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

[Leopard]

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

Again, not that I want to argue Cachonga’s side, but Leviticus 12:8 reads:

2 If, however, she cannot afford a lamb, she may take two turtledoves or two pigeons, the one for a holocaust and the other for a sin offering. The priest shall make atonement for her, and thus she will again be clean."

BUT,

once again the NAB has a footnote:

2 [8] Forty days after the birth of Jesus, his Virgin Mother made this offering of the poor (Luke 2:22, 24); since the holocaust was offered in thanksgiving for the birth of the child, this was most fittingly offered by Mary. However, because of her miraculous delivery, she was not really obliged to make the sin offering of purification.

 

[TMC]

TMC – Well put. I do agree that belief or non-belief in these dogmas does not affect my relationship with Jesus Christ. I do acknowledge Mary as Blessed, and an excellent role model for faith, virtue and integrity. However, as I mentioned above, the Church has anathematized anyone who does NOT believe these dogmas, which would include you. If it was a matter of personal choice there would be no need for this discussion.

While I agree that my opinion on the topic is not traditionalist, its orthodox in the sense that I don’t think the Church would declare me anathema based on it. To recap - I said I found no compelling evidence one way or the other, and I don’t think it really matters. But at the end of the day I am happy to take the Church’s word for it. I am not required to be blown away by the Church’s “proofs” or believe it really matters. What makes you say otherwise?

 

[Cachonga]

Leopard – so what you’re saying is that the Old Testament, which Jesus held people accountable for when He walked the earth, is “Catholic” Scriptures? And this because the “Catholic” Church decided which books were authoritative? Seems obvious to me that if Jesus held men accountable to it, you can’t get much more authoritative than that (and this was BEFORE there was a “Catholic” Church to decide whether these books were inspired). (Sorry, I’m being a little facetious. The idea just seems extremely ridiculous to me!) As far as the Hebrew/Aramaic culture idea, I admit it is an interesting thought. Do you have any evidence that this occurred? Keep in mind, these were written to the Church, which had a considerable non-Jewish membership by the time these were written (I am referring to the Gospels, since the epistles were written primarily to non-Jewish fellowships). I would also ask how you would explain Luke 14:12 (“And He also went on to say to the one who had invited Him, "When you give a luncheon or a dinner, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or rich neighbors, lest they also invite you in return, and repayment come to you.” NAS – other versions will replace “relatives” with “kinsmen” or “kindred”). Here, Jesus Himself makes a distinction between Brother and Kinsman. I don’t think you got my point at all on with Tim Staples. I would, however, assert that the story of Lazarus and the rich man was a true story, not a parable. The reason is because Jesus used a proper name (Lazarus). In parables, He never used a proper name. By using the name, everyone immediately knew who He was talking about (it would be similar to someone today getting up and saying something like, “There was a certain public official who had achieved great success, and a certain intern named Monica…”). Has the Church officially classified this as a parable, or are you free to take it any way you like? (And by “authority” I meant the magisterium of the Church.) Have you read the Protevangelium of James? Do you seriously believe Jesus “beamed out” of Mary? The Gnostics have been infiltrating the Church since Paul was around, so it doesn’t surprise me that these things date back to Apostolic times. You are correct, it is unfair of me to ask you for something more than “the Church says so”. It just sounds like the old excuse I heard growing up (“Because I’m the mom, that’s why!”). I would like something I can go back and research to see if what is being presented is true.

Provofam – I appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut. My main problem is that I believe the Church authority has been corrupted over the years. I am using the Marian dogmas as an example. The Church says you MUST believe these dogmas or you will be under the anathema of the Church. Yet, they have no scriptural basis for these dogmas, and, in fact, in some cases use highly questionable (Gnostic) sources as their basis. I do not believe Peter was ever a Pope, I do not believe in Papal Infallibility, I do not believe in the papal primacy, I do not believe the Roman Catholic Church we see today would be recognized by the Apostles (and I believe the Apostles would soundly condemn the Roman Catholic Church). I realize this goes far beyond the topic, and so I’ll end with this – I do not believe my relationship with my Savior, Jesus Christ, is in any way, shape or form affected by my disbelief in the Marian dogmas, regardless of any anathema the RCC may place on me.

Jmcrae – Notice, one was a burnt offering, the other was a sin offering. Read it all the way through. What does Simeon have to do with Mary’s offering?

Leopard – Thanks for backing me up on these points. A question about the NAB footnote – what evidence does it offer that would indicate that Mary (even though we know she took the two turtledoves) did not make the sin offering (which was required by the Law)?

TMC – When the Church places someone under an anathema for a specific belief that makes it (basically) a belief that is necessary for salvation. (If you have an anathema pronounced on you, how can you be saved?)

 

[jmcrae]

Jmcrae – Notice, one was a burnt offering, the other was a sin offering. Read it all the way through. What does Simeon have to do with Mary’s offering?

Simeon was the priest of the Temple to whom she made the offering. While making the sacrifice for her, he made those prophecies about her for which we best remember him.

 

[Cachonga]

jmcrae - Luke 2:25-35 says, “25 And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name [was] Simeon; and the same man [was] just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him. 26. And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord’s Christ. 27. And he came by the Spirit into the temple: and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him after the custom of the law, 28. Then took he him up in his arms, and blessed God, and said, 29. Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word: 30. For mine eyes have seen thy salvation, 31. Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people; 32. A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel. 33. And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him. 34. And Simeon blessed them, and said unto Mary his mother, Behold, this [child] is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against; 35. (Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also,) that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.” Can you please tell me which verse tells you that he was a priest at the Temple and that he made the sacrifice for her? I would also point out that Luke 2:39 says, “And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth.” Notice, they performed ALL things according to the LAW of the Lord. The evidence still shows Mary made a sin offering!

 

[jmcrae]

jmcrae - Luke 2:25-35 says, "25 And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name [was] Simeon; and the same man [was] just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him. 26. And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord’s Christ. 27. And he came by the Spirit into the temple: and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him after the custom of the law,

Here we see that Simeon was moved by the Holy Spirit to go to the Temple. He is with Mary and Joseph, while they are doing for Jesus what is customary under the law.

1. Then took he him up in his arms, and blessed God,

Simeon is picking Jesus up, at this point, which is at some point after the sacrifice has been made. Notice that the family did not go somewhere else to have the sacrifice done - they have remained with Simeon the entire time.

Notice also that one else is present - just Simeon and the Holy Family.

Therefore, Simeon is the priest who made the sacrifice.

and said, 29. Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word: 30. For mine eyes have seen thy salvation, 31. Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people; 32. A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel. 33. And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him. 34. And Simeon blessed them, and said unto Mary his mother, Behold, this [child] is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against; 35. (Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also,) that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed."

Notice here that Simeon is both prophesying, and blessing - two functions that ordinarily belong to priests.

I would also point out that Luke 2:39 says, “And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth.” Notice, they performed ALL things according to the LAW of the Lord. The evidence still shows Mary made a sin offering!

All this shows is that they fulfilled their obligation to the Law. It does not mention anything about her making a sin offering (which I assume would not be required under the Law, if she did not actually commit any sin - however, if it was required to make one, whether one had sinned or not, then making a sin offering would certainly not be proof that she had ever sinned, anyways - it would only be proof that she followed the Law perfectly - which we already knew, since she is without sin.)

 

[Axion]

You bring up the idea that Jesus made an animal sacrifice. Perhaps. However, He never made a sin offering (though He did BECOME a sin offering on the cross, in OUR place). If you think Jesus made a sin offering, please produce your evidence. In regard to Mary’s sin offering, I do believe it is proof that she (like all of us) was a sinner.

A) you have ZERO proof of any of these assertions.
B) Mary’s offering was made according to the Law. In other words it had to be done. So you seek to place Mary in a double bind: She makes the offering, (in your view) this makes her a sinner. She refuses to make the offering. She breaks the law and is actually a sinner! Your view is of course the one built on imagination and fabrication. If Mary was a sinner, then Jesus inherited a sinful human nature from her.

I do accept that Mary was called “The Mother of God” … I do not agree with it because it can be misleading. For example – if you found a group of people who have been completely isolated from the outside world,… I would suggest you would get 100% who would think that Mary was the grandmother of Jesus.

This of course is an utterly false scenario. People are NOT whisked in from space and told a few obscure facts in isolation and then left to conjecture. They learn about Christianity as a whole, and Marian doctrines are a co-ordinated part of this. Your argument for rejecting Mother of God could also be used for the Trinity - in fact the Muslims do exactly this - saying that Christians are polytheists. The refusal of the title Mother of God, however has always led to heresy, since it frees people (and many protestants) to suggest Jesus was not a real man with a human body and will.

As Paul says, we are espoused to one husband, Jesus Christ (see 2 Cor 11:2).

Yet according to you, Mary had two husbands, and so must have been adulterous with one of them, if she had children from two different fathers!

The scripture makes it clear that Jesus had brothers (though the church “infallibly” declares that “Brother” and “”Sister, in these passages, doesn’t mean “Brother” or “Sister”, but instead means “Close relative”, …
Your argument about the Hebrew/Aramaic usage of the terms doesn’t work; the New Testament was written in Greek. I would assert that if the line “his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him” (Matt 12:46) were found in something attributed to Homer or Plato, anyone who claimed brothers didn’t mean brothers would be laughed at. Simple question – does God understand human language? Most certainly! Does God say what He means? I believe so! Would God be ambiguous on such a crucial subject? Absolutely not!

This is nonsense. The people the scrtiptures quote spoke not in Greek but ARAMAIC. Plato and Homer weren’t translations of Aramaic. The ARAMAIC word used (ach) means brother OR close kinsman. This usage appears elsewhere in the bible where nephews and others are referred to as “brothers”. translate “ach” into Greek and this becomes the tighter greek word for brother which means only sibling. Railing about God not understanding human language is nonsense. The gospels are inspired but not guaranteed against all misunderstanding. otherwise we wouldn’t see 20,000 protestant “bible believing” churches ALL teaching different “bible-derived” doctrines!

Let’s try this argument – Mary is blessed by God (we all agree on this, I’m sure); children are a Blessing…therefore, Mary had other children. You will no doubt reject this analysis (which, I admit, is very simplistic), but the evidence I find in Scripture tells me Mary had other children.

This stuff gets feebler and feebler by the minute! Money is a blessing too, so Mary must have had lots of that. Cattle are a blessing as well… etc. etc. Actually, apart from the fact that the “brothers” of Jesus can be biblically traced to Mary of Cleophas, there are two solid reasons Mary did not have other children.

1. Having children with another man while the father of your son is still alive is adultery.
2. It would mean that Mary and Joseph disbelieved that Jesus was God, since defiling the sanctuary of the living God would be unthinkable to any believing Jew.

 

[dixibehr]

Mariology (the doctrines concerning the Virgin Mary) is actually an extension of Christology, and is initmately and radically connected with it.

For example, “Theotokos/Mother of God” deals with the union of the human and divine natures of the one Person of our Lord, God, and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Ultimately, the Marian Dogmas are really about who JESUS is.

Fuzziness in Mariology leads to fuzziness in Christology. Rejecting it ultimately leads to rejecting Christ.

 

[Cachonga]

jmcrae – I am amazed at your logic. Simeon was moved by the Holy Spirit to be at the Temple. Let me help you through this – Luke 2:25 says, “And, behold, there was a MAN in Jerusalem, whose name [was] Simeon; and the same MAN [was] just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him.” If he was a priest, why doesn’t this verse say so? Can you see that? Does it make sense? OK, verse 26 says, “And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord’s Christ.” Sounds like he was an old man. The nice thing about being a priest is that there was a mandatory retirement age. I believe, even IF Simeon WAS a priest, he would have been retired long before this, so he wouldn’t have performed the sacrifice anyway. OK, verse 27 says, “And he came by the Spirit into the temple: and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him after the custom of the law,” Why would a priest who serves in the Temple need to come “by the Spirit”? Wouldn’t he already have been there (unless he was retired, maybe)? Can you understand this so far? Fine. Now, verse 28 says, “Then took he him up in his arms, and blessed God, and said”. According to your logic, this was AFTER the sacrifice. I’m sorry! That is NOT there! Wait, I’ll prove it. Verse 29 says, “Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word:” I would suggest this supports the assertion that he was an old man and well past retirement age. I’ll skip ahead to verse 36 (I know it wasn’t covered before. My bad!). Verse 36 says, “And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser: she was of a great age, and had lived with an husband seven years from her virginity;” OK, so now Anna comes into the picture (before the Holy Family has moved away from Simeon). Again, I’ll skip ahead to verse 38 which reads, “And she coming in that instant gave thanks likewise unto the Lord, and spake of him to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem.” WOW! She came “in that instant”, when Simeon had finished his prophecy! Imagine that! But wait, there’s more…Verse 39 clearly says, “And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth.” Gosh, they “performed all things according to the law of the Lord” AFTER their encounter with Anna. And, again, the sin offering is REQUIRED in the Law. As far as Simeon blessing and prophesying, are you suggesting that God would ONLY use a priest to do this? Remember, Simeon is described as being “just and devout”. Would you tell God he can’t use such a man because he’s not a priest?

Axion – Please explain to me how a sinless person can make a sin offering and not be guilty of a lie? If your answer is “Because it’s required by the Law”, then be ready to explain why the Law would require it. Personally, I believe God made this Law just so we wouldn’t elevate Mary above what God created her to be. The scenario was a thought problem. I realize these things don’t happen. My point was that it could be misleading in some situations, and I prefer to address her as the Angel did – Mother of the Son of God (how does THAT deny the deity or humanity of Jesus?). Two husbands? Where do you get that? She was married to Joseph, and is a member of the Bride of Christ. I don’t understand this charge, please explain. The gospels were written in Greek. I have already addressed this issue earlier. It was suggested that the writers were using Hebrew/Aramaic practices when writing in the Greek, but no proof has been offered for that yet. I would point out Luke 21:16 where Jesus says, “And ye shall be betrayed both by parents, and brethren, and kinsfolks, and friends; and [some] of you shall they cause to be put to death.” Notice, he uses both Brethren and kinsfolk (other versions translate kinsfolk as kindred or relative). The Bible does make a distinction. As for the 20,000 denomination remark, this is not a discussion on sola scriptura. I will only say that your own source for this claim (which is actually much higher than 20,000) also includes 781 Orthodox Catholic denominations and 242 Roman Catholic denominations. Before you bring this up again, please tell me which of the 242 Roman Catholic denominations is the “one, true, holy, catholic and apostolic” church. Blessing! I suppose the “other” husband you referred to is the Holy Spirit (border on blasphemy, but let’s look at it). If Mary is the “Spouse of the Holy Spirit”, then she CANNOT be a member of the Bride of Christ (because she’s already married)! As for Mary being the “sanctuary of the living god”, what evidence do you have for that claim? She was a virgin, betrothed to Joseph BEFORE the angel told her about Jesus. Would you accuse God of damaging a marriage?

 

[jmcrae]

jmcrae – I am amazed at your logic. Simeon was moved by the Holy Spirit to be at the Temple.

The priests of those days had families - unlike today’s priests, they did not actually live in the Temple. So, Simeon could have been at his house eating lunch or something, or else maybe it was his day off, and then the Holy Spirit moved him to go to the Temple, to get to be there in time to be the priest who blesses the Son of God and His mother, and who makes the sacrifice for them.

Let me help you through this – Luke 2:25 says, “And, behold, there was a MAN in Jerusalem, whose name [was] Simeon; and the same MAN [was] just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him.” If he was a priest, why doesn’t this verse say so? Can you see that? Does it make sense? OK, verse 26 says, “And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord’s Christ.” Sounds like he was an old man. The nice thing about being a priest is that there was a mandatory retirement age.

The concept of a “retirement age” only came about with the labour movement of the late 1800s. It is unlikely that Simeon, regardless of his age, was “retired” - and even today, the concept of “retirement” doesn’t really apply to priests - they continue to say Mass every day until they die.

As for Mary being the “sanctuary of the living god”, what evidence do you have for that claim?

Jesus (who is God) resided in her womb for 9 months. She was a living Tabernacle of God, carrying Him around in her body, just like a Tabernacle that holds the living presence of God in Church.

In the same way that we would never put anything ordinary into an old Tabernacle, because it has been the dwelling place of God, so also, Mary and Joseph would never have allowed anything ordinary to get into Mary’s womb.

 

[Axion]

The nice thing about being a priest is that there was a mandatory retirement age. I believe, even IF Simeon WAS a priest, he would have been retired long before this, so he wouldn’t have performed the sacrifice anyway.

Not true. The priests did not have a mandatory retirement age. See here: newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Kohen

Axion – Please explain to me how a sinless person can make a sin offering and not be guilty of a lie? If your answer is “Because it’s required by the Law”, then be ready to explain why the Law would require it. Personally, I believe God made this Law just so we wouldn’t elevate Mary above what God created her to be.

I see no contradiction. Leviticus 12 merely states that the doves are handed to the priest, who then makes the offering to atone for her. There is no statement that she has to swear that she has personally sinned. It is a ritual of the law. The idea that God made the law so that Mary would be exposed as a sinner is a complete flight of fancy. If He wanted us to know that Mary was a sinner, it would have been a lot easier for the bible to say so explicitly. You know something like: “And then Mary commited a sin in saying…”

The scenario was a thought problem. I realize these things don’t happen. My point was that it could be misleading in some situations, and I prefer to address her as the Angel did – Mother of the Son of God (how does THAT deny the deity or humanity of Jesus?).

Mother of the Son of God is fine 90% of the time, but it does not take into account things like the ARIAN HERESY. The Arians said that Jesus was Son of God, but that He was in some way a lesser son, and not truly God. "Mother of the Son of God does not defend against this - in fact it encourages it. “Mother of God the Son” is better, but again it might be taken to deny the Trinity - in that it seems to separate the aspects of God too severely and create three Gods.

Two husbands? Where do you get that? She was married to Joseph, and is a member of the Bride of Christ. I don’t understand this charge, please explain.

Unless Jesus is illegitimate, Mary is Spouse of the Holy Spirit, who “overshadowed” her ( a word connected with marriage). This complete’s Mary’s threefold link with the Trinity (Mother, daughter, Spouse.) The bible in fact never states that Mary completed the second stage of Hebrew marriage, to become fully married to Joseph. Even when they journey to Bethlehem for the birth, the bible only says that they were betrothed. If Mary had marital relations with Joseph, one of two things must be true. Jesus is illegitimate, or Mary has illegitimate children with Joseph.

The gospels were written in Greek… It was suggested that the writers were using Hebrew/Aramaic practices when writing in the Greek, but no proof has been offered for that yet.

The passage quoted by protestants is a direct quote of what the citizens of Nazareth were saying. They, like Jesus, spoke in Aramaic, not Greek. The Greek for what they said is a translation. The accounts of Jesus life were oral until written down later in Aramaic and Greek.

I would point out Luke 21:16 where Jesus says, “And ye shall be betrayed both by parents, and brethren, and kinsfolks, and friends; and [some] of you shall they cause to be put to death.” Notice, he uses both Brethren and kinsfolk (other versions translate kinsfolk as kindred or relative). The Bible does make a distinction.

Not as you would prefer it. The two words used are a) Adelphos (Strongs No. 80) which means brother or close relative, or fellow believer, and b) Suggenes (Strongs No. 4773), which means related by blood in a wider sense, of the same nation, a fellow countryman. The distinction is between close relative and far more distant relative. We can see this from Acts 1 14-15 whwere Jesus prays with his “brethren” (Adelphos), who number 120! You’re not saying these are all sons of Mary!

As for the 20,000 denomination remark, this is not a discussion on sola scriptura. I will only say that your own source for this claim (which is actually much higher than 20,000) also includes 781 Orthodox Catholic denominations and 242 Roman Catholic denominations. Before you bring this up again, please tell me which of the 242 Roman Catholic denominations is the “one, true, holy, catholic and apostolic” church.

But the 242 Catholic “denominations” all believe the same thing./ That is not true of the Protestants who all believe differently.

If Mary is the “Spouse of the Holy Spirit”, then she CANNOT be a member of the Bride of Christ (because she’s already married)! As for Mary being the “sanctuary of the living god”, what evidence do you have for that claim? She was a virgin, betrothed to Joseph BEFORE the angel told her about Jesus. Would you accuse God of damaging a marriage?

The bible doesn’t tell us that Mary and Joseph were married, just betrothed. And by your logic Christians CANNOT be the bride of Christ because they are part of the Body of Christ! You are being (selectively) over-literal in some things but not others.

 

[ApocalypseNow]

Cachonga- You asked for proof that the writers of the gospels intended that the word “brother” meant beyond blood brothers. The Hebrew word is “achim” and means blood brothers and cousins. The Greek word used in the N.T. for brother is “adelphos” and this word also has the same wide latitude of meaning. This can be easily demonstrated by going to the book of Genesis 13:8 where it says that both Abraham and Lot were brothers. In the septuagint version it uses the word “adelphos” in this very passage, a translation of the hebrew original “achim”. Now it is obvious that Abraham and Lot were both Uncle and nephew, yet they were called by this very same Greek word “adelphos” , the same word used in the Greek N.T. of the brothers of Jesus.

 

[jmcrae]

Cachonga- You asked for proof that the writers of the gospels intended that the word “brother” meant beyond blood brothers. The Hebrew word is “achim” and means blood brothers and cousins. The Greek word used in the N.T. for brother is “adelphos” and this word also has the same wide latitude of meaning. This can be easily demonstrated by going to the book of Genesis 13:8 where it says that both Abraham and Lot were brothers. In the septuagint version it uses the word “adelphos” in this very passage, a translation of the hebrew original “achim”. Now it is obvious that Abraham and Lot were both Uncle and nephew, yet they were called by this very same Greek word “adelphos” , the same word used in the Greek N.T. of the brothers of Jesus.

This is also true of English. I have two sisters who are not related to me by blood, even remotely. But their biological father is my biological mother’s husband (I have a different father, and they have a different mother), so, they are my sisters.

 

[SFH]

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!

Many (actually all, but that’s the subject of a volume of literature) of the “Marian dogmas” are inextricably linked to “Christological dogmas” – e.g., Mary is the Mother of God. You have to identify which ones you reject, and then someone can explain how it’s linked to a Christological dogma. For example, rejecting the dogma that Mary is the Mother of God logically leads to rejecting that Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, is God.

 

[Cachonga]

dixibehr – 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. 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. I am very clear on who Jesus is.

Jmcrae – you are making a lot of assumptions with Simeon (very reminiscent of how evolutionists explain how we came from monkeys). However, your evidence is lacking. Are you giving me the “official” interpretation by the “infallible” magisterium of the Church, or is this just your own interpretation? As for the retirement age, I would point you to Numbers 4:2-3 (“Take the sum of the sons of Kohath from among the sons of Levi, after their families, by the house of their fathers, 3. From thirty years old and upward even until fifty years old, all that enter into the host, to do the work in the tabernacle of the congregation”). Notice, they did the work of the tabernacle from the age of 30 to the age of 50. While Mary did carry Jesus for 9 months, once he was born, does that mean the “tabernacle” was empty? I would greatly appreciate some solid evidence for your claims.

Axion – see the reference to Numbers 4:2-3 above. 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”? What does it say about someone who completely IGNORES what is written in scriptures? 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. There are other ways to defend against the Arian Heresy and defend the Trinity without calling Mary the Mother of God. 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. Congratulations on being able to use a concordance. As you point out, Adelphos can mean Brother (Adelphoi is used for Sister). Both of these terms are used in reference to the brothers and sisters in the passages from Matthew and Mark. Acts 1:14 says, “These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.” Verse 15 says, “And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,)”. I suppose it’s possible that those in verse 14 “continued with one accord in prayer and supplication” while in verse 15 (and beyond), the other disciples were present, which brought the number to 120. Or, if you don’t like that (although I would suggest that I used the same exegetical criteria that jmcrae has used with Simeon), I would point back to Matt 12:50 (“For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.” Also see Mark 3:35), and suggest that these were doing the will of the Father. What proof do you offer that the 242 Catholic denominations all believe the same thing? Or are you right because you’re Catholic? 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)? 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:”

ApocalypseNow – which proves what? Adelphos can be used to mean Brother or an extended family member. When you look at the context in which it’s used, how can you think it doesn’t mean Brother and Sister (Matt 13:54-56, etc… I’ve already covered these).

jmcrae – and I have 2 sons and a daughter, whose biological father is dead, but I still call them my kids (and they call me their dad). Look at the context in which this is used.

SFH – I understand the “mother of God” dogma, why it was developed, and what it represents. I also explained that I think it can be misleading, and prefer to call her the Mother of the Son of God. I accept that Jesus is fully God and fully man, that He is the second member of the Trinity, and that He is just as much God as the Father and the Holy Spirit. Let’s move past this dogma. I have mentioned the 2 most recent dogmas (though I’m still curious about the Christological truth behind the 2nd dogma).

 

[Dauphin]

So are the Orthodox - who do not accept the dogma of the Immaculate Conception - totally severed from a relationship with Christ? If you say yes, does the Catholic Church say, officially, that they are totally severed from a relationship with Christ?

Yes, that’s exactly it. Heresy severs you from the Church, which is the Body of Christ. This is dogmatic. There is only one faith. We’re not free to believe whatever is it we want and consider ourselves part of the Church.

Is that really so shocking?

Read Pius XII’s Mystici Corporis Christi, in which he explains that the mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are exactly the same thing.

 

[Cachonga]

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? 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!

 

[jmcrae]

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? This is exactly what I expect as the official response.

Well, it’s actually a little more nuanced than that. There are issues around invincible ignorance, the desire to do God’s will, and honestly doing one’s very best.

No proof other than “the Church says so”.

Do you read the Catechism? The proofs of all these things are to be found in the footnotes, which guide you to the writings of those who did the original research on all these things. It’s fascinating reading, and most of it is available for free on newadvent.com

Sorry. I cannot blindly accept teachings that clearly contradict the written Word of God.

Neither can I - that’s exactly why I’m Catholic!

 

[Cachonga]

jmcrae - I guess if we wanted to be completely accurate, I would be classified as an apostate rather than a heretic, since I was born and raised Roman Catholic, and even received 6 of the 7 sacraments before leaving the Roman Catholic Church. I have a copy of the Catechism (as well as family members that are trying to bring me back to “the Church”),.as well as access to it online (not just via newadvent.com), and I notice a very small amount of scriptural evidence for these dogmas. What scripture there is doesn’t seem to support the assertions made by “the Church”.

 

[jmcrae]

jmcrae - I guess if we wanted to be completely accurate, I would be classified as an apostate rather than a heretic, since I was born and raised Roman Catholic, and even received 6 of the 7 sacraments before leaving the Roman Catholic Church. I have a copy of the Catechism (as well as family members that are trying to bring me back to “the Church”),.as well as access to it online (not just via newadvent.com), and I notice a very small amount of scriptural evidence for these dogmas. What scripture there is doesn’t seem to support the assertions made by “the Church”.

Have you looked at the other documents - the writings of the Early Fathers, and the other documents that are referred to in the footnotes of the Catechism, where the research happened, that led the leadership of the Church to arrive at these conclusions? Remember, not everything is in the Bible (and in fact, for 400 years of early Church history, there was no Bible.)