Does anyone else have a problem with "Maryology"?

[justasking4]

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.

This may be true up to a point but natural reason goes against what God has revealed. Paul makes these statements about the reasonings of men;
I Corinthians 1:18 For the **word of the cross is foolishness **to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

or 2:14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.
In fact the Scriptures teach us that we are to have our minds “transformed by the renewing of our minds” (Romans 12

 

[LilyM]

This may be true up to a point but natural reason goes against what God has revealed. Paul makes these statements about the reasonings of men;
I Corinthians 1:18 For the **word of the cross is foolishness **to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

or 2:14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.
In fact the Scriptures teach us that we are to have our minds “transformed by the renewing of our minds” (Romans 12

The Cross itself is one of those things that goes beyond commonsense rather than contradicting it. It is supreme love such as we selfish creatures only have glimpses of. Kinda like the love between Christ and Mary really

 

[NotWorthy]

Just, it is extremely difficult to respond to your quotes, because you imbed them in our quotes. Can you please edit the posts like others do?

Context does matter in helping us understand what the scriptures teach. This is one area where the catholic interpretations fail.

This may be a good time to bring up an example. Just saying it does not make it so.

This could be done with almost anyone. Secondly, just because a person may use this method does mean its true. Its the facts that determine if a typology is correct. In the case of Mary being a queen etc, the facts don’t support that.

But one would ask why was it necessary through Chronicles to list the queen mother in addition to all but three of the numerous kings. Why was it necessary for Jeremiah to address the King and the Queen Mother when he asked them to remove their crowns. The Church, with the help of the Holy Spirit (as Jesus had promised) correctly interpreted this for the Queen on Heaven.

So much here. How do you know that the church fathers spoke for the entire church? Who appointed them as the spokesmen?

Are you saying all the church fathers believed Mary was a queen?

When the Church Fathers spoke, their works were kept for generations. When they disagreed (like Tertullian for example) they were soundly disputed. The works of Justin Martyr and Ireneaus have been used throughout the Church’s History.

They may have been teachers but does that mean they spoke for the entire church on its beliefs and does the catholic church accept everything they taught?

If you look at Tertullian, you’ll understand how the Church treated good teachers that sometimes taught false doctrines.

Silence does not hint. You need some facts to support this claim. Sometimes silence hints. I didn’t state this was a fact, just a hint.

Not sure what you are getting at here. Can you clarify?

You claim that Scripture it quiet on the Mary as Queen of Heaven. I claim that in Scripture, Jesus asked others to be quiet about his miracles. Should I blindly follow that, or should I look at the whole context. The numerous references to the Gebira in the OT, the Queen Mother, tells me that Scripture is NOT quiet on her queenship.

Huh? There is not one factual referece in the Scriptures that Mary was without sin, queen of heaven or assumed into heaven. That’s what is needed to support this typology if it is true.

Another Thread, perhaps. We’ve done this a hundred times.

I agree that it is Jesus

So the dragon is Satan, the child is Jesus (both individuals), yet the woman is Israel (a group). This doesn’t follow the normal modes of Apocalyptic Literature.

Luckily the Catholic Church teaches that the woman represents Mary, Israel, and the New Covenant Church.

Israel. Go back to Genesis 37:9-11 for a reference to this.

No, that would make the woman Joseph. The Sun and the Moon were Jacob (Israel) and Rebecca. The eleven stars were the other tribes of Israel.

You’re a little off on your Typology, there.

 

[NotWorthy]

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.

Read my post again. I stated that the group that rejected Jesus (the Council of Jamnia were Jews that rejected Christ) also rejected these books. I wouldn’t look to them for guidance on the OT, who’s main purpose was to point us to Christ

This is not necessarily so. The earliest Greek manuscripts that contains the Apocrypha dates only to the 4th century. We also know that neither Jesus or His apostles never quote from them.

That’s funny. Try again. Jesus does have numerous references to the Deuterocanonicals.

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.

So, you question whether Justin Martyr and St. Ireneaus spoke for the whole church, and yet you say Jerome does? No, Jerome didn’t believe they were inspired, you are correct. But his reasoning was based on the (now proven false) thought that they were never written in Hebrew. The Dead Sea Scrolls have proven this to be untrue. BTW, St. Jerome was not forced. He simply chose to obey Church Authority. He was a good Catholic!!!

I do like the way you say “He was forced…”, though.

 

[MariaG]

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.

Again, this bears repeating.

The Jews that did not consider them inspired were not followers of Christ. These Jews decided in 70AD.

None of those who were Jewish, but also Christian, were in the council that decided those books were not inspired.

Unless you believe that the edicts that the Jews make about the meaning of scripture is binding upon you today, there is absolutely no basis for your belief that the Jews were still in authority over the followers of Christ.

 

[NotWorthy]

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.

Once again, I point out that the Jews, without the light of Christ, may not be reading the Old Testament completely and may not be the best judges of what’s canonical.

2 Cor. chapter 3:

“With a hope like this, we can speak with complete fearlessness; not like Moses who put a veil over his face so that the Israelites should not watch the end of what was transitory. But their minds were closed; indeed, until this very day, the same veil remains over the reading of the Old Testament: it is not lifted, for only in Christ is it done away with.

 

[justasking4]

Once again, I point out that the Jews, without the light of Christ, may not be reading the Old Testament completely and may not be the best judges of what’s canonical.

The NT church certainly believed that their writings of the OT were scripture. In fact Paul makes this point in Romans 3:1-2 where he writes-- 3:1 Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision?2 Great in every respect. First of all, t**hat they were entrusted with the oracles of God.

For some reason i can’t read what you wrote below. **.
2 Cor. chapter 3:

 

[justasking4]

Once again, I point out that the Jews, without the light of Christ, may not be reading the Old Testament completely and may not be the best judges of what’s canonical.

2 Cor. chapter 3:

In light of this quote, hasn’t your church for the most part accepted at 39 books of the OT as being canonical?

 

[JustinApologist]

In light of this quote, hasn’t your church for the most part accepted at 39 books of the OT as being canonical?

We accepted all of them that is why our Bible has 46 OT Books, and 27 NT…This was affirm in the Council of Rome 382 AD, Council of Hippo, 392 AD, and Council of Carthage 386. The list of Canon are the same in the Council of Florence 1430 AD, which both the Orthodox and Catholic Church affirm the Deutrocanonical Books, and then the Canon of Scripture was finally closed in the Council of Trent around 1530 or 1545 in response to the Protestant Reformation in 1517.

 

[justasking4]

Just, it is extremely difficult to respond to your quotes, because you imbed them in our quotes. Can you please edit the posts like others do?

I thought i was. i put people’s comments in quotes and mine below in color. If this is not correct can you explain how to do as you suggest?

This may be a good time to bring up an example. Just saying it does not make it so.

Not sure what you are referring to here. Can your clarify?

The Church, with the help of the Holy Spirit (as Jesus had promised) correctly interpreted this for the Queen on Heaven.

If this is the case then where are the facts? Scripture never refers to her as such.

When the Church Fathers spoke, their works were kept for generations. When they disagreed (like Tertullian for example) they were soundly disputed. The works of Justin Martyr and Ireneaus have been used throughout the Church’s History.
If you look at Tertullian, you’ll understand how the Church treated good teachers that sometimes taught false doctrines.
Sometimes silence hints. I didn’t state this was a fact, just a hint.

Do you take these men’s opinions at the same level as the inspired Scriptures?

You claim that Scripture it quiet on the Mary as Queen of Heaven. I claim that in Scripture, Jesus asked others to be quiet about his miracles. Should I blindly follow that, or should I look at the whole context.

Why did Jesus as times tell some individuals not say something about a miracle He had done on them? What do you think He was concerned about at this particular time in His ministry?
What should believe in is when we have the evidence for the belief. We should believe that Jesus rose again from the dead because there were eyewitnesses to the empty tomb. See I Cor 15:1-11. The same goes for His minstry as recorded in the gospels. It was done for many people to see.
When we apply this same principle to many of the claims that your church makes about Mary we don’t see this. We don’t see any eyewitnesses in Scripture about her assumption. In fact you don’t hear about it fpr some time after.

The numerous references to the Gebira in the OT, the Queen Mother, tells me that Scripture is NOT quiet on her queenship.

Another Thread, perhaps. We’ve done this a hundred times.

Just because there are references to queens in the OT does not mean that Mary was a queen also.

So the dragon is Satan, the child is Jesus (both individuals), yet the woman is Israel (a group). This doesn’t follow the normal modes of Apocalyptic Literature.

As i’ve said there are many problems with making this to be Mary.

Luckily the Catholic Church teaches that the woman represents Mary, Israel, and the New Covenant Church.

Where does the Catholic church offically teach this? What is the source?

No, that would make the woman Joseph. The Sun and the Moon were Jacob (Israel) and Rebecca. The eleven stars were the other tribes of Israel.

You’re a little off on your Typology, there.

Perhaps. Since you believe that you have the right interpretation can you show me where this has been infallibly interpreted by your church?

[/QUOTE]

 

[justasking4]

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

If this is true then why did the disciples of Jesus have such a hard time understanding Him? Why do the Scriptures teach that the unsaved look at the scriptures as being follishness (see I Cor 2:14)?
Or that we are to have our minds transformed (Rom 12:2)?

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.

I agree that the Scriptures support logic but the problem is that all men have a fallen mind that has either great difficulty in accepting the Scriptrues or for the unbeliever who rejects them as being foolish.

 

[justasking4]

We accepted all of them that is why our Bible has 46 OT Books, and 27 NT…This was affirm in the Council of Rome 382 AD, Council of Hippo, 392 AD, and Council of Carthage 386. The list of Canon are the same in the Council of Florence 1430 AD, which both the Orthodox and Catholic Church affirm the Deutrocanonical Books, and then the Canon of Scripture was finally closed in the Council of Trent around 1530 or 1545 in response to the Protestant Reformation in 1517.

So you do agree that the Jews did get somethings right even though some of them may have been against Christ?

 

[JustinApologist]

So you do agree that the Jews did get somethings right even though some of them may have been against Christ?

The Jews from my understanding, orally taught many writings of the Law of Moses in the beginning. It was later on that it was written to be used in Liturgical Worship in the Temple. The Tanakh were written in scrolls, or parchments.

 

[guanophore]

You are doing far more than that. You must assume a number of things without proof. One is that she can hear you and millions of other catholics who pray to her on a daily basis. Two, that dead people can you. Three, even your church admits that it does not really know the nature of the after life i.e. can those who are dead hear and see what is going on in this world. All of these things that are said by your church is based on speculation and not fact.

Well, when you get down to it, our whole life as Christians is not based on “proofs” but faith. However, we make “assumptions” based on credible evidence, such as the testimony of the scripture, the Apostolic teaching, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Mary, just like any of us, can do nothing apart from Christ. If she hears our prayers, it is because Jesus enables her to do so. Now, for any Christian (Mary being the very first), “For you have died, and your life is hid with Christ in God. 4 When Christ who is our life appears, then you also will appear with him in glory.” Col 3:3-4

If we here on earth have died, and our lives are hiddden with Christ in God, how much more those who have gone before us marked with the sign of faith?

The saints are not dead to God. Jesus teaches us that they are alive unto Him: Mark 12:26-27
26 And as for the dead being raised, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the bush, how God said to him, ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? 27 He is not God of the dead, but of the living; you are quite wrong."

The teachings of the Church are not based on "speculation"but on the teachings that come to us from the Apostles. Within that deposit of Holy Faith is the teaching that Mary was assumed into heaven, and now is with her Divine Son, as we all hope to be some day.

Have you looked at the evidence for the claims of Mary. Take the claim of her assumption. There is no mention of it in the NT nor are there any eyewitness accounts in history.

Blessed are those who have not seen, yet believe!

I have and her name is not mentioned. Look at 12:1. Mary is never described this way in the Gospels for example.

Do you mean, as Queen of Heaven?
justasking4;2324861:

How do you know this is Mary and not some other being?

This if a very good question, and one that the church takes very seriously. there is a long, complex process of investigation into any claims of apparitions, of Mary or anyone else. We know about these because the church has authenticted them. One can also know them by their fruits. Mary always points us to Christ.

 

[guanophore]

That’s not the issue. The issue is proof. Your church makes claims about this that cannot be proven. This is pure speculation and not a foundation to build a doctrine on.

Indeed! Let’s see, what are some of those claims?. There is One God in three persons. God Created the heavens and the earth. That Jesus is the only begotten Son of the Father, but who has existed with the Father, one in being, and through Him all things were created. That Jesus was made flesh by the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit in the Virgin Mary, and became man. He died for our sins. He rose from the dead. He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe that the Holy Spirit inspired men to write the Holy Scriptures, and gathered them together into what is our bible today.

You can’t “prove” any of these things, but this is our faith. It is not based on assumptions or speculations, but the revelation of God.

It does not have seemed to be very clear to Peter, James, John and Paul for they were totally silent about it in scripture.

Paul received his revelation and teaching directly from the Risen Lord Jesus and records zero about praying to Mary or departed saints. Paul does repeat himself on doctrine he considers important, so we must conclcude that Mariology and prayers to saints were totally unknown to them. History shows that Mariology and prayers to saints were non existent for hundreds of years.

All the Apostles understood and experienced the communion of saints. Their writings were made when Mary was still here with them. She had already fulfilled the earthly ministry she had been given. She remained with the early church, praying with them, serving them, and witnessing to the Lord until her death. After her death, John writes about seeing her image in his heavenly vision. Her ministry now that she is in heaven is the same, to bring her Son to the world, but it has a different form.

 

[guanophore]

They are dead to us. Their bodies died. As for being in heaven you have no way of knowing that. No one can know with certainty the destination of those that have died. If i’m not mistaken your church claims as much.

Well, speak for yourself! If you want to account them dead unto yourself, that is your affair. We know better. Yes, the Church teaches that it is up to God who is in heaven or hell, but that God has revealed that certain people have been received into heaven. Ezekiel, for example, and Enoch. Also, if Moses and Elijah were dead, how did they appear to Christ on the mountain? Or do you think they were demons too?

Not if you are referring to Revelations 5:8. For one, the context of the chapter is not about us. 2ndly, it speaks of “elders” having “golden bowls which are the prayers of the saints”. This does not mean these saints prayed to the elders.

What makes you think not? How is it they “have” the prayers?
Scripture commands us to call for the elders, and ask for prayer. Why should it matter whether they are on this side, or the other?
justasking4;2324992:

( Doesn’t Revelation show that those in heaven offer up our prayers before the heavenly altar? )

Do you have some Scripture to support this? I’m not aware of what the “conditions” of heaven are like.

I am not sure what “this” is referring to, but we do know some things about heaven by the revelation of God. Our understanding is limited. For example, Jesus taught that there is a great chasm fixed, so that the damned cannot cross to where the saved are. He also taught that the angels of the little children always behold the face of His father in heaven (what we call the beatific vision). The example given above shows us that prayers are recieved, and that the saints are alive in heaven, praying for those who are left here on earth.

( Heaven was there before time, so it certainly is not bound by the constraints of time. )

Do you have some Scripture to support this? I’m not aware of what the “conditions” of heaven are like.

This is really a question for another thread.

Again this is speculation. Scripture never teaches or exhorts anyone to pray to Mary or anyone besides God.

The biggest part of your problem, justasking, is that you are separating the scripture from the Holy Tradition from which it was produced. When you do this, you lose part of the Divine Deposit of Faith.

The gospels were written to bring people to faith in Christ. Mary was alive and evangelizing people herself at the time. She lived with the Apostle John in Ephesus. The pastoral letters were written to give guidance to the fledgling communities. Mary lived in one of these communities,and at that time, people could go directly to her to ask for prayers. This is not speculation, this is what is handed down to us in the Apostolic Tradition.

Trying to say this also includes those who have died, i would not. Scripture does not make this claim nor should we.

When you are separated from the Apostolic teaching, you will be unable to claim a number of truths about Christianity.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Allow me to pick this apart okay?

Originally Posted by justasking4 forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
*You are doing far more than that. You must assume a number of things without proof. One is that she can hear you and millions of other catholics who pray to her on a daily basis. *

*You are selling God short. God could easily endow any one in heaven with this ability. Yes? *
*

Two, that dead people can you.

** Dead? Those in heaven are much more alive in then you and I. If being in Heaven means that you are dead, then Jesus is dead as well. For that matter God is Dead. Either they (God, Jesus, Angels, and Us that have made it to heaven ) are dead or they are alive. There is no middle ground here.***

Three, even your church admits that it does not really know the nature of the after life

True*

*i.e. can those who are dead hear and see what is going on in this world. *

False
*

All of these things that are said by your church is based on speculation and not fact.

The belief in the incarnation is speculation. The belief in the Trinity is based on speculation. Using your mentality…*

*You also believe in this little bit of doctrine that cannot be proven at all from scripture : GENERAL REVELATION died with the last apostle. *

Parables? Some so-called parables don’t even claim to be parables. So is the belief that so-called parables are parables indeed based on fact or speculation? The only way that you would know that a set of verses is a parable is strictly by the INSERTED paragraph heading (which btw is a tradition of men) which delineates it as such.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Originally Posted by justasking4 forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
They are dead to us. Their bodies died. As for being in heaven you have no way of knowing that. No one can know with certainty the destination of those that have died. If i’m not mistaken your church claims as much.

You shall know a tree by it’s fruit. The one’s that we know and believe to be in heaven within reason are apparent by their fruit…PERIOD

Do you believe that one dies defending their faith in God might actually end up in Hell?

 

[NotWorthy]

Justasking4, Look at your post 110.

The following is all I get when I hit “quote”. As you can see, everything that you’ve typed in my quote box, does not contineu.

That’s what I’m talking about.

I thought i was. i put people’s comments in quotes and mine below in color. If this is not correct can you explain how to do as you suggest?

 

[NotWorthy]

Justasking,

Either let’s start a new thread on Mary’s Sinlessnes or Mary’s Assumption or you can search the numerous threads on these topics. I’m open to either option, but it would be a detriment to this thread to continue.