomon To Christ…

 

[PRmerger]

Frankly PRM, if you don’t believe your doctrine has or needs scriptural support why post the verses in the first place? :ehh:

You are getting it exactly backwards, Samson. The Scriptures support our doctrines. Not our “doctrine has or needs Scriptural support.”

The Catholic faith was whole and entire before a single word of the NT was ever put to writ.

Each and every verse in Scripture supports the Catholic faith.

NOT the Catholic faith is supported by Scripture.

So when I post verses here it is only to support the *paradosis, *which is that which we have received from the Apostles.

Now, until you can provide a verse that says we’re supposed to show you in Scripture where everything we believe is supported by the Bible (AND YOU CAN’T), all your Biblical exegesis is unnecessary.

Additionally, now that you’ve stated I’ve wasted my time in responding to your original post, why are you now changing gears by asking me to defend the Sufficiency of Scripture in this thread, especially in light of Mr. Francis’ second request to stay on topic?

Because it is the very basis for your question, Samson. You are following a man-made tradition–something you NEVER read in a single page of Scripture, but only heard a man say this, who heard another man say it, who heard another man say it…but NO ONE ever read it in a single page of the Bible.

If you believe offering **“A defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you…” ** equates with petitio principii, we have nothing further to discuss.

All I’m saying is show me the verse in Scripture “our defense must be found in Scripture.”

You cannot.

 

[coco2]

At least as far as the Immaculate Conception, I think you could say it was first mentioned by the Angel Gabriel as the Annuciation. When he greeted Mary as “full of grace” and blessed among women.

There’s a lot to learn in the faith. I’ve been Catholic since infancy and am only beginning to learn- how much I have to learn!

For instance, John the Baptist was born without original sin as well. Not conceived without it, but born without it. He (and Elizabeth) were cleansed of original sin at the visitation.

It’s also possible that St. Joseph was cleansed of original sin post-conception but pre-birth.

Why do you want to be Catholic?

If it is because you think it is the Church of the true faith, accept that. Even when something is confusing to you, accept that if the church teaches it is true- then it is true. The problem of understanding is on our end of things.

Pax.

John the Baptist born without original sin? I have not heard this before. Where is this teaching? Same with Joseph, have not heard, is it in the catechism?

 

[Davesch]

I have been a Catholic all my life…I have always had trouble with the Marian part of the Catholic faith. Don’t get me wrong, I believe in the Virgin Birth of Christ and the fact that Mary was a very special Jewish woman and was chosen by God to bear his son. In reading the scriptures, it was always apparent to me that everything Mary did always pointed towards Jesus. Would it not make sense that putting her in an almost deity position would be offensive to her. I don’t mean this to lessen her importance in salvation history, but the humble person Mary was would not want to be raised up and almost worshiped. I think the church needs to have its people understand the difference between devotion and worship. Sometimes I think members of the church really don’t know the difference.
The bottom line to all of this is that I don’t think you need to believe in Marian Dogma in order to be a good Catholic. I was always taught that what was essential to being a good Catholic was to believe in what we state in the Nicene Creed at Mass.

 

[PRmerger]

I have been a Catholic all my life…I have always had trouble with the Marian part of the Catholic faith. Don’t get me wrong, I believe in the Virgin Birth of Christ and the fact that Mary was a very special Jewish woman and was chosen by God to bear his son. In reading the scriptures, it was always apparent to me that everything Mary did always pointed towards Jesus. Would it not make sense that putting her in an almost deity position would be offensive to her.

You are correct in that putting Mary in an “almost deity” position would be offensive to her.

But how is it that you believe she’s been put in an “almost deity” position by the Catholic Church?

I don’t mean this to lessen her importance in salvation history, but the humble person Mary was would not want to be raised up and almost worshiped. I think the church needs to have its people understand the difference between devotion and worship. Sometimes I think members of the church really don’t know the difference.

Perhaps you are right. I, however, have never seen any Catholic worshipping Mary. If you pose the question to any thinking Catholic, “Do you worship God or worship Mary?” I daresay that not a single one will choose Mary.

The bottom line to all of this is that I don’t think you need to believe in Marian Dogma in order to be a good Catholic. I was always taught that what was essential to being a good Catholic was to believe in what we state in the Nicene Creed at Mass.

This is absolutely INCORRECT.

Catholics are bound to give religious assent to the entirety of God’s revelation.

 

[catharina]

Catholics are bound to give religious assent to the entirety of God’s revelation.

Yes. It’s called “accepting the fullness of revealed truth.”
There is no room at all for “pick and choose” in the Catholic faith.

 

[wheels10]

I have been a Catholic all my life…I have always had trouble with the Marian part of the Catholic faith. Don’t get me wrong, I believe in the Virgin Birth of Christ and the fact that Mary was a very special Jewish woman and was chosen by God to bear his son. In reading the scriptures, it was always apparent to me that everything Mary did always pointed towards Jesus. Would it not make sense that putting her in an almost deity position would be offensive to her. I don’t mean this to lessen her importance in salvation history, but the humble person Mary was would not want to be raised up and almost worshiped. I think the church needs to have its people understand the difference between devotion and worship. Sometimes I think members of the church really don’t know the difference.
The bottom line to all of this is that I don’t think you need to believe in Marian Dogma in order to be a good Catholic. I was always taught that what was essential to being a good Catholic was to believe in what we state in the Nicene Creed at Mass.

I think Catholics would like to Love Our Blessed Mother Mary the way that God Loves Mary. From your post above, you mentioned that Mary is a humble person. I completely agree. What did God say about the humble?

Matthew 23:12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be humbled: and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.

All Catholics should exalt Mary, The Mother of God. Our Blessed Mother Mary perfects any Love and praise that is given to Her and gives everything to God.

 

[bmullins]

As a man on the same walk I had a lot of problem with the Marian dogma. In fact, it was one of the main problems I had with the church. I couldn’t understand why they raised her up to such a high place, until I ran into the teaching about her as the Ark of the New Covenant. If the Israelite’s revered the Ark as highly as they did, why would we not revere Mary the living Ark of the New Covenant? At that point, biblically I saw the reason for veneration and respect for Mary but I couldn’t understand how she could be conceived sin free, or even why? Doesn’t every person need Jesus Christ to save them from Sin?

Then somewhere I read the following, and I’m paraphrasing here. Of course Mary needed Jesus to save her from her sins. If a man is walking through the jungle and falls into a pit, and someone pulls him out, the person who pulled him out of the pit saved him. Now another person walks through the jungle, but as he is approaching the pit, the same man who saved the other puts forth his arm and prevents him from falling into that pit. The same man saved him as well. Now both people were saved by the same fellow. When we look at the pit as original sin, and Jesus as the savior, we see that Mary can indeed have been conceived without sin, and still have been saved by the exact same savior the rest of us need.

Sorry if I have repeated any of the information above, but as a protestant convert those two concepts helped me immensely. I’d also check out Scott Hanh’s book, Hail, Holy Queen. There are many good excerpts from his work and he has an amazing way of speaking about it. As he is a protestant convert as well, I find that he speaks in a way that truly brings me great comfort.