Does anyone else have a problem with "Maryology"?

[LilyM]

So we agree that the Scriptures never refer to her like this? Since this is the case, your church goes beyond what is written and speculates.

:banghead: it’s NOT speculation to call your spouse ‘wife’ or ‘husband’. Nor is it speculation to call the wife of a King ‘Queen’ - by dictionary definition, that is what she is. And it’s NOT speculation to call the mother of a King ‘Queen Mother’!!! It’s plain common sense and the dictionary definition!

Does Jesus ever refer to Mary as His queen?
How does He address her in the gospels?

Jesus calls himself King. Mary IS ipso facto Queen Mother the moment he says this. Just as if he called himself husband, ipso facto the woman he is married to is his wife, regardless of whether he mentions the fact or not. This is not speculation, it’s common sense.

Do you have chapter and verse for this? I’m not aware of any teaching in Scripture that says this kind of thing i.e. the dead can hear our prayers.

Chapter and verse my foot. Do your own homework. If you know your Bible you’d know the story. It DOESN’T say that the chasm is between the living and the dead. As I’ve demonstrated.

What is Jesus teaching here? What was His primary aim in this passage?

That once you’re in Hell all hope and ability to do good is lost (note: Hell and NOT heaven! Neither Abraham nor Lazarus say they can’t go to Earth or to the living!)

You can’t help yourself out of HELL, or to lessen your punishment there, nor help others to avoid going there. Again, none of this applies to HEAVEN!!!

 

[Greg27]

Is it not true that all catholics must believe what the church teaches about her and to deny this is to fall away completely from the divine and Catholic faith…?

Yes, there are dogmas which are binding on Catholics. I think in terms of Mary, the Immaculate Conception and Assumption are the ones which need to be believed on faith, and I don’t have trouble with these. Marian devotions though are not binding dogmas requiring the assent of faith, and are optional to the Catholic.

Clearly if the Church defined a dogma which required Catholics to believe Mary was some sort of being co-equal with the Trinity itself, I could not accept this and would leave the church.

 

[Mannyfit75]

The problem with many Protestants finding many of the dogmas concerning Mary is that they are missing the point that these are Christ centered dogmas. The Immaculate Conception for instance involve God’s saving grace to have Mary saved from sin. In the Pope Pius IX statement he writes,

*"We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which holds that the Blessed Virgin Mary, at the first instant of her conception, by a **singular privilege and grace **of the Omnipotent God, in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of mankind, was **preserved immaculate *from all stain of original sin, has been revealed by God, and therefore should firmly and constantly be believed by all the faithful."

Note the bolded remarks that it is through the power of God that Mary is Immaculate not Mary self since Mary is not the source of all grace. All graces comes from God.

 

[MariaG]

The problem with many Protestants finding many of the dogmas concerning Mary is that they are missing the point that these are Christ centered dogmas. The Immaculate Conception for instance involve God’s saving grace to have Mary saved from sin. In the Pope Pius IX statement he writes,

*“We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which holds that the Blessed Virgin Mary, at the first instant of her conception, by a **singular privilege and grace ***of the Omnipotent God, in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of mankind, was **preserved immaculate **from all stain of original sin, has been revealed by God, and therefore should firmly and constantly be believed by all the faithful.”

Note the bolded remarks that it is through the power of God that Mary is Immaculate not Mary self since Mary is not the source of all grace. All graces comes from God.

Yes, this is a very good point Manny. These teachings are really about who Christ is, not who Mary is. Christ was so holy, it is only fitting that His mother who carried Him in her womb was preserved from sin. It points to the Holiness of God, not the specialness of Mary.

 

[NotWorthy]

Yes, this is a very good point Manny. These teachings are really about who Christ is, not who Mary is. Christ was so holy, it is only fitting that His mother who carried Him in her womb was preserved from sin. It points to the Holiness of God, not the specialness of Mary.

You mean the detailed description on how pure the Ark of the Covenant was going to be in the OT, may have been pointing us to how Pure the Ark of the New Covenant is?!?!?! Naw, it must have been a coincidence!

 

[MariaG]

You mean the detailed description on how pure the Ark of the Covenant was going to be in the OT, may have been pointing us to how Pure the Ark of the New Covenant is?!?!?! Naw, it must have been a coincidence!

I love the typology of the Ark

It was that scripture that allowed me to embrace the teachings of the Catholic Church about Mary.

 

[justasking4]

:banghead: it’s NOT speculation to call your spouse ‘wife’ or ‘husband’. Nor is it speculation to call the wife of a King ‘Queen’ - by dictionary definition, that is what she is. And it’s NOT speculation to call the mother of a King ‘Queen Mother’!!! It’s plain common sense and the dictionary definition!

It may be commonsense but its not biblical sense. There is not one place in Scripture where Jesus or His apostles ever refer to Mary as queen. Its not there.

Were the siblings of Jesus ever considered prince or princess since they to have a connection with Jesus?

Jesus calls himself King. Mary IS ipso facto Queen Mother the moment he says this. Just as if he called himself husband, ipso facto the woman he is married to is his wife, regardless of whether he mentions the fact or not. This is not speculation, it’s common sense.

 

[justasking4]

The problem with many Protestants finding many of the dogmas concerning Mary is that they are missing the point that these are Christ centered dogmas. The Immaculate Conception for instance involve God’s saving grace to have Mary saved from sin. In the Pope Pius IX statement he writes,

*"We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which holds that the Blessed Virgin Mary, at the first instant of her conception, by a **singular privilege and grace ***

Again, the pope can say this but this does not mean its true. There is no hint of this kind of thing in Scripture about her.

 

[justasking4]

NW, if justasking isn’t Catholic it’s quite possible that he or she has neve READ 2nd Maccabees - it’s one of the books the KJV doesn’t have.

I’m somewhat familar with this being used by catholics to support praying to the dead. However there are a number of problems with using this to support that. For example. Who is the one saying this? Was he a prophet of God? Did the Jews acknowledge that he was?
Just because he prayed to the dead or for the dead doesn’t mean its true that such prayers are right.
These are just some of the problems associated with Maccabees.

 

[LilyM]

justasking4:

It may be commonsense but its not biblical sense.

That’s the problem right there. Biblical sense IS commonsense. It never violates our God-given common sense, it should harmonise with it.

Sure it can go beyond it - there are concepts such as the Trinity or the Incarnation that we’ll never be able to wrap our feeble brains around completely. But there is no false opposition between faith and natural reason and logic.

 

[justasking4]

I thought you believed in “Sola Scriptura”, not “Sola Versura”. But evidently that is not so.

What does “Sola Versura” mean?

Mary’s Assumption is based on the Scripture based teaching that Mary is the New Eve - something that has been taught by the Church at least by the year 155AD (Justin Martyr).

then Mary’s death (if she did die, we don’t know) would have brought her bodily into heaven.
Both of these satements cannot be found in the Scriptures. After Acts 1:14 she is never mentioned again except by Paul in Galatians 4:4 and not by her name either.

This is confirmed in Revelation 12.

Since all we know about Mary is found in a few passages in Gospels we can see if this fits here in Revelations 12. The context of Revelations goes against this being Mary for a number of reasons.
[/QUOTE]

 

[NotWorthy]

I’m somewhat familar with this being used by catholics to support praying to the dead. However there are a number of problems with using this to support that. For example. Who is the one saying this? Was he a prophet of God? Did the Jews acknowledge that he was?
Just because he prayed to the dead or for the dead doesn’t mean its true that such prayers are right.
These are just some of the problems associated with Maccabees.

I’m sorry, I thought this was no problem with this being Scriptural, until the same body of Jews that rejected Christ and His teachings rejected Maccabees.

It was an accepted part of the Septuagint, even referred to in the New Testament. Among Christians, it was accepted as Scripture, with some disagreements (similar to Revelation and Hebrews) until a certain sect rejected it in the 15th or 16th century.

 

[NotWorthy]

What does “Sola Versura” mean?

Sorry, it’s a term I created on my own - yes a Tradition of man, if you will.

“Sola Versura” means that there has to be a “Verse” that says it or else it’s not true. It ignores the context of what is being taught, simply looking for the Scripture and Verse to lay out a teaching. To me it’s like reading the whole Bible as if it were Leviticus or Deuteronomy.

An example of contrasting Scriptural interpretation, Catholics use the numerous OT references to the Queen Mother in Judea, and the authority she had as intercessors, and apply it to the role of Mary in the New Israel. Simply Typology.

What makes you think Martyr is right? Such a concept about Mary is absent from the scriptures.

Why the total absence of intervention of the rest of the Church Fathers tells me of the acceptance of the Early Church of this Doctrine, even the chiming in of this teaching by Ireneaus. These weren’t simple hacks, you know. They were looked upon as teachers of the Early Faith.

That silence also hints that this teaching preceded Justin Martyr.

Again you are assuming this without Scriptural facts. She is never referred to in this way.

I also see Jesus asking people to pipe down when they wished to proclaim his glory. Should I keep silent on that as well?

The fuller answer is Typology, just-asking, Typology.

Both of these satements cannot be found in the Scriptures. After Acts 1:14 she is never mentioned again except by Paul in Galatians 4:4 and not by her name either.

Again, you’re falling under the trap of “Sola Versura”. It’s weaved throughout Scripture, from Genesis to Revelation.

Since all we know about Mary is found in a few passages in Gospels we can see if this fits here in Revelations 12. The context of Revelations goes against this being Mary for a number of reasons.

You’ve GOT to be kidding!!! Who is the child if it is not Jesus? If it’s Jesus, who would the mother be?

 

[JoeyWarren]

“Sola Versura” means that there has to be a “Verse” that says it or else it’s not true. It ignores the context of what is being taught, simply looking for the Scripture and Verse to lay out a teaching. To me it’s like reading the whole Bible as if it were Leviticus or Deuteronomy

I just love that! I am saving this off for a future use and signature…that’s of course you don’t mind.

 

[NotWorthy]

I just love that! I am saving this off for a future use and signature…that’s of course you don’t mind.

Well of course! I’ll set up a “Pay-Pal” account so I can get royalties!!!

 

[JoeyWarren]

Well of course! I’ll set up a “Pay-Pal” account so I can get royalties!!!

:tsktsk: :crying: :whacky:

 

[vZwire]

He tells me that he wants to worship Jesus and not go to a “middleman”…

Here are my thoughts-

Am am male, and like most men, my mother played/plays a huge role in my life.

I think back to junior high, and the ultimate “put-down” during a school-yard argument was- “Your Mama…” as in the classic “dresses you funny”. Arguments often turned physical as soon as the word mama was mentioned. Stay with me… I’m getting to my point soon.

So why if we are so protective of our mother, would we not glorify the Mother of our Lord???

Secondly, when It is my turn for judgment, I want Mary to turn to her son and say, “Son, this is the one I have been telling you about, he is so faithful, and he confesses his love for you to me every day. Let him into heaven at once”.

 

[NotWorthy]

Here are my thoughts-

Am am male, and like most men, my mother played/plays a huge role in my life.

I think back to junior high, and the ultimate “put-down” during a school-yard argument was- “Your Mama…” as in the classic “dresses you funny”. Arguments often turned physical as soon as the word mama was mentioned. Stay with me… I’m getting to my point soon.

So why if we are so protective of our mother, would we not glorify the Mother of our Lord???

Secondly, when It is my turn for judgment, I want Mary to turn to her son and say, “Son, this is the one I have been telling you about, he is so faithful, and he confesses his love for you to me every day. Let him into heaven at once”.

“Ask of me whatever you want, my mother, for you know I will not refuse you.”

Of course, our dear mother would only ask what is in union with His Divine Will, anyway!!!

 

[justasking4]

Sorry, it’s a term I created on my own - yes a Tradition of man, if you will.

“Sola Versura” means that there has to be a “Verse” that says it or else it’s not true. It ignores the context of what is being taught, simply looking for the Scripture and Verse to lay out a teaching. To me it’s like reading the whole Bible as if it were Leviticus or Deuteronomy.

 

[justasking4]

I’m sorry, I thought this was no problem with this being Scriptural, until the same body of Jews that rejected Christ and His teachings rejected Maccabees.

Not all the Jews rejected Christ. In fact you may recall that the NT church was primarily composed of Jews. Secondly, it was to the Jewish nation that God entrusted the OT Scriptures.

It was an accepted part of the Septuagint, even referred to in the New Testament.

The status of these books up until the time of the reformation as deutrocanonical i.e. second canon of books. They were not considered inspired by the Jews. Even Jerome who was the authority on the Scriptures and who translated the Scriptures into latin (Vulgate) did not think they were inspired. It wasn’t until later that he was forced to change his view by the church.