How does NOT accepting any of the Marian dogmas affect my relationship with my Savior, Jesus Christ?

[Dauphin]

Dauphin - so what you’re saying is - becuase I don’t believe the Marian dogmas, I’m a heretic and totaly cut off from God, and have no chance at salvation as long as I hold this belief?

To reject the Church is to reject Christ:
*
“He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me.”* - Luke 10:16

*“And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican. Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.” *- Matthew 18:17-18

This is exactly what I expect as the official response. No proof other than “the Church says so”. Sorry. I cannot blindly accept teachings that clearly contradict the written Word of God. Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut!

I can assure you that no doctrine of the Church can contradict Sacred Scripture. However, Sacred Scripture is only the written component of the Church’s tradition. Her teaching is also transmitted through Oral Tradition (for example, the Biblical Canon), and is confirmed by the definitive teaching of the Magisterium.

It is absurd to say that the Bible contains all revelation, since the Bible itself explicitly contradicts this. There is no inspired table of contents in the Bible - the Canon of scripture can only be known through the Sacred Oral Tradition.

 

[Cachonga]

jmcrae – you mean like to Protevangelium of James (from which the Church gets the notion of Mary’s perpetual virginity)? (BTW – this work was condemned as heretical by (I believe) Pope Gelasius I.) If it cannot be proven with scripture, how can I know it’s true? If it’s origin is from a heretical source, or even if it depends on a heretical source, how can it be trusted? Sorry, but I can’t just close off my thinking process and blindly accept what the Church says (I don’t believe that’s what God asks us to do)!

Dauphin – you say “no doctrine of the Church can contradict Sacred Scripture”, yet no one has been able to prove to me, through Scripture, ANY of the Marian dogmas! Please, let’s not go back over the “Mother of God” dogma, as I have explained that already (more than once). Show me, with Scared Scripture, that Mary was Immaculately Conceived, or even Bodily Assumed. If you can’t, then your claim (“no doctrine of the Church can contradict Sacred Scripture”) is disproven. I never claimed the Bible contained all revelation. It doesn’t have to. It does contain sufficient knowledge. Let’s start simple - what is your scriptural evidence for the Immaculate Conception?

 

[jmcrae]

jmcrae – you mean like to Protevangelium of James (from which the Church gets the notion of Mary’s perpetual virginity)? (BTW – this work was condemned as heretical by (I believe) Pope Gelasius I.) If it cannot be proven with scripture, how can I know it’s true? If it’s origin is from a heretical source, or even if it depends on a heretical source, how can it be trusted? Sorry, but I can’t just close off my thinking process and blindly accept what the Church says (I don’t believe that’s what God asks us to do)!

No, I am certainly not asking you to read dubious or heretical documents. Again, look at the footnotes of the Catechism. I don’t think there are any references to the Protoevangelium of James in there. I am talking about the documents of the Church that were written by Bishops and priests such as St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Justin Martyr, St. Polycarp, St. Athanasius, the Council of Nicea, the Council of Carthage, and so on.

Dauphin – you say “no doctrine of the Church can contradict Sacred Scripture”, yet no one has been able to prove to me, through Scripture, ANY of the Marian dogmas! Please, let’s not go back over the “Mother of God” dogma, as I have explained that already (more than once). Show me, with Scared Scripture, that Mary was Immaculately Conceived, or even Bodily Assumed.

Luke 1:28; Revelation 12:1.

 

[Cachonga]

jmcrae – so you’re saying that I should look at what fallible men had to say rather than looking at the Scriptures? How do I know that they haven’t been corrupted by some of these questionable documents? This is why I am looking for scriptural proof. How does the Angelic greeting (“Hail, full of grace”) indicate Mary’s Immaculate Conception? This is a greeting, and NONE of the words in it have anything to do with sin. Rev 12:1 is Mary? What Pope or Ecumenical Council has “infallibly” defined this to be the true? What did the early Church think of this? St. Victorinus (wrote from about 270 until his martyrdom around 303) wrote a commentary on the Apocalypse of John (Revelation). Here’s what he said about it (found in Volume 7 of the Anti-Nicean Fathers) - ‘Rev 12:1 - “And there was seen a great sign in heaven. A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. And being with child, she cried out in travailing, and bearing torments that she might bring forth.”] The woman clothed with the sun, and having the moon under her feet, and wearing a crown of twelve stars upon her head, and travailing in her pains, is the ancient Church of fathers, and prophets, and saints, and apostles, which had the groans and torments of its longing until it saw that Christ, the fruit of its people according to the flesh long promised to it, had taken flesh out of the selfsame people. Moreover, being clothed with the sun intimates the hope of resurrection and the glory of the promise. And the moon intimates the fall of the bodies of the saints under the obligation of death, which never can fail. For even as life is diminished, so also it is increased. Nor is the hope of those that sleep extinguished absolutely, as some think, but they have in their darkness a light such as the moon. And the crown of twelve stars signifies the choir of fathers, according to the fleshly birth, of whom Christ was to take flesh.’ Seems odd that this 3rd century Church Father, who should have known about Mary’s Assumption (she had left this earth by then, right?) didn’t see the woman in Rev 12:1 as Mary. In light of this, how can the Immaculate Conception be consider a “constant teaching of the Church for 2000 years”? (I might the same question in light of the fact that it didn’t become dogma until the middle of the 19th century).

 

[jmcrae]

jmcrae – so you’re saying that I should look at what fallible men had to say rather than looking at the Scriptures?

Who do you think wrote the Scriptures?

How do I know that they haven’t been corrupted by some of these questionable documents? This is why I am looking for scriptural proof. How does the Angelic greeting (“Hail, full of grace”) indicate Mary’s Immaculate Conception?

“Full of Grace” means “entirely without sin.” Grace is the opposite of sin.

Rev 12:1 is Mary?

Yes - Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant.

What Pope or Ecumenical Council has “infallibly” defined this to be the true? What did the early Church think of this?

The Early Church called Mary the “New Eve” - being born without sin, her “Yes” to the Angel untied the knot that Eve’s “Yes” to the Devil had tied. Her Assumption is connected to the Assumption of Elijah, and also to that of Enoch - being without sin, Mary did not experience the punishments of death (that is, bodily corruption).

St. Victorinus (wrote from about 270 until his martyrdom around 303) wrote a commentary on the Apocalypse of John (Revelation). Here’s what he said about it (found in Volume 7 of the Anti-Nicean Fathers) - ‘Rev 12:1 - “And there was seen a great sign in heaven. A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. And being with child, she cried out in travailing, and bearing torments that she might bring forth.”] The woman clothed with the sun, and having the moon under her feet, and wearing a crown of twelve stars upon her head, and travailing in her pains, is the ancient Church of fathers, and prophets, and saints, and apostles, which had the groans and torments of its longing until it saw that Christ, the fruit of its people according to the flesh long promised to it, had taken flesh out of the selfsame people. Moreover, being clothed with the sun intimates the hope of resurrection and the glory of the promise. And the moon intimates the fall of the bodies of the saints under the obligation of death, which never can fail. For even as life is diminished, so also it is increased. Nor is the hope of those that sleep extinguished absolutely, as some think, but they have in their darkness a light such as the moon. And the crown of twelve stars signifies the choir of fathers, according to the fleshly birth, of whom Christ was to take flesh.’ Seems odd that this 3rd century Church Father, who should have known about Mary’s Assumption (she had left this earth by then, right?) didn’t see the woman in Rev 12:1 as Mary. In light of this, how can the Immaculate Conception be consider a “constant teaching of the Church for 2000 years”? (I might the same question in light of the fact that it didn’t become dogma until the middle of the 19th century).

It is all of these things, too - Scripture has many layers of meaning; not just one. If you are reading the Sermons of the Early Fathers, check the ones that are connected with the Marian feast days. (I don’t have my copy handy, or else I would give you the page numbers.)

 

[Cachonga]

jmcrae – fallible men INSPIRED by the Holy Spirit. What lexicon, dictionary or concordance are you looking at? Grace doesn’t have anything to do with being sinless. But even if it did (which I find absolutely NO evidence it does!) even if Mary HAD to be sinless to be the mother of Jesus, how does this prove she was immaculately conceived and not just cleansed right when the angel greeted her? Lets see how that might work out in other passages: Eph 2:8 says, “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:” Does that mean that because we are sinless we are saved through faith? Acts 4:33 (“And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.”), does this mean that all the believers were sinless? Acts 18:27 (“And when he was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him: who, when he was come, helped them much which had believed through grace:”), seems there were a lot of sinless people in the early church. Or, perhaps, grace DOESN’T mean “sinless”! You’ve made the claim that this is what this phrase means – back up that claim! There were a lot of Early Fathers who considered Jesus to be the Ark of the Covenant (which I agree with). I would compare Mary to the Gershonites, who carried the Ark from place to place. New Eve, again, is a title given by fallible men who were not inspired to make this claim. You still haven’t addressed the question of St Victorinus commentary and how it DOESN’T mention Mary as the woman of Rev 12:1

 

[Axion]

I understand that Mother of God was a title given to Mary to point out that Jesus was fully God and fully man (as I mentioned before). It was never intended to elevate Mary above what God created her to be.

And of course YOU know exactly what God created her to be??

As far as the other dogmas, could you please tell me what Christological truth the Immaculate Conception points to, and what pointed to it before it became dogma in the middle of the 19th century? I would ask the same for the Assumption, which was made dogma in the middle of the 20th century.

The Immaculate Conception shows Jesus was truly human, born of Mary’s flesh, and truly God, since He required His mother to pass to Him a sinless human nature. Both the sinlessness of Mary and the Assumption are long-held ancient doctrines.

I give evidence for my belief from scripture and even a Rabbi (who KNOWS the Mosaic Law and how it was applied 2000 years ago), and I’m being accused of “flight of fancy”?

How does a modern Rabbi KNOW how the Mosaic law was applied 2000 years ago? If I told you a modern Catholic priest KNOWS what the Apostles taught 2000 years ago, you would deny that at once. But someone who denies Christ - their word you take without question. Hmmm.

Why didn’t God tell us what Mary’s sin was? Gee, I don’t know. Why didn’t God tell us what John’s sin was? Or Bartholomew? Or anyone else? Maybe it’s not important what the specific sin was.

It is YOUR argument that some obscure verse in Leviticus was put into the bible to tell “us” (you?) that Mary was apparently a sinner. However if God really wished to tell us this, He would have done it a lot better - and in the NT. Why not tell us what Bartholomew’s sin was? Because the sinlessness of Bartholomew was not a major church teaching.

There are other ways to defend against the Arian Heresy and defend the Trinity without calling Mary the Mother of God.

Maybe. But DENYING Mary the title is very different. If you say Mary is NOT Mother of God, then that specifically denies that Jesus is fully God. It’s as simple as that.

You still have not offered any solid proof that the scriptures referring to the brothers and sisters of Jesus doesn’t actually mean brothers and sisters. I would suggest that, looking at the context, it is obvious that they were, even IF they were using Hebrew/Aramaic idioms.

Hardly. While James and Joses are mentioned as Jesus’s brothers in Matthew 13:55, it is made clear in Mathew 27:56 and Mark 15:40 that their mother was another Mary. Matthew 27.55 There were also many women there, looking on from afar, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him; 56 among whom were Mary Mag’dalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zeb’edee.
This other Mary is identified in John 19:25, where a literal translation of the original Greek states. “But by the cross of Jesus the Mother of Him AND the sister of the Mother of Him, Mary the wife of Cleopas AND Mary the Magdalene.”
The precise positioning of the ANDs in the Greek makes it clear that there were three women called Mary here, and that Mary the wife of Cleophas (called the Virgin Mary’s sister) is the same as the mother of Joses and James.

In regard to the “Spouse of the Holy Spirit”, let’s think this through – if Mary is the spouse of the Holy Spirit, wouldn’t that make the Holy Spirit the Father of Jesus? If she is the spouse of the Holy Spirit, how can she be part of the Bride of Christ (or even a member of the Body of Christ)?

As I said: On that reasoning: how can Christians (Part of the Body of Christ) also be the Bride of Christ?

The Bible DOESN’T tell us Joseph and Mary were married? You can use a concordance, but you can’t read a Bible. I suggest you read Matt 1:18-25. You will notice in verse 20 the angel told Joseph to “fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife:”, and in verse 24 we see that Joseph “did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:”

Except that the word that most English versions translate as “wife” is the Greek word Gune (Strong’s 1135) It actually means, a woman of any age, whether a virgin, or married, or a widow , a wife, a betrothed woman. eg.Mt 9:20. But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman (gune) to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. Mt 9:22. And the woman was made whole at that hour. etc. etc.
In other words, its use is no proof at all of full Jewish marriage.

 

[jmcrae]

jmcrae – fallible men INSPIRED by the Holy Spirit.

Adn then the Holy Spirit left them entirely, when they were writing other things? Or what?

What lexicon, dictionary or concordance are you looking at? Grace doesn’t have anything to do with being sinless. But even if it did (which I find absolutely NO evidence it does!) even if Mary HAD to be sinless to be the mother of Jesus, how does this prove she was immaculately conceived and not just cleansed right when the angel greeted her?

Because of the grammatical formation used in that passage - the Angel actually names her “Full of Grace” - it is a component of her very identity and personhood. It is not something that she is only just now acquiring. (Unlike other namings in the Bible, the Angel is not saying, “You shall be called, Full of Grace,” but rather, “Hail, Full of Grace,” indicating that she was so, even before he arrived.)

Lets see how that might work out in other passages: Eph 2:8 says, “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:” Does that mean that because we are sinless we are saved through faith?

Yes, grace (to be without sin) is a gift from God. We can’t achieve the state of sinlessness on our own or under our own power. Not even Mary did that - her status as Immaculate Conception is a gift to her from God; not her own doing.

Acts 4:33 (“And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.”), does this mean that all the believers were sinless?

At that moment, they were, yes, because their sins had been washed away in Christ’s blood (and hopefully they had not committed any new sins, yet).

Acts 18:27 (“And when he was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him: who, when he was come, helped them much which had believed through grace:”), seems there were a lot of sinless people in the early church.

That was, in fact, the whole point of Jesus dying on the Cross for their sins, yes - to take away their sins and make them to be without sin. Just as He continues to do, even today, through the Sacraments of His Church.

You still haven’t addressed the question of St Victorinus commentary and how it DOESN’T mention Mary as the woman of Rev 12:1

It is only one of many sermons. Read the rest of them, too. I have never yet read or heard a single sermon that covered every single aspect of the topic in question. The preacher focuses on particular aspects, one at a time. To get the whole thing, you have to read or hear the entire series of sermons; not just one in isolation.

 

[JJ59]

Hi, Cachonga!

You asked where Mary’s Immaculate Conception is found in the Bible. It is, but implicitly. Let’s take a look:

At the heart of the Catholic veneration of Mary is how she is related to the Ark of the Covenant in the OT. The relation makes sense in any case: The Ark of the Covenant held the Old Law (Ten Commandments), Mary held the New Law, the Word of God, Jesus. A direct comparison is made in the Bible. We’ll compare Mary’s visit with Elizabeth (Luke 1:39-56) to 2 Samuel 6.

King David leaps before the Ark (2 Sam 6:16), John the Baptist leaps before Mary (Lk 1:41)

David says, “How can the ark of the LORD ever come to me?” (2 Sam 5:9) Elizabeth says, “And how has it happened to me, that the mother of my Lord would come to me?” (Luke 1:43)

The Ark remains in a house for 3 months (2 Sam 6:11), and Mary remains in a house for 3 months (Luke 1:56)

There’s a few more, but as you can see, Luke the Evangelist makes direct parallels between the two. The Ark was also created with pure gold, extremely carefully made. (Exodus 25) This was done because only a pure and holy Ark such as that could hold God’s Sacred Word. The very same is true with the Ark of the New Covenant, Mary, who was saved by God’s Grace in advance so she could bear Jesus.

Like I said, it’s implicit. We don’t blindly accept the teachings of the Church, you know. I researched the Traditions very carefully before I made a decision for Catholicism. The Church Fathers, the Bible, etc.

To answer your initial question: Yes, not accepting Marian dogmas affects our relationship with Christ because it affects our relationship with His Church. Not accepting any of the dogmas goes against the infallibilty that has been granted by God to His Church.

I hope this helps!

God Bless.

 

[Dauphin]

Dauphin – you say “no doctrine of the Church can contradict Sacred Scripture”, yet no one has been able to prove to me, through Scripture, ANY of the Marian dogmas! Please, let’s not go back over the “Mother of God” dogma, as I have explained that already (more than once). Show me, with Scared Scripture, that Mary was Immaculately Conceived, or even Bodily Assumed. If you can’t, then your claim (“no doctrine of the Church can contradict Sacred Scripture”) is disproven. I never claimed the Bible contained all revelation. It doesn’t have to. It does contain sufficient knowledge. Let’s start simple - what is your scriptural evidence for the Immaculate Conception?

Are you being serious? I’ve told you why sola scriptura is wrong, and why revelation is contained also in the Sacred Tradition. There’s absolutely no reason for me to demonstrate any of the Marian dogmas from scripture alone, since scripture isn’t the only source of Divine Revelation.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Are you being serious? I’ve told you why sola scriptura is wrong, and why revelation is contained also in the Sacred Tradition. There’s absolutely no reason for me to demonstrate any of the Marian dogmas from scripture alone, since scripture isn’t the only source of Divine Revelation.

Very good Dauphin! Further, just because a Church Doctrine is not found explicitly in Scripture (such as the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity) it does not mean that it therefore contradicts Scripture as Cachonga seems to think. It just means that it is contained covertly in Scripture and not explicitly. For a good analysis see Newman’s Tract 85 entitled: Holy Scripture in its relation to the Catholic Creed

This shuts down any sola scriptura arguments!

 

[Cachonga]

All – sorry for the delay in responding. Things at work have been getting a bit hectic.

Axion – I never claimed to be infallible. I am saying that there is nothing in scripture that supports the Marian dogmas. Sinlessness and assumption are long-held ancient doctrines? Then why did it take over 1800 years for them to become dogma? And, if her Immaculate Conception shows that Jesus was truly human, then how is that different from the “Mother of God” dogma? And are serious about Jesus getting His sinless nature from Mary?! Why would a Jewish Rabbi know about the Mosaic Law? Think about that for a while and see what kind of answer you come up with. As far as a priest knowing what the Apostles taught 2000 years ago, what does Apostolic teaching have to do with the way the Mosaic Law was carried out (and that, long before Jesus even STARTED His public ministry)? I think scripture is very clear on this – Mary made a sin offering, which was REQUIRED by the Law (and her sacrifice is confirmed for us in Luke’s gospel). There is no clear scripture that would even suggest Mary was sinless (“Full of Grace” does NOT mean “Sinless”! Unless you have a lexicon, concordance, dictionary or thesaurus that would indicate that Grace and Sinless are equal, I would suggest you not use this argument). Why is denying Mary a title that is not supported by Scripture equal to denying the deity of Jesus Christ? So, your interpretation of the original Greek of John 19:25 is “But by the cross of Jesus the Mother of Him AND the sister of the Mother of Him, Mary the wife of Cleopas AND Mary the Magdalene." Are you telling me that Mary (the mother of the Son of God) had a sister named Mary (the other Mary)? I guess that would make Mary’s parents related to George Foreman. I am still convinced the context shows that Mary (the mother of the Son of God) had 4 sons and at least 2 daughters (besides Jesus). I would also point out that the Body of Christ and the Bride of Christ both belong to Christ. Since the Bible makes it clear that husband and wife become one flesh, it is not inconsistent to consider them both equal. So you’re saying “gune” CAN’T mean wife? Seems odd, especially when the Douay Rheims translates it as “wife”. You are asserting that it cannot mean wife, prove it!

jmcrae – so are you saying that EVERYTHING written by the Apostles should be God-inspired scripture? Now you’re saying that Mary was actually NAMED “Full of Grace”? Then explain why it is NEVER used of her again in Scripture? Or, better yet, why weren’t her parents told what to name her (as was the case with John the Baptist and Jesus)? You’re making some strong assertions, but where is your evidence? As I mentioned above, please show me any lexicon, concordance, dictionary or thesaurus that equates Grace with Sinless. Do you have insurance or utility payments? These usually have a grace period. Does this mean that they are giving you a period of sinlessness? As far as the commentary on Rev 12:1, I would suggest that it proves this was NOT a “universal” teaching, and is certainly not 2000 years old. I showed you a clear reference that disputes your Rev 12:1 claim. What evidence do you offer? Rather than suggesting I look up the references, why don’t you give something specific?

jj59 – you’ve given a very acceptable, completely Catholic answer (I’m sure the CA Apologists would be proud). Sadly, it doesn’t work. Mary as the Ark of the Covenant? What “New Law” did Mary carry after Jesus was born? Some early church fathers made this claim, but there were more who claimed that Jesus was the New Ark of the Covenant (some held both opinions). Just some thoughts – you said, “David says, “How can the ark of the LORD ever come to me?” (2 Sam 5:9) Elizabeth says, “And how has it happened to me, that the mother of my Lord would come to me?” (Luke 1:43)” David made his comment after God struck Uzzah dead (BTW – it’s in 2 Sam 6:9). What was Elizabeth afraid of? Or maybe the context isn’t the same (the words aren’t, why should the context be considered the same?). I have heard these arguments before, but I do not find it compelling enough to trust my immortal soul to some allegedly infallible authority. I would suggest that these parallels would also work if we accept Jesus as the New Ark of the Covenant (His human flesh is the Ark, while Mary acts in the place of the Gershonites (they CARRIED the Ark from place to place). Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

Dauphin – can you give me a single word spoken by Jesus or any of the Apostles that we do NOT have recorded in scripture? If so, when was it “infallibly” defined and by who? If not, then how can I trust your “sacred tradition”?

AmbroseSJ – I would point out that the doctrine of the Trinity is VERY CLEARLY found in Scripture.

 

[mark_a]

I want to know – as a Christian, how does NOT accepting any of the Marian dogmas affect my relationship with my Savior, Jesus Christ?

Not at all. If Jesus’ mother is not part of your relationship with your savior, how could she possibly affect it?

Its not like she can twist your arm into visiting a Catholic forum, you know.

Why should you believe the very Church that teaches that Jesus bones are not here when she says that Mary’s bones are not here?

 

[EphelDuath]

Ever virgin – first of all, the Church asserts that Mary remained virgin (that includes remaining physically intact) before, during and after the birth of Jesus. This comes from Gnostic works, such as the Protevangelium of James (according to this work, Jesus basically “beamed out” of Mary).

Is not. The citation of the Protevangelium just shows that this was a belief in those days, and not invented later. The perpetual virginity can be found in the Bible. See: Ezekiel 44:2.

Once the child was born, wouldn’t you and your wife resume normal marital relations?

This assumes that Mary and Joseph were an average couple, and Jesus was an average kid. The argument that they should be the norm is ridiculous.

Immaculate Conception – I have looked in several Bible versions and checked many lexicons in the original Greek, and nowhere do I find “Full of grace” being equal to “preserved from sin from the moment of conception”.

The word used for “full of grace” has a universal tense. In a more simplistic way, if she is “full” of grace, there is no room for sin.

The argument that Mary was worthy falls flat upon examination.

God can bring two sinners into heaven without death, but he refused to bring the sinless mother of Christ?

 

[EphelDuath]

Dauphin – can you give me a single word spoken by Jesus or any of the Apostles that we do NOT have recorded in scripture? If so, when was it “infallibly” defined and by who? If not, then how can I trust your “sacred tradition”?

The reason you know of Christ is because of the Catholic Church. Scripture was created several years after the fact, and canonized 300 years after the death of Christ – by who? People who were ordained through apostolic succession.

The fact is, if you accept the Bible, then you already partially accepted the Catholic Church. Unless you are of the opinion that God parted the clouds and scripture was dropped from the sky at the feet of the early Christians.

Moreover, the Bible does not support sola scriptura. The Bible says to follow the traditions of Christ, such as the order of Mass, and to follow the holy Church. This is logically consistent with the fact that Jesus ordained the apostles, as opposed to writing a pamphlet and handing it out to the citizens of Judea.

 

[BSHoop96]

I can’t believe you all are still talking to this guy! His question was rhetorical and there is no answer you can give him to satisfy or convince him! He wants to convince you. And I don’t buy the “I was a Catholic once” either. Gosh, you guys are patient.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

AmbroseSJ – I would point out that the doctrine of the Trinity is VERY CLEARLY found in Scripture.

Ah, you take much for granted. The Doctrine of the Trinity, as stated in our Nicene Creed is most assuredly not found explicitly in Scripture. Where for instance is the Son’s substance described as “one in being with father” or that the Holy Spirit “Proceeds from the Father and the Son” They can be inferred from Scripture allusions to be sure, but they are not expressed directly, like so much doctrine one takes for granted. There is nowhere to be found in Scripture the word Trinity, nor Triune God, nor Three persons in One God. All of that is Church Doctrine, which is not explicitly contradicted by Scripture, but then again not positively stated either. There is the simple statement by Jesus to Baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and that is really the most explicit statement one can find. Even that statement, hardly constitutes the doctrine of the Trinity, nor can one justly read into that one statement the whole doctrine of the Trinity. No, only Church Tradition could have made that doctrine possible.

 

[Cachonga]

mark a – Is this the “official” Catholic position?

EphelDuath – I would suggest reading more than just this verse (Ezekiel 44:2). Verse 3 reads, “It is for the prince; the prince, he shall sit in it to eat bread before the LORD; he shall enter by the way of the porch of that gate, and shall go out by the way of the same.” So, does this mean that Jesus sits in Mary’s womb to eat bread before the Lord (Father)? I would refer you to bible-history.com/gentile_court/TEMPLECOURTThe_Eastern_Gate_and_Prophecy.htm. The argument that they should NOT be a “normal” couple is not supported by scripture. Even if “Full of Grace” has ANY connection with sinlessness (no one has yet shown a lexicon, concordance, dictionary or thesaurus that would indicate this), what makes it (sinlessness) valid from the moment of conception? Why couldn’t God have cleansed her completely right before the angel greeted? The Catholic Church is reading an awful lot into this verse, but there is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE that this is a correct interpretation (other than the so-called “infallible” pope, who spoke ex cathedra in the middle of the 19th century). In regard to the Assumption, I do not deny that it COULD have happened. I, personally, don’t believe it did. Up until the middle of the 20th century, any Catholic could have had this opinion and not been under an anathema. Also, God brought Enoch and Elijah into Heaven for a reason (I have already addressed this). I would add that, since God brought them into Heaven, they had been justified beforehand.

BSHoop96 – Thanks for dropping by. BTW – I WAS born and raised Roman Catholic (but feel free to doubt it).

AmbroseSJ – John 1:1 (“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. “), John 10:30 (“I and my Father are one.”), 1 John 5:7 (“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.”), just to name 3. Next, look at John 14:26 (“But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.”), Acts 10:38 (“How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.”), John 16:7 (“Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.”). You are correct that the word Trinity does not appear. However, MT 28:19 reads, “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:” Sounds Trinitarian to me. And let’s not forget the baptism of Jesus (Matt 3:16-17, Mark 1:10-11, and Luke 3:21-22) where we see the Father, Son and Holy Spirit together. The early church may not have used the term Trinity, but they sure lived it!

 

[maryrev12]

I’ve been involved in a thread that has gotten very large and not entirely on topic. I’ve noticed some diversity among the different responses (Catholic and non-Catholic alike). I thought I might start a new thread with a topic that could go just as wild, but I am truly interested in the responses that this will generate. I am a Bible-Believing, Born Again Christian. I was born and raised Roman Catholic, and, in fact, have received 6 of the 7 sacraments (never considered being a priest). However, I left the Catholic Church years ago (primarily because I found contradictions between the Bible and church teachings). I want to know – as a Christian, how does NOT accepting any of the Marian dogmas affect my relationship with my Savior, Jesus Christ? I look forward to your responses!

Hi there
If in your heart you seek the Lord with all your strength you will find him. If you are unable to understand Mary’s relationship with Jesus and the Church then you will eventually - when you face Him it will be revealed to you. The sad thing is- as many here have tried to explain to you- is that you are missing a large portion of truth so you will suffer for it… here on earth as you grapple with life and the gospel and there when you will see the fullness of truth. Your ignorance of truth does not damn you- if your heart is purely seeking Him. It is God whom you offend but he will forgive you your ignorance … if indeed your ignorance is sincere.

Ever Virgin is bad?
We live in a world today where virginity is mocked… Anytime today when people argue against Priests celibacy they often link it to the idea that sex is a release- that it is needed to remain healthy. That is a lie. Mary didn’t need it. Neither did her Son. Neither did Paul and he encouraged abstaining and remaining single and celibate.

Has lust invaded the body of Christ?
I realize that you believe she had other children but let me make this point- Birth control has led to a disorder among even God’s own who place there own desires above what God naturally intended. Generally speaking It helps some to disbelieve her virginity to justify that sex is a vehicle of pleasing each other and every normal human craves it because God wills it. We have put sex on a pedestal! Of course Mary had sex shes one of us!

Would Mary use birth control- of course she would!
NOT! Todays mindset says God’s original plan for sex was not children or the creation of life but their satisfaction sexually. Practicing sex for the sake of pleasure is embedded in the media and so has become part of the mindset of our generation- birth control allows the 2 to stay 2 separate flesh. I may not explain this as well as another here- but it doesn’t make it less true. To be sarcastic one might say " what was God thinking?? Not making a natural contraceptive built into our bodies so we could conceive whenever we want?" *As another here pointed out virginity is praised in scripture. *

Trust the Lord to lead you…
Scripture was written along time ago and in a language not familiar to our own in times that are far removed from ours. The fact that the Church Jesus set forth here was never commanded to put out a new testament but did so does not give the book authority over the authors. The book gets its authority from the authority of the Church which got its authority from Christ. When difficulty arises in translating it due to the extreme differences in culture and language - we lean on Jesus in His Church.(A great example is how we changed the sabbath to the Sunday- it certainly doesn’t tell us to do that in scripture- we trusted the church)

We are her offspring! He is our brother! See Revelations 12
take care:thumbsup:

 

[Randy_Carson]

As for praying to her, how loud do you have to pray for someone who is no longer living to hear you?

“Have you not read in the book of Moses, in the account of the bush, how God said to him, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are badly mistaken!” (Mark 12:26-27)