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

[Randy_Carson]

I don’t know if you legitimately do not understand the argument or if you’re being intentionally slanderous, but let me correct you on this. The Gospel of James is mentioned as proof that people did believe in some of these doctrines back in the day, and that they weren’t invented later; not that Catholics believe in these apocryphal texts.

mmmcounts has already been corrected on this matter repeatedly in another thread.

However, he consistently misrepresents the Catholic position, and in doing so, he bears false witness against his brothers in Christ.

This is a sin, and he knows that it is. Repentance should be forthcoming.

We’ll see.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Just one quick thing to add to the discussion:

Dead people, though they continue to exist, do not become omnipresent or omniscient once their bodies expire. They do not take on any deity-like qualities. No dead person- also excluding angels, demons, and whatever else you can think of- NOBODY but God Himself is able to:

A) Be all-seeing and all-knowing.

B) Be in more than one place at the same time.

C) Read minds.

This is correct and it is not the Catholic position that any creature is omnipresent or omniscient. Now you know the Catholic position.

Mary, Peter, and the rest of the saints are not exceptions. They can’t read your thoughts, and they can only hear the words coming out of your mouth if they happen to be occupying the same room that you are in.

Actually, since you have no way of knowing with certainty exactly what the experience of heaven is like, you cannot say with certainty that they cannot hear us. Heaven may not occupy space at all.

You don’t have any way of knowing if they are in the same room as you, but I doubt it- and I certainly wouldn’t recommend any steps you might take in an effort to summon them. I feel like seances are generally best avoided.

Thank you for this. Catholics, too, agree that the Bible expressly forbids conjuring up the dead. We also know that praying to living saints is a very different matter.

The OP has to do with Marian dogmas, so I’ll focus on that. Mary was not omniscient or omnipresent when she was alive, and now that she’s dead, she still isn’t. She was never able to read minds, and she still can’t. So stop behaving in a manner that attributes these kinds of deity-like abilities to her.

First, your description of Mary as “dead” is out of sync with Holy Writ. Speaking on this, Jesus said, “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)

I understand the feeling you get when you look at or feel up an icon. It’s probably about the same feeling you get when you visit someone’s gravestone. Because of the tangible reminder of the person, you get this feeling that the person is present with you and able to see/hear you and (if your imagination is especially fertile) understand your deepest thoughts. These are just feelings, though. Nothing more. I know they feel nice, but you need to understand the fact that you’re just psyching yourself up while Mary continues to be wholly unable to express any of these deity-specific abilities.

Well, who’s using straw man arguments now?

No Catholic would say that Mary is omniscient or omnipresent or ascribe these deity-specific abilities to her. If Mary and the saints are aware of our prayers it is because chooses to make them known to them. Since they are outside of space and time, they have “all the time in the world” to listen to them - even one at a time if need be - and since God is not bound by space and time (all time is present to God), Mary may listen to my petition a million years from now in earth time, but God hears it “now”.

Since this post is already a bit long on the character count, I’ll continue…

 

[Randy_Carson]

The Saints Can Hear Our Prayers Proved From Scripture

1. Jesus teaches from the Old Testament

“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)

In this teaching, Jesus tells us plainly that the Father is the God of the living.

2. Speaking with the “Dead” - Jesus teaches by parable
"There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores. "The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’ But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’ He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father’s house, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’ Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’ ‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’ He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”(Luke 16:19-31)

In this parable, Jesus has two of the “dead” characters in his story talking with one another, and one of the “dead” men intercedes on behalf of his living relatives.

3. Speaking with the “Dead” - Jesus teaches by personal example
“After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James and John the brother of James, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light. Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus.” (Matthew 17:1-3)

At the transfiguration, Jesus was talking with two “dead” people, Moses and Elijah. They’re actually alive, though.

4. Speaking to the dead – Peter teaches by example

“Peter sent them all out of the room; then he got down on his knees and prayed. Turning toward the dead woman, he said, “Tabitha, get up.” She opened her eyes, and seeing Peter she sat up. He took her by the hand and helped her to her feet. Then he called the believers and the widows and presented her to them alive.” (Acts 9:40-41)

5. Those in Heaven Hear Our Prayers - John teaches through prophetic revelation

“He came and took the scroll from the right hand of him who sat on the throne. And when he had taken it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.” (Revelation 5:7-8)

The 24 elders in heaven are men, and notice that they each have a golden bowl full of the prayers of the saints. That’s us since we’re all saints! So, how did they get hold of our prayers in order to offer them to God?

“Another angel, who had a golden censer, came and stood at the altar. He was given much incense to offer, with the prayers of all the saints, on the golden altar before the throne.” (Revelation 8:3)

Here, an angel also offers our prayers along with incense.

 

[TMC]

Now, consider the following argument:

1. To be saved it is necessary to be a Christian.
2. To be a Christian it is necessary to be a member of Christ’s Church.
3. To be a member of Christ’s Church it is necessary to be a member of the Catholic Church.
4. To be a member of the Catholic Church it is necessary to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
5. Therefore, it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

This is not what the Church teaches. Your argument follows along on its own logic, but fails by starting with some flawed assumptions that are contrary to the Church’s teaching.

*1) To be saved it is necessary to be a Christian. *

It is true that all salvation comes from Christ, Jesus said:

John 14:6 “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”

But it does not necessarily follow that Christ will only save those that profess to be Christians in this life. Just as a fireman can save every person in a building from a fire, without any of them knowing his name, so also can Christ rescue his sheep without them knowing in this life that He is their Saviour.

As the Catechism says:

**1260 ** “Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.” Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

*2) To be a Christian it is necessary to be a member of Christ’s Church. *

This is true, but it is no more than a truism. All members of Christ’s Church are Christians.

*3) To be a member of Christ’s Church it is necessary to be a member of the Catholic Church.
4) To be a member of the Catholic Church it is necessary to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
5) Therefore, it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. *

3 is put backwards. 4 and 5 are simply wrong. There is only one Church. All Christians, including Catholic Christians, are members of that Church. While the fullness of the means of salvation are only available through the Catholic Church, not all members of Christ’s Church are Catholics, and not all who call themselves Catholic admit to the authority of Rome. As the Church teaches:

814 From the beginning, this one Church has been marked by a great diversity which comes from both the variety of God’s gifts and the diversity of those who receive them. Within the unity of the People of God, a multiplicity of peoples and cultures is gathered together. Among the Church’s members, there are different gifts, offices, conditions, and ways of life. “Holding a rightful place in the communion of the Church there are also particular Churches that retain their own traditions.” The great richness of such diversity is not opposed to the Church’s unity. Yet sin and the burden of its consequences constantly threaten the gift of unity. And so the Apostle has to exhort Christians to “maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.”

And:

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

819 “Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth” are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: “the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.” Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.”

 

[AmbroseSJ]

1) To be saved it is necessary to be a Christian.
2) To be a Christian it is necessary to be a member of Christ’s Church.
3) To be a member of Christ’s Church it is necessary to be a member of the Catholic Church.
4) To be a member of the Catholic Church it is necessary to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
5) Therefore, it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

This is indeed what the Church teaches. However, there are certain conditions that apply. But they are teachings of the Catholic Church under those circumstances.

Too often Catholics, familiar with the new refinements and deepening understanding that came with Vatican II’s ecclesiology, are quick to condemn as wrong the old maxims. It’s not that they are incorrect, it’s that they are technically not in compliance with the currently used definitions for some old familiar words like Christ’s Church and Catholic Church. In a word, they are politically incorrect, but they are still true.

Now in this thread it would be a far worse matter for Catholics to show themselves as seemingly different in basic beliefs to Protestants, than to suffer some old terminology that is not categorically wrong, but would not generally be phrased in such a way in the Church today.

It would be well for those modern purists, who like to correct old-fashioned Catholics to betake themselves to the Church Fathers and argue with them as well!

 

[TMC]

This is indeed what the Church teaches. However, there are certain conditions that apply. But they are teachings of the Catholic Church under those circumstances.

Too often Catholics, familiar with the new refinements and deepening understanding that came with Vatican II’s ecclesiology, are quick to condemn as wrong the old maxims. It’s not that they are incorrect, it’s that they are technically not in compliance with the currently used definitions for some old familiar words like Christ’s Church and Catholic Church. In a word, they are politically incorrect, but they are still true.

Now in this thread it would be a far worse matter for Catholics to show themselves as seemingly different in basic beliefs to Protestants, than to suffer some old terminology that is not categorically wrong, but would not generally be phrased in such a way in the Church today.

It would be well for those modern purists, who like to correct old-fashioned Catholics to betake themselves to the Church Fathers and argue with them as well!

I can agree that it is unseemly for Catholics to disagree in public, but I also don’t think it wise to allow misstatements of the Church’s teaching on the salvation of non-Catholics to be misstated. I cannot agree that the list represents the teachings of the Catholic Church under any circumstances. I don’t need to argue with anyone about that – I have quoted the official teaching document of the Church, which defends itself quite nicely.

 

[dan1el]

Note in Luke 2 that Mary brought two turtledoves in place of the lamb of purification, and no sin offering.

lol - she brought one dove for the burnt offering and the other for the sin offering. (two doves)

 

[Randy_Carson]

I can agree that it is unseemly for Catholics to disagree in public, but I also don’t think it wise to allow misstatements of the Church’s teaching on the salvation of non-Catholics to be misstated. I cannot agree that the list represents the teachings of the Catholic Church under any circumstances. I don’t need to argue with anyone about that – I have quoted the official teaching document of the Church, which defends itself quite nicely.

I believe you have missed the point about the “normative necessites”.

I recommend you read the full article and then we can see what you think.

The Necessity of Being Catholic
by James Akin
chnetwork.org/journals/nesschurch/ness_7.htm

 

[Randy_Carson]

lol - she brought one dove for the burnt offering and the other for the sin offering. (two doves)

Since Jesus WAS God, why did he have to be circumcised in order to enter into a covenant with Himself?

Since He had never sinned, why did Jesus allow Himself to be baptized by John - a baptism of repentence?

Since Jesus was the son of God and “exempt”, why did He pay the Temple Tax?

Mary fulfilled the Law.

According to Leviticus 12:2-8, a mother was purified forty days after the birth of a son, and she was required to offer a lamb as a burnt offering and a young pigeon or turtledove as a sin offering. A poor woman could substitute another pigeon or turtledove for the lamb, thus offering two of them.

The purification had to do with ritual uncleanliness and didn’t imply a moral fault in childbirth. As Jesus would later, Mary fulfilled all the precepts of the Law, which, clearly, wasn’t written to make allowances for a sinless man (the Messiah) or his sinless mother.

 

[dan1el]

Since Jesus WAS God, why did he have to be circumcised in order to enter into a covenant with Himself?

Since He had never sinned, why did Jesus allow Himself to be baptized by John - a baptism of repentence?

Since Jesus was the son of God and “exempt”, why did He pay the Temple Tax?

Mary fulfilled the Law.

According to Leviticus 12:2-8, a mother was purified forty days after the birth of a son, and she was required to offer a lamb as a burnt offering and a young pigeon or turtledove as a sin offering. A poor woman could substitute another pigeon or turtledove for the lamb, thus offering two of them.

The purification had to do with ritual uncleanliness and didn’t imply a moral fault in childbirth. As Jesus would later, Mary fulfilled all the precepts of the Law, which, clearly, wasn’t written to make allowances for a sinless man (the Messiah) or his sinless mother.

Yes, even as Jesus was Baptized, although He had no need to repent of any sin; He did it only to be an example to us.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Yes, even as Jesus was Baptized, although He had no need to repent of any sin; He did it only to be an example to us.

Similarly, Mary had committed no moral fault or sin, but made the offering in accordance with the law.

Hope this helps.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

I believe you have missed the point about the “normative necessites”.

I recommend you read the full article and then we can see what you think.

The Necessity of Being Catholic
by James Akin
chnetwork.org/journals/nesschurch/ness_7.htm

Thanks for posting that Randy! The modern purists have gone overboard so far in the other direction, that there was a thread a while back started by a Catholic trying to prove, based on Lumen Gentium, that the Catholic Church is NOT the Church of Christ!

These Modern Purists don’t seem to remember that the latest documents do not overthrow and cancel all popes and councils that went before, but merely refines and deepens the understanding. The old doctrines are still unassailable! Thanks for making that point.

 

[Gamera]

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!

Effectively, you’re asking, “How does rejecting part of the Gospel of Christ affect my relationship with Christ?”

 

[Cachonga]

It was a style of greeting reserved to Caesar (who was thought by the Romans to be the son of Zeus on earth) and members of his royal household - hence, humble Mary, wondering what manner of greeting this might be - since as far as she knew up to that point, she was not a member of the household of any son of a god.

Compare “Hail, Caesar” and “Hail, Full of Grace” - “Hail” is the greeting to the royal family member, and is followed by the title that best describes that person’s public role - that is, a name that describes who that person is.

So “Hail, Full of Grace” is the same as “Hail, Caesar”? How often would Caesar be hailed in Greek? And are you telling me that ONLY the Imperial Family was greeted with “Hail”? What about when Judas used “Hail” when he betrayed Jesus (Matt 26:49)? I suggest you provide some evidence for your claims.

Who also obviously thought that Joseph was Jesus’ biological father. They were wrong about that, so obviously they were not as “in the loop” as perhaps they thought they were, or as you think they were.

They knew Jesus was the son of Mary, and Mary was married to Joseph. If you read on, you will also notice they were unbelievers, so naturally they would not understand (much less believe) that Jesus was the Son of God. They spoke what they thought to be true (and it has been faithfully recorded for us in the Scriptures).

I said that Mary is mother, and sister, spouse, and daughter, in her individual, separate relationships with each of the three Persons of the Trinity.

OK, so in relation to the Father, she (like ALL believers) is a daughter; in relation to the Son, she (like ALL believers) is a sister; in relation to the Holy Spirit, she (unlike ANY believer) is His spouse; and in relation to Jesus (the Son of God), she is His mother. So, if she is the spouse of the Holy Spirit, wouldn’t that make the Holy Spirit the father of Jesus? And if she is already “married” to God (by way of the Holy Spirit), wouldn’t it be adultery for her to be a member of the Bride of Christ?

In the Davidic household, the mother of the King is always the Queen. Jesus, who is the Son of David, is King of Heaven and Earth. As His mother, Mary, therefore, is Queen, under the Davidic system.

Right. Of course! I should have realized it when David bowed down to his mother and set up a throne for her. Oh, wait… that DIDN’T happen! But then again, since every King after David recognized their mother as Queen, then it should be obvious. Oh, wait … that didn’t happen either! I may be wrong, but I believe Solomon was the ONLY Davidic King to bow to his mother and set up a throne for her. (I seem to recall another Queen Mother, but she became queen after the King was killed and she killed (almost) all the Kings sons. Great role model!). You’re making a claim that doesn’t stand up to close scrutiny. Even when Solomon bowed to Bathsheba, he still had to have a throne brought in for her (apparently, this was an unusual situation). And did Solomon ever address her as “Queen”? I suggest you accept this line of reasoning based on the say-so of the Roman Catholic Church rather than on the evidence of Scripture and history.

The doctrine did not “change” - rather, it was finally understood.

So the doctrine was finally understood because the Pope said so? How did this “understanding” come about? Was it through a serious, in-depth study of Scriptures? If it wasn’t “understood” for more than 18 centuries AFTER the events (allegedly) took place, what was it that convinced the Pope in the middle of the 19th century to make the Immaculate Conception a dogma, and how can the Church claim this has been a “constant teaching of the Church for 2000 years”?

Is it true that the world has always been shaped like a ball, even when nobody on earth understood how it could be so?

So you think that, just because nobody “knew” the earth was a sphere, nobody could fully navigate it? Even though people may not have understood the round earth idea, that didn’t stop them from making charts and maps, as well as navigating it successfully to get where they wanted to go. They operated with an understanding that implied a round earth (ships fading the distance, see farther at the top of tall buildings, etc…). For example, we can see from Scripture that the early church operated and functioned with the belief in the Trinity, though they didn’t have a word for it. This is clear in scripture. However, there is no indication of any of the Marian dogmas in Scripture (nobody has yet proven that “Full of Grace” equals “Immaculate Conception” in any way, shape or form).​

Continued …

 

[Cachonga]

Could I please have some references to the Church Fathers who believed in Jesus as the Ark, instead of Mary?

Hippolytus in Fragments writes, “And an ark of imperishable wood was the Saviour Himself. For by this was signified the imperishable and incorruptible tabernacle (of His body), which engendered no corruption of sin.” Methodius in Concerning Simeon and Anna write, “The Lord has "manifestly come to His own."2 And sitting on a living and not inanimate ark, as upon the mercy-seat, He comes forth in solemn procession upon the earth. The publican, when he touches this ark, comes away just; the harlot, when she approaches this, is remoulded, as it were, and becomes chaste; the leper, when he touches this, is restored whole without pain.”

I’m curious-- Do you think the similarities are just coincidences? Luke was making it out that Mary was the Ark of the Covenant in an implicit way. Nothing in the Bible “proves” Marian dogmas, but they all point to it.

Coincidence? No. Inaccurate? Yes. If Mary was the “New Ark of the Covenant”, what happened to the “Ark” when Jesus was born? She no longer contains the Law, the Manna and the Staff; wouldn’t that change her name to Ichobod? (OK, I’m being a bit sarcastic here. Sorry!) The point is, she did NOT carry Jesus the way the Ark carried the items within it. I would liken her more to the Gershonites (it was their job to CARRY the Ark from place to place). Jesus, on the other hand, IS a perfect example of the Ark.

In the Book of Revelation (11:19 and on-- … probably part-Mary, part-Israel, part-Church)

Again, I have posted the earliest commentary I could find on Rev 12:1, and there is no mention of Mary. It’s possible that it could be partly Mary and partly Israel. It’s also possible that a lightning strike in the primordial soup created life on earth, or aliens from another planet built the pyramids. Again, I’m being a bit sarcastic, but the point here is that we shouldn’t rely on speculation, but upon solid evidence. What is your earliest evidence that this was considered to be Mary?

So, if He wanted Mary to be conceived without sin, no problem. After all, He made Adam and Eve the same way.

I would say that since the Scriptures do not clearly indicate that Mary was immaculately conceived, then it stands to reason that she wasn’t.

You are limited by your finite mind from knowing the needs of those in China. Those in heaven have glorified bodies.

As I pointed out in the parable of the Good Shepherd, it is the Shepherd that lets His friends know what has happened so they can rejoice with Him. In the story of Lazarus and rich man (not a parable – Jesus used a proper name), the rich man interceded for his brothers, but not because they prayed to him for his intercession. Plus there was no indication that Abraham, Lazarus, or anyone else in Paradise (or hell) knew what was going on here (much less “conversed” with anyone on earth).

So, it is your opinion that you will be asexual in heaven? Interesting, but not how God made you…

Again, I remind you of what Jesus says in Matt 22:30 - “For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.” Remember, this was in response to the Sadducees who denied the resurrection. Also, what is the purpose of sex? It is to fulfill God’s command to “go forth and multiply”. We don’t know exactly what our bodies will be like in Heaven, but we will not have a need to reproduce.

Actually, the Church has always understood the Woman to be Mary, the Church and Israel. Catholics are comfortable with “both-and” whereas Protestants seem to need “either-or” answers.

Again (as noted before), I have given my earliest evidence that this was not considered to be Mary. What is your earliest evidence that it was taught to be Mary?

Prior to these dates, they were theological speculations (I think), so you are correct; they would not have been required for Catholics to believe. However, once the Church defined them as dogma, they became required. Why is this a problem? The beliefs did not change; only the weight of certainty had changed.

God doesn’t change, so on what evidence did this change?

As for “full of grace” suggesting “without sin”, would you agree that a glass that is completely full of water cannot contain anything else? Similarly, a soul that is full of grace cannot contain sin; otherwise it would be full of grace and the sin. Mary was said to be “full of grace” alone.

I’m not a chemist, but I would say that statement is not correct. A glass full of water can contain other impurities. Since we seem to be going around in circles on this, let me ask you, what is your definition of grace?

So to answer the question, how does not accepting the dogma’s affect your relationship with Jesus Christ? Well first of all because you will not be in communion with Him as He intended. That is in the community, the commuion which he intended. The communion with Him, where we are all in communion withh one another including Mary through being in communion with Him, and can say with Him, OUR Father, instead of My Father. What that will mean for you I can not say. Only God alone knows that.

I am in communion with Jesus with my local church.​

Continued …

 

[Cachonga]

The Gospel of James is mentioned as proof that people did believe in some of these doctrines back in the day, and that they weren’t invented later; not that Catholics believe in these apocryphal texts.

But you are ignoring the “Why” of what they believed. The writer of the Protevangelium of James denied that Jesus had a physical body. Since (as the writer believes) Jesus had no physical body, there is no way he could have “damaged” (to be polite) Mary’s virginal integrity, or cause pain in the birth. To use this as proof of what people believed makes as much sense as looking at how the Japanese viewed Americans during WWII and creating a domestic policy to address it (BTW – I have yet to meet a Marine who actually eats his young).

Every Marian doctrine can be found in scripture, however.

I keep hearing this, but so far it hasn’t been proven.

The OP has to do with Marian dogmas, so I’ll focus on that. Mary was not omniscient or omnipresent when she was alive, and now that she’s dead, she still isn’t. She was never able to read minds, and she still can’t. So stop behaving in a manner that attributes these kinds of deity-like abilities to her.

Which Marian dogma are you addressing here?

It does.

This is getting off topic. Rather than address the authority of the Church, I will concede that, since I do not accept the authority of the Roman Catholic Church, then I am not “eligible” to partake of any of it’s alleged benefits.

No Catholic would say that Mary is omniscient or omnipresent or ascribe these deity-specific abilities to her.

Just a suggestion, go to marys-touch.com/Glories/ChVI.htm and do a search for the word “omnipotent”. You will find (among other entries) the following – “Since the Mother, then, should have the same power as the Son, rightly has Jesus, who is omnipotent, made Mary also omnipotent; though, of course, it is always true that where the Son is omnipotent by nature, the Mother is only so by grace.” (emphasis is mine). This is taken from the book, “The Glories of Mary”, written by St. Alphonsus de Liguori, a Doctor of the Church. I would also point out that this book has the Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur. While she isn’t granted omniscience or omnipresence, it is incorrect to say she has not been granted any “deity-specific abilities”. You can (from the same site), also check out prayers and find that St. Germanus of Constantinople and St Peter of Damian also mention Mary’s omnipotence.

If Mary and the saints are aware of our prayers it is because chooses to make them known to them.

I notice you started with “If”, and you acknowledge that it would be because God (I’m guessing that’s what got left out in the sentence) “chooses to make known to them”. Very good! As mentioned before, it is the Good Shepherd that calls his friends to rejoice with Him.

The Saints Can Hear Our Prayers Proved From Scripture

I have already addressed this, but in brief – (1) No question, God is the God of the Living; (2) Lazarus and the rich man is not a parable, but a true story (Jesus never uses a proper name in a parable). The rich man interceded for his brothers, not because he received any requests from them, but because he didn’t want them in hell. Also, while there was clear communication between hell and paradise (notice – they could SEE each other), there is no indication that they have any knowledge of what is transpiring on earth; (3) Moses and Elijah appeared with Jesus. This is hardly the same thing as kneeling before a statue of a saint, lighting candles, and repeating prayers (unless you want us to believe that the “saint” actually appears next to you when you do this); (4) Commanding a dead person to rise and having the command fulfilled is not the same thing as kneeling before a statue, lighting candles and saying prayers (unless you want us to believe you are commanding these saints to rise, and they are obeying you); (5) The offering of our prayers does not necessarily mean those saints (or angels) received the prayers DIRECTLY from us! If they DO (which, I believe is the Catholic claim), please tell me specifically which saints are among the 24 elders so I can know exactly who to pray to.

Since Jesus WAS God, why did he have to be circumcised in order to enter into a covenant with Himself?

Because Jesus came to FULFILL THE LAW (Matt 5:18).

Since He had never sinned, why did Jesus allow Himself to be baptized by John - a baptism of repentence?

John could not (and did not) baptize to forgive sin. This baptism had nothing to do with forgiveness of sin. It was to “turn the hearts of the fathers unto the children, and the incredulous to the wisdom of the just, to prepare unto the Lord a perfect people.” (Luke 1:17) Repent (Strong’s #3340) means “to reconsider”. Let’s not forget, this was when Jesus turned from His private life as a carpenter to His public ministry.

Since Jesus was the son of God and “exempt”, why did He pay the Temple Tax?

How is Jesus “exempt” from paying the Temple Tax?

Mary fulfilled the Law.

I agree. However, that required a sin offering (as I have pointed out already).

Mary fulfilled all the precepts of the Law, which, clearly, wasn’t written to make allowances for a sinless man (the Messiah) or his sinless mother.

I disagree. The Law REQUIRES certain offerings at specific times. Mary’s sin offering after the birth of Jesus is a REQUIREMENT. There is NO sin offering REQUIRED of men (other than when they actually commit a sin). Since men are not required to make a sin offering except for sin, then I suggest that the Law DOES allow for a sinless man.

Effectively, you’re asking, “How does rejecting part of the Gospel of Christ affect my relationship with Christ?”

When the Apostles preached the Gospel, where did they mention these dogmas? Please show me where Paul preached the necessity to believe in Mary’s Immaculate Conception as a requirement for salvation. Show me where Peter taught Mary’s perpetual virginity, or where John proclaimed Mary’s Assumption (please stay away from Rev 12:1 unless you have some documentable evidence to prove your claim, as this has been addressed before).

 

[Gamera]

When the Apostles preached the Gospel, where did they mention these dogmas? Please show me where Paul preached the necessity to believe in Mary’s Immaculate Conception as a requirement for salvation. Show me where Peter taught Mary’s perpetual virginity, or where John proclaimed Mary’s Assumption (please stay away from Rev 12:1 unless you have some documentable evidence to prove your claim, as this has been addressed before).

Sure. In a separate thread. This thread asks “How does NOT accepting any of the Marian dogmas affect my relationship with my Savior, Jesus Christ?” You have your answer: rejecting part of the Gospel of Christ affects a person’s relationship with Christ. If your question is, “Why do Catholics believe X about Mary?” then please feel free to start a thread on that.

 

[Cachonga]

Gamera – I agree that rejecting part of the Gospel of Christ will have a negative impact on one’s relationship with Jesus. Since the topic concerns the Marian dogmas, and you have brought in the rejection of part of the gospel, I am asking where the Marian dogmas ARE part of the gospel (as you clearly implied). If you cannot, or will not, show how these dogmas are part of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, then I suggest you withhold you comments on this thread.

 

[Gamera]

Gamera – I agree that rejecting part of the Gospel of Christ will have a negative impact on one’s relationship with Jesus. Since the topic concerns the Marian dogmas, and you have brought in the rejection of part of the gospel, I am asking where the Marian dogmas ARE part of the gospel (as you clearly implied). If you cannot, or will not, show how these dogmas are part of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, then I suggest you withhold you comments on this thread.

Thanks for your suggestion, that’s helpful. In turn, allow me to suggest that you not derail your own thread. I can and I will show how these dogmas are part of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I can and will also follow CAF policy by not derailing this particular thread.

 

[Cachonga]

Gamera:

I can and I will show how these dogmas are part of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I look forward to your evidence.