Doctines on Mary "not in the Bible."

[ClamDigger]

I haven’t been on here in a while, but I was thinking about this the other day, so I figured it could make for some interesting discussion.

Many Protestants argue against Marian doctrines (for example, the Assumption) on the basis that they aren’t explicitly stated in the Bible. Based on this, many of these Protestants even go a step further and affirm the opposite, saying that Mary is dead, which is also not in the Bible.

Concerning this view, my question to those Protestants is this:

Why is it acceptable to completely deny these doctrines because they aren’t explicitly set out in the Bible, when the opposite of the doctrines (e.g.- that Mary’s body is rotting somewhere in some unknown grave) isn’t explicitly stated in the Bible either? Wouldn’t it be wiser to just say that you don’t know whether the doctines are true or not, rather than affirming the opposite, on the “off-chance” that the doctines are true?

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Wouldn’t it be wiser to just say that you don’t know whether the doctines are true or not, rather than affirming the opposite, on the “off-chance” that the doctines are true?

It is my understanding that this is more or less the Lutheran position on it. Basically they hold that the Bible is silent on the matter and therefore a person can choose to believe it but it is not binding nor does it affect their salvation… of course there is always the possibility that I am wrong about what they teach as I am not Lutheran.

God bless

 

[ClamDigger]

It is my understanding that this is more or less the Lutheran position on it. Basically they hold that the Bible is silent on the matter and therefore a person can choose to believe it but it is not binding nor does it affect their salvation… of course there is always the possibility that I am wrong about what they teach as I am not Lutheran.

God bless

Yeah, that’s actually what made me think about it in the first place. I was reading an article on Martin Luther’s views on Mary, and it stated that he was originally a proponent of the doctrines of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, but later in his life, if he was asked about it, he basically just said (paraphrasing, of course), “It’s not in the Bible either way, so just believe whatever concerning them.” I thought that position seemed much wiser than pulling the whole, “Your extra-Biblical doctrine isn’t mentioned in the Bible, and I only believe what is expressly stated in the Bible, so I’m going to go off and invent my own extra-Biblical doctrine!” :ehh:

 

[Radical]

Concerning this view, my question to those Protestants is this:

Why is it acceptable to completely deny these doctrines because they aren’t explicitly set out in the Bible, when the opposite of the doctrines (e.g.- that Mary’s body is rotting somewhere in some unknown grave) isn’t explicitly stated in the Bible either? Wouldn’t it be wiser to just say that you don’t know whether the doctines are true or not, rather than affirming the opposite, on the “off-chance” that the doctines are true?

How far do you suppose that we should take this “off-chance” approach? IIRC there is no express statement in scriptures clarifying that a Jewish family did not set sail for North America and participate in a civilization there or that Jesus didn’t appear in North America (to the Jews there) in the first century…so, on the “off-chance” that Joseph Smith got it right, would you recommend that we neither affirm or deny those Mormon claims? It is my suggestion that we evaluate the claim on the basis of who introduced the claim, when was it done, where was it done and why was it done…and on that basis I dismiss the claims of Joseph Smith regarding the Book of Mormon…some Protestants would see no more credibility in the Venerators of Mary than they would in Joseph Smith…if you can understand why someone would think it acceptable to dismiss JS’s claims, then you should be able to figure out why someone would think it acceptable to dismiss certain claims wrt Mary

 

[JonNC]

It is my understanding that this is more or less the Lutheran position on it. Basically they hold that the Bible is silent on the matter and therefore a person can choose to believe it but it is not binding nor does it affect their salvation… of course there is always the possibility that I am wrong about what they teach as I am not Lutheran.

God bless

Spot on, my friend.

There can be no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in heaven. How it happened we do not know. And since the Holy Spirit has told us nothing about it, we can make of it no article of faith . . . It is enough to know that she lives in Christ. - Luther

Our complaint regarding the Catholic doctrine on this, and the IC, is that the Catholic Church binds the conscience of the believer on the matter. We also might say that these were declared without benefit of a truly ecumenical council.

Jon

 

[ClamDigger]

How far do you suppose that we should take this “off-chance” approach? IIRC there is no express statement in scriptures clarifying that a Jewish family did not set sail for North America and participate in a civilization there or that Jesus didn’t appear in North America (to the Jews there) in the first century…so, on the “off-chance” that Joseph Smith got it right, would you recommend that we neither affirm or deny those Mormon claims? It is my suggestion that we evaluate the claim on the basis of who introduced the claim, when was it done, where was it done and why was it done…and on that basis I dismiss the claims of Joseph Smith regarding the Book of Mormon…some Protestants would see no more credibility in the Venerators of Mary than they would in Joseph Smith…if you can understand why someone would think it acceptable to dismiss JS’s claims, then you should be able to figure out why someone would think it acceptable to dismiss certain claims wrt Mary

And this is the problem with Sola Scriptura. Thank you for supporting Tradition!

 

[excubitor]

How far do you suppose that we should take this “off-chance” approach? IIRC there is no express statement in scriptures clarifying that a Jewish family did not set sail for North America and participate in a civilization there or that Jesus didn’t appear in North America (to the Jews there) in the first century…so, on the “off-chance” that Joseph Smith got it right, would you recommend that we neither affirm or deny those Mormon claims? It is my suggestion that we evaluate the claim on the basis of who introduced the claim, when was it done, where was it done and why was it done…and on that basis I dismiss the claims of Joseph Smith regarding the Book of Mormon…some Protestants would see no more credibility in the Venerators of Mary than they would in Joseph Smith…if you can understand why someone would think it acceptable to dismiss JS’s claims, then you should be able to figure out why someone would think it acceptable to dismiss certain claims wrt Mary

There is no correlation between these two examples. The doctrines on Mary are teachings of the church which have endured from apostolic times, whereas the visions of Joseph Smith are relatively recent innovations. The doctrines on Mary therefore come from Sacred Tradition which catholics venerate as much as the scriptures.

There is no point discussing why protestants do not believe in Mary and why they might regard stories about her in the same light as the visions of Joseph Smith. You first have to thrash out the issue of Sola Scripura.

A typical approach of a protestant is to say “Where does it say that about Mary in the scripture?”. Right away we have a logical fallacy called a Complex Question en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_question which we might call more commonly a loaded question. This question has as its premise a controversial assumption that all truth must be in the Bible. I refuse to engage in this question and I always immediately point out the logical fallacy and try to thrash out the question of Sola Scriptura first. I try to move the burden of truth to the protestant to first prove that all truth must be expressed in the scripture before it may be believed.

Its pointless trying to argue about Mary before this issue of Sola Scriptura is resolved. And once Sola Scriptura is refuted, the matter of Mary quickly falls into place and is easily proven by Sacred Tradition which has all the authority of Sacred Scripture. Sacred Tradition is every bit as much the Word of God as is Sacred Scripture.

 

[Radical]

And this is the problem with Sola Scriptura. Thank you for supporting Tradition!

You are welcome…I think everyone will acknowledge that SS is unable to answer all questions…historical, scientific or otherwwise…but, that reality doesn’t make Tradition able or reliable WRT those same questions.

 

[excubitor]

And this is the problem with Sola Scriptura. Thank you for supporting Tradition!

Ahhh!. You beat me to it and said it in one line what took ten.

 

[ClamDigger]

You are welcome…I think everyone will acknowledge that SS is unable to answer all questions…historical, scientific or otherwwise…but, that reality doesn’t make Tradition able or reliable WRT those same questions.

“Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.” --2 Thessalonians 2.15

I’d say that Tradition is pretty reliable in matters of Faith…

 

[ClamDigger]

Ahhh!. You beat me to it and said it in one line what took ten.

 

[Radical]

There is no correlation between these two examples. The doctrines on Mary are teachings of the church which have endured from apostolic times,…

that is your assumption…what is lacking is the historical evidence to verify that these teachings have existed from the 1st century…we can find no end of non-Christian scholars who will confirm that Christians believed in the resurrection from the first century on (b/c there is historical evidence to back it up)…it is a very different situation wrt Mary.

There is no point discussing why protestants do not believe in Mary and why they might regard stories about her in the same light as the visions of Joseph Smith. You first have to thrash out the issue of Sola Scripura.

I prefer to think about it as you needing to thrash out the reliability of Sacred Tradition…you and I could agreee that the Bible is reliable and if so, then there is no need to establish that matter. That leaves you with needing to establish the reliablity of Sacred Tradition…

Its pointless trying to argue about Mary before this issue of Sola Scriptura is resolved. And once Sola Scriptura is refuted, the matter of Mary quickly falls into place and is easily proven by Sacred Tradition which has all the authority of Sacred Scripture. Sacred Tradition is every bit as much the Word of God as is Sacred Scripture.

eliminating the sola of sola scripture doesn’t establish that sacred tradition is relaible…it could simply mean that nothing is reliable…unless the elimination is done by way of establishing the infallibility of Sacred Tradition…the ball is in your court…good luck with that…but I suspect that you will need to resort to Sacred Tradition to assert that Sacred Tradition is w/o error and I think that there is a logical fallacy there somewhere

 

[Radical]

“Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.” --2 Thessalonians 2.15

I’d say that Tradition is pretty reliable in matters of Faith…

The tradition Paul spoke of, yes…and he never mentioned anything about Mary that would help you in the least…nice try…there is good tradition and bad…hence the lack of pure reliability regarding traditon

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The tradition Paul spoke of, yes…and he never mentioned anything about Mary that would help you in the least…nice try…there is good tradition and bad…hence the lack of pure reliability regarding traditon

How do you know which is good tradition and which is bad, if neither is explicitly stated in scriptures?

I’d say that God’s truth survived the ages to present day, so that no generation was left without His truth, through tradition. Otherwise, we are left totally dependent on scriptures which has and is ever changing through multiple interpretations. Jesus prayed for us to be one. We cannot be one with multiple interpretations. That leaves us with the traditions Paul wrote the Churches to hold to.

 

[marbles_the_cat]

eliminating the sola of sola scripture doesn’t establish that sacred tradition is relaible…it could simply mean that nothing is reliable…unless the elimination is done by way of establishing the infallibility of Sacred Tradition…the ball is in your court…good luck with that…but I suspect that you will need to resort to Sacred Tradition to assert that Sacred Tradition is w/o error and I think that there is a logical fallacy there somewhere

Sacred tradition is reliable because, through the working of the holy spirit, the catholic church is reliable, and “the gates of hell will not prevail against it”… but that is another subject. And I am sure someone on this forum can do a better job of that than me!

I recomend a book called “Hail, Holy Queen” be Scott Hahn. He demonstrated quite nicely how the bible indeed backs the traditions regarding Mary.

 

[ClamDigger]

The tradition Paul spoke of, yes…and he never mentioned anything about Mary that would help you in the least…nice try…there is good tradition and bad…hence the lack of pure reliability regarding traditon

Not in his epistle, but how do you know he didn’t mention it by word of mouth?

 

[Radical]

Not in his epistle, but how do you know he didn’t mention it by word of mouth?

I had said: It is my suggestion that we evaluate the claim on the basis of who introduced the claim, when was it done, where was it done and why was it done…I would do something similar WRT answering the question of whether Paul taught the Catholic doctrines of Mary (outside of his epistles)…the historical evidence makes it unlikely, given the silence in the first centuries. Take another tradition for example…that Paul authored 1 Corinthians and that it reliably reflects his teaching…we can easily find non-Christian scholars who would endorse both ideas based on the historical record…contrast that with the situation regarding the ImCon and the BoAs

 

[ClamDigger]

I had said: It is my suggestion that we evaluate the claim on the basis of who introduced the claim, when was it done, where was it done and why was it done…I would do something similar WRT answering the question of whether Paul taught the Catholic doctrines of Mary (outside of his epistles)…the historical evidence makes it unlikely, given the silence in the first centuries. Take another tradition for example…that Paul authored 1 Corinthians and that it reliably reflects his teaching…we can easily find non-Christian scholars who would endorse both ideas based on the historical record…contrast that with the situation regarding the ImCon and the BoAs

The Early Church Fathers described her as without sin and, given the fact that the bodies of most saints were kept and honored, I find it highly unlikely that the body of the Virgin Mary wouldn’t have been kept and her tomb made a place of pilgrimage (oh, wait, it is… it just doesn’t have a body in it). So, both the Church Fathers and history seem to support these doctrines. What supports these new doctrines that she was sinful and that she wasn’t assumed into Heaven?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I had said: It is my suggestion that we evaluate the claim on the basis of who introduced the claim, when was it done, where was it done and why was it done…I would do something similar WRT answering the question of whether Paul taught the Catholic doctrines of Mary (outside of his epistles)…the historical evidence makes it unlikely, given the silence in the first centuries. Take another tradition for example…that Paul authored 1 Corinthians and that it reliably reflects his teaching…we can easily find non-Christian scholars who would endorse both ideas based on the historical record…contrast that with the situation regarding the ImCon and the BoAs

The historical evidence makes it unlikely? So you believe God could not protect His truth, or did not provide His truth for all generations?

There are the writings of the early Church fathers, throughout the years. The teaching was taught for generation after generation to the present day in the Catholic Church.

Show us unbroken teachings, as you say it was, to the present day. If you fail to show evidence of such, that is ‘unlikely’.

I don’t see why you didn’t respond to this on the other thread, with the SAME topic. You prefer to come to another thread of the SAME topic and beat the same drums, but not respond to requests…but that’s not anti-Catholic.

 

[ClamDigger]

The historical evidence makes it unlikely? So you believe God could not protect His truth, or did not provide His truth for all generations?

Indeed. How many thousands of years passed between the events described in Genesis and the writing of the actual book that recorded those events?