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

[BRB1]

BRB1 – so you’re saying that, while there are more people named Mary (the mother of Jesus), there is only 1 person named James? Or just because a woman named Mary has a son named James, that no other Mary can have a son by that same name? Your argument ignores the CONTEXT of the scriptures in question.

?

3 Marys … Mother of Jesus, Mary Magdeline, and Mary the mother of James the Just, Joses, and Salome

2 James … James Apostle [brother of John, sons of thunder], & James the Just [Bishop of Jerusalem].

 

[PJM]

Randy Carson – yes, God can do what He wants. However, anytime He does something out of the “norm” we usually have it mentioned clearly in Scripture.

Friend, help me out here.

The ArchAngel is sent by God to earth and “Virgin named Mary.”

The Angel ASK’s her to consent to become the Mother of God, She says “Yes” but ask “How?”

She is told that God (The Holy Spirit (God Himself) will impregnate her) Mary say’s “I am the handmaid of the Lord do with me as you say.”

And you find that to be “Ordinary?”

Wow! You must have some great life experiences to share.

but there is no mention in scripture of Mary as anything other than a normal woman (albeit, very blessed).

“Hail FULL OF GRACE” (ie…Perfect One) that’s not special? Lk. 1

I do not believe that a sinless woman could make a sin offering without sinning in the process. I would also suggest that, since it is our normal condition to be born in sin, then the burden of proof is on you to show that Mary was an exception.

Open your bible, any bible. (except the one you may have written) and read Luke chapters 1 and 2.

So now you’re saying (I think you’re saying) that the God who Created the entire Universe, including you and me, keeps us all in existance, lacks the authority and power to do what ever GOOD He God desires and Wills? Friend how do you support this theory of yours?

Marian Devotee – “And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.” (2 Cor 11:14-15) How does a vision of Mary holding her heart pierce with 2 swords and complaining about “sins committed against me” point to Jesus? And where in Scripture do we see a saint who has passed on come back to give a message to anyone? (I bet Joseph Smith could help you answer this one.)

Catholics must accept with at least assent of will, all defined marian Dogma’s, but none of is forced or obligated to honor in any way saints or “sacramentals.” Doing so is a recommended personal pious practice.

PJM – I’m guessing your comments were directed more to Leopard than to me, so I’ll just say “Thanks for stopping by”.

Thanks for allowing me, not once, but twice. God bless you!

BRB1 – I have already given this answer in previous threads. A quick recap – references to brothers and sisters in Matt and Mark (read the CONTEXT in which these occur!), plus the fact that Mary was engaged to Joseph BEFORE the visit from the angel (at that time most people married for the purpose of raising a family). There is no clear evidence that this did not happen (other than the claims of the Roman Catholic Church).

Friend the Greek word for brothers is “adelphos.”

Mt. 4:21 “21 And going on from there he saw two other brothers, James the son of Zebedee and John his brother (adelphos), in the boat with Zebedee their father, mending their nets, and he called them.”

Acts 9: “17 So Ananias departed and entered the house. And laying his hands on him he said, "Brother (same word…adelphos) Saul, the Lord Jesus who appeared to you on the road by which you came, has sent me that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.”

There are many other like examples.

Love and prayers,

 

[Randy_Carson]

Again, you’re begging the question in regard to Mary’s sinlessness. The ONLY Scriptural reference I’ve seen for this idea is Luke 1:28, which was the GREETING of the Angel (Hail, Full of Grace). Prove that “Full of Grace” means what your Church REQUIRES it to mean!

Okay.

When discussing the Immaculate Conception, an implicit reference may be found in the angel’s greeting to Mary. The angel Gabriel said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you” (Luke 1:28). The phrase “full of grace” is a translation of the Greek word kecharitomene. It therefore expresses a characteristic quality of Mary.

The traditional translation, “full of grace,” is better than the one found in many recent versions of the New Testament, which give something along the lines of “highly favored daughter.” Mary was indeed a highly favored daughter of God, but the Greek implies more than that (and it never mentions the word for “daughter”). The grace given to Mary is at once permanent and of a unique kind. Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning “to fill or endow with grace.” Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit. In fact, Catholics hold, it extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence.

Of course, I’d like to follow up by stating the obvious; namely, that an infallible Church has also declared this doctrine to be a dogma of the faith. However, you are more interested in arguing about the peripheral issues rather than dealing with the heart of the matter which is the nature and authority of the Church.

It’s a lot harder this way, but I can play along.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy Carson – am I supposed to seriously believe that you can communicate with someone in Heaven (other than God)? What does 1 Cor 2:9 have to do with saints in heaven hearing us? Sounds to me like Paul is describing the place God is preparing for us.

The verse simply points out that we have no idea what awaits us nor do we have any idea what capabilities we may have once we are no longer constrained by space and time.

Mary might listen to each prayer one at a time, and since she is “outside of time” she has all of eternity to listen to and respond to each request. Since God is also outside of time, all time is "present’ to God, therefore, Mary might respond to my prayer a thousand years from now, but since that is the present to God, he hears her intercession for me in what is real time for me.

On the other hand, Mary and the Saints may simply have “super” powers once they receive their glorified bodies which would enable them to hear lots of prayers simultaneously. Jesus walked through a wall with His glorified body, and Moses and Elijah were kinda shiny when they appeared in Matthew 17.

So, as I said, “Eye has not seen…”

As far as Luke 15:7, let’s look at the whole parable – Luke 15:3-10 says, “And he spake this parable unto them, saying, What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it? And when he hath found it, he layeth it on his shoulders, rejoicing. And when he cometh home, he calleth together his friends and neighbours, saying unto them, Rejoice with me; for I have found my sheep which was lost. I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance. Either what woman having ten pieces of silver, if she lose one piece, doth not light a candle, and sweep the house, and seek diligently till she find it? And when she hath found it, she calleth her friends and her neighbours together, saying, Rejoice with me; for I have found the piece which I had lost. Likewise, I say unto you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth.” Notice in the first part that it’s the shepherd that finds the sheep, brings it back, and calls his friends to rejoice with him.

You typed all of that to state the obvious?

In the second part, the woman that finds the coin is the one who calls in the friends and neighbors to rejoice with her. We know that Jesus is the Good Shepherd (John 10:11, 14), and that He came “to seek and to save that which was lost.” (Luke 19:10). Would you agree with me that Jesus would know when someone repents? As the Good Shepherd (as in the parable), would call his friends and neighbors to rejoice with Him. As a result, you have your great rejoicing in Heaven over one sinner being saved.

And similarly, God could make the prayer requests of those on earth known the the saints so that they may intercede on our behalf. We remain united to the saints since there is only one body of Christ. Can the eye say to the hand, “I don’t need you?” Can that portion of the body of Christ which is in heaven say to that which is still on earth, “I don’t need you and I’m not interested in you?”

Heb 12:1 says, “Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us,” Would you agree that the saints in Heaven are witnesses to God’s goodness and mercy? We have their example of life and faith, so let us try and live up to the witness by all these others that have gone before. Don’t forget, this chapter comes right after Heb 11 (the “faith” chapter. The next part of your reply has already been responded to above (maybe you didn’t have a chance to see it before resubmitting it here).

The scripture seems to suggest that we have witnesses who are observing the running of our race. Sorry if you feel more cut off from that, but obviously, Moses and Elijah were not so cut off from Jesus at the Transfiguration. Since angels are also called “saints”, it also makes sense to seek their assistance since the Bible itself declares that they are ministering spirits.

Randy Carson – how can someone be the Queen Mother AND the Bride?

Using this type of genius, how can YOU be the bride since you are a man?

More importantly, where do we see a Queen of Heaven, and how is it used?

Gee, try Revelation 12 for starters. A woman clothed with the sun with a crown of 12 stars on her head? Hmmm…a woman in heaven with a crown…who could this be…thinking…thinking…

I don’t have a problem with Jesus honoring His mother.

You have no idea how relieved He’ll be to hear this.

I do have a problem with people assuming that Jesus Christ, as God, would treat Mary the way a human (like Solomon) would treat his mother.

I see. How would Jesus, as man, treat His mother? You do get that Jesus is FULLY God and FULLY man, right? We’re beginning to see why Nestorianism was a problem, aren’t we?

I would also point to the example Jesus gives us (Matt 12:46-49 and Mark 3:31-35). Jesus honored Mary, but with proper honor. I would suggest that if the requirements for salvation have changed, then doctrine has changed.

Please demonstrate from any historical record or document you like that a doctrine regarding Mary (or any other for that matter) has changed.

If a doctrine is not found in Scripture, how can it be proven to be from God?

Since heretics always wrap themselves in their own twisted interpretations of scripture, simply quoting scripture is not sufficient to prove any doctrine.

If it cannot be supported by Scripture, how can it be considered as binding on the conscience of men?

Really? Try these:

Does the New Testament consist of 27 divinely designated books? Chapter and verse, please?

Did revelation end with the death of the last Apostle? Chaper and verse, please.

Do you know for sure that there are to be no more Apostles? Chapter and verse, please.

Does the Bible declare that it is the only rule of faith for the believer? Chapter and verse, please.

These are doctrines that you believe are binding upon the consciences of all believers, but you cannot point to the Bible to prove them, can you?

And if it contradicts Scripture, how can it be considered anything other than a “tradition of men”?

You have no example of a single Catholic doctrine which contradicts scripture since none exists.

On the contrary, the Bible does not teach sola scriptura or sola fide. Thus, you have embraced the very “tradition of (Protestant) men” that you so despise.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Cachonga-

---

How to use the Catholic Answers Forum Quote Function

If you want to insert your comments into the middle of something you are quoting, you have to manually insert square brackets. Here is the original passage I want to comment on:

Mary had a little lamb whose fleece was black as soot, and everywhere that Mary went, his sooty foot he put.

In order to show you what you need to do, I have to use a different set of brackets for illustrative purposes only. I’ll use { and } instead of and ] so that you can see where the brackets should be located, and I’ll insert my comments in red text.

{quote}Mary had a little lamb whose fleece was black as soot,{/quote} I’m inserting my comments here in red. {quote}and everywhere that Mary went, his sooty foot he put.{/quote}Hope this helps.

Now, wherever you see the { or } you have to actually use a square bracket or ]. So the paragraph above comes out like this:

Mary had a little lamb whose fleece was black as soot,

I’m inserting my comments here in red.

and everywhere that Mary went his sooty foot he put.

Hope this helps.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Cachonga:

AmbroseSJ – I answer you and you claim it’s because I’m looking back through history and taking advantage of what the Church has done already. Tell you what, let’s get back to the topic of this thread – How does NOT accepting any of the Marian dogmas affect my relationship with my Savior, Jesus Christ?

I am replying to your question, but obviously not in a way you would wish. My answers are all directed toward the necessity of accepting Church Doctrine in order to understand Scripture. Hence, to dismiss Church Doctrine (such as Marian doctrines) is inconsistent and intellectually dishonest, when you in fact accept Church Doctrine in other matters (such as the Trinity) when interpreting Scripture. In a word, you don’t have the ambition to seek the Truth of these other doctrines in the same light of Faith in which you accept the Trinity. you would rather be comfortably opposed to what you don’t immediately grasp, and align yourself with those that likewise take this view.

Your relationship with your Savior Jesus is intimately bound with His Church and Her teachings, which are Divine in origin. So in rejecting the Church’s doctrines, you reject the Church, and in rejecting the Church you actually reject Jesus. Jesus himself says this in the Bible. “search the Scriptures.” You can not apostasize from the Catholic Faith and suppose this does NOT affect your relationship with Jesus. I can’t imagine a worse fate for a Catholic, or a Christian.

You have imbibed the pure headwaters flowing from the temple, and vomited them up, preferring instead the carrion and disease infested scum pools.

 

[jmcrae]

BRB1 – so you’re saying that, while there are more people named Mary (the mother of Jesus), there is only 1 person named James?

There are two Jameses in the New Testament. One is the son of Zebedee, and the other is the son of Alphaeus. I am under the impression that the one described as “the brother of Jesus” is the son of Alphaeus.

However, Mary the mother of Jesus was not the spouse of Alphaeus; she was the spouse of Joseph. Therefore, James the son of Alphaeus is not the uterine brother of Jesus, and the term “brother” is being used in some other sense of the word - perhaps he was a cousin, or close friend of the family.

Or just because a woman named Mary has a son named James, that no other Mary can have a son by that same name? Your argument ignores the CONTEXT of the scriptures in question.

Randy Carson – am I supposed to seriously believe that you can communicate with someone in Heaven (other than God)? What does 1 Cor 2:9 have to do with saints in heaven hearing us? Sounds to me like Paul is describing the place God is preparing for us. As far as Luke 15:7, let’s look at the whole parable – Luke 15:3-10 says, “And he spake this parable unto them, saying, What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it? And when he hath found it, he layeth it on his shoulders, rejoicing. And when he cometh home, he calleth together his friends and neighbours, saying unto them, Rejoice with me; for I have found my sheep which was lost. I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance. Either what woman having ten pieces of silver, if she lose one piece, doth not light a candle, and sweep the house, and seek diligently till she find it? And when she hath found it, she calleth her friends and her neighbours together, saying, Rejoice with me; for I have found the piece which I had lost. Likewise, I say unto you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth.” Notice in the first part that it’s the shepherd that finds the sheep, brings it back, and calls his friends to rejoice with him. In the second part, the woman that finds the coin is the one who calls in the friends and neighbors to rejoice with her. We know that Jesus is the Good Shepherd (John 10:11, 14), and that He came “to seek and to save that which was lost.” (Luke 19:10). Would you agree with me that Jesus would know when someone repents? As the Good Shepherd (as in the parable), would call his friends and neighbors to rejoice with Him. As a result, you have your great rejoicing in Heaven over one sinner being saved. Heb 12:1 says, “Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us,” Would you agree that the saints in Heaven are witnesses to God’s goodness and mercy? We have their example of life and faith, so let us try and live up to the witness by all these others that have gone before. Don’t forget, this chapter comes right after Heb 11 (the “faith” chapter. The next part of your reply has already been responded to above (maybe you didn’t have a chance to see it before resubmitting it here).

And who are Gods’ friends, who are rejoicing? The Saints and Angels in Heaven, of course! Which means that they are aware of when we get lost, and when we get found. Is there any good reason why they, therefore, would not pray for us and intercede for us at the Throne of Heaven, when we are lost?

Randy Carson – how can someone be the Queen Mother AND the Bride?

The same way that I myself can be mother, sister, daughter, and friend. There are three Persons in the Godhead. Mary is a daughter of God the Father, the mother of God the Son (since she bore Him in her womb), a sister to us the children of God the Father, Mother to us, the sisters and brothers of God the Son (since when you are adopted into a family, the mother of that family becomes your mother, the father of that family becomes your father, and the sisters and brothers of that family become your sisters and brothers - and are we not all the brothers and sisters of Jesus Christ by adoption?)

For example – 200 years ago, a Catholic could deny the Immaculate Conception and Bodily Assumption and still be in good standing with the Church.

They couldn’t “deny it” - any more than people living prior to the time of Columbus could “deny” that the world was round - they had no way of knowing what shape the world was, yet, since they didn’t yet understand it. Once these things were understood, they became required for belief, because they are true.

Today, any Catholic that denies these 2 dogmas will find themselves under the anathema of the Church.

And today any scientist claiming that the world is not round would be thrown out of the Academy of Sciences, although before the time of Columbus, it was an open question, and speculation was encouraged. I fail to discern a difference. Once a thing has been discovered, either in the world of science, or in the world of the spirit, it has become known to be true, and therefore, required for belief.

I would say this would affect salvation (if it’s true). Acts 16:30-31 says, “And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.” (I recommend reading the whole chapter, and the book, and the testament, and the Bible). What would Paul say today? (Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and the perpetual virginity of Mary, and Mary’s Immaculate Conception, and her Bodily Assumption, etc… and thou shalt be saved.)

St. Paul would encourage us all to believe whatever is true, and to do whatever is good.

Seems strange that Paul would not mention these “revelations” when telling the Philippian jailer how to be saved. If a doctrine is not found in Scripture, how can it be proven to be from God? If it cannot be supported by Scripture, how can it be considered as binding on the conscience of men? And if it contradicts Scripture, how can it be considered anything other than a “tradition of men”?

The Scriptures themselves were not discovered to be “scriptural” until the late 300s AD. I doubt that St. Paul worried about things being “scriptural” - he was more worried about preaching and writing whatever is true.

 

[Cachonga]

Randy Carson – jumping ahead a bit, but I would like to say “Thanks!” for the help

** How to use the Catholic Answers Forum Quote Function **

This should make my responses easier for everyone to follow (guess this is why he’s a Forum Supporter).

BRB1 – There is still a problem in this line of argumentation. While you can “explain” some things like James and Joseph (and one of the other brothers listed), I have yet to hear anyone explain away all 4 brothers or the sisters. That and you’re still ignoring the CONTEXT. Jesus is back where He grew up. These people KNOW Him and His family. They mention His parents, then His brothers (by name) and His sisters (plural, so we know there is more than one). (BTW – I don’t believe the assertion that James and Joseph mentioned as 2 of the brothers of Jesus, are actually the sons of another woman named Mary, simply because of the CONTEXT.)

PJM –

The ArchAngel is sent by God to earth and “Virgin named Mary.”

Gabriel was sent to Mary, who was a virgin, and engaged to Joseph. This is not in dispute.

The Angel ASK’s her to consent to become the Mother of God, She says “Yes” but ask “How?”

The Angel ASK’S for Mary’s consent to be the Mother of God? I see where the Angel TELLS Mary what will happen (Luke 1:30-33), but I don’t see the Angel asking anything. Mary does (“And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man?” verse 34).

She is told that God (The Holy Spirit (God Himself) will impregnate her) Mary say’s “I am the handmaid of the Lord do with me as you say.”

While the word “impregnate” is not there, she was “with child” (to use a colloquialism), so I don’t have an objection to it. On the other hand, notice what Mary says – “Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me according to thy word.” She accepted what the Angel TOLD her (unlike Zachary in verse 18, who doubted and was struck dumb for his unbelief). Mary is living proof that God is the Potter and we are the clay.

And you find that to be “Ordinary?”

This is not “Ordinary”; however, Joseph and Mary DID become husband and wife. You are asserting that they did NOT have “normal” marital relations, even though there is no direct Scriptural proof of this. I would suggest that since God did not specifically forbid normal relations to Joseph and Mary, then they would be free to engage in them.

“Hail FULL OF GRACE” (ie…Perfect One) that’s not special? Lk. 1

Luke 1:29 reads, “Who having heard, was troubled at his saying, and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be.” Mary recognized this as a GREETING (or salutation), not a title, name change, or anything of the sort. Plus, there is still the question of WHERE you find the idea that “Full of Grace” equals “Immaculate Conception”. I am still waiting for someone to show me in a lexicon, concordance, dictionary or thesaurus where this is the case. This is not to deny that Mary is blessed, or a model of humility, faith and virtue.

Open your bible, any bible. (except the one you may have written) and read Luke chapters 1 and 2.

How does Luke 1 & 2 prove Mary was Immaculately Conceived? I’ve given my evidence from the scriptures to support my belief.

So now you’re saying (I think you’re saying) that the God who Created the entire Universe, including you and me, keeps us all in existance, lacks the authority and power to do what ever GOOD He God desires and Wills? Friend how do you support this theory of yours?

Where does this come from? I never said God lacks the authority and power to do whatever He desires and wills. If this is an attempt to “prove” that God could create Mary sinless, I admit God COULD have done that. HOWEVER, since this is not our “normal” state, then I assert that you need to show that God DID do that!

Catholics must accept with at least assent of will, all defined marian Dogma’s, but none of is forced or obligated to honor in any way saints or “sacramentals.” Doing so is a recommended personal pious practice.

What does “assent of will” mean? Prayer and veneration of saints is not a part of the topic here (although, I admit, it has been addressed a few times. I apologize for any confusion this may have caused with the topic).

Friend the Greek word for brothers is “adelphos.” … Mt. 4:21 … Acts 9:17 …There are many other like examples.

In the first instance, James and John are brothers by birth. In the second example, Ananias and Saul are brothers in Christ. In Matt 13:54-56, who were these brothers (and sisters)? The CONTEXT shows they are children of Joseph and Mary.​

continued …

 

[Cachonga]

Randy Carson –

When discussing the Immaculate Conception, an implicit reference may be found in the angel’s greeting to Mary. The angel Gabriel said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you” (Luke 1:28). The phrase “full of grace” is a translation of the Greek word kecharitomene. It therefore expresses a characteristic quality of Mary.

in brief – you still have not proven that “Full of Grace” equals “Immaculate Conception”, you have not offered any lexicon, concordance, dictionary or thesaurus that equates Grace with Sinless, and even IF Mary HAD to be sinless to be the Mother of the Son of God, there is nothing that would indicate WHEN this (presumed) sinlessness was bestowed upon her (maybe at conception, maybe when she was 10, maybe an hour before the angel showed up, maybe 1/1000 seconds before the angel showed up, no way to know, just that it occurred before the angel greeted her).

Mary might listen to each prayer one at a time, and since she is “outside of time” she has all of eternity to listen to and respond to each request. Since God is also outside of time, all time is "present’ to God, therefore, Mary might respond to my prayer a thousand years from now, but since that is the present to God, he hears her intercession for me in what is real time for me.

This is the best explanation I’ve heard about how a saint in heaven MIGHT be able to hear and answer prayers. However, I find nothing to convince me that anyone in Heaven (other than God) can hear anything that is going on here on Earth.

And similarly, God could make the prayer requests of those on earth known the the saints so that they may intercede on our behalf.

Sure, and MAYBE, they ARE interceding for us in the same way we would intercede for believers in other countries. I can pray for believers in China without knowing their individual name or specific needs. Since prayer to the saints is not the topic of this thread, I will end this here (unless someone can also explain how praying to the saints is part of the Marian dogmas).

Using this type of genius, how can YOU be the bride since you are a man?

Gal 3:28 says, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” In Matt 22:30 Jesus says, “For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.”

Gee, try Revelation 12 for starters. A woman clothed with the sun with a crown of 12 stars on her head? Hmmm…a woman in heaven with a crown…who could this be…thinking…thinking…

Already addressed. I found a commentary from the late 3rd/early 4th century by Victorinus. Again, here’s what he says, “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 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,12 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.” I didn’t see Mary mentioned in this commentary. This is the earliest reference I have been able to find to Rev 12:1, and it refutes the Catholic claim that this has always been taught as being Mary.

How would Jesus, as man, treat His mother?

Once again, look at Matt 12:46-49 and see how he treated his mother. I notice He didn’t demand that a path be cleared for her to come in and see Him, or so that He could go out and bow down to her. Instead, He makes it clear that she is equal to all other believers.

Please demonstrate from any historical record or document you like that a doctrine regarding Mary (or any other for that matter) has changed.

200 years ago, I was free to believe or not believe that Mary was immaculately conceived. 100 years ago, I was free to believe or not believe in the Assumption. Now, I HAVE to believe BOTH to be in good standing with the Catholic Church. How long have these been doctrines of the Church?

Really? Try these:

this is getting off topic, and can be a large thread on it’s own, so I will not answer it here.

You have no example of a single Catholic doctrine which contradicts scripture since none exists.

Immaculate Conception, made dogma in the middle of the 19th century. Contradicted by Scripture (as already demonstrated). Until you can show that “Full of Grace” equals “Sinless”. I suggest you have a contradiction.

AmbroseSJ – I do appreciate your comments and concern. You certainly represent exactly what I expected to hear, and I’ve heard it from family members many times. Rather than get off topic, I’ll just say that I understand your position.​

continued …

 

[Cachonga]

jmcrae –

There are two Jameses in the New Testament. One is the son of Zebedee, and the other is the son of Alphaeus. I am under the impression that the one described as “the brother of Jesus” is the son of Alphaeus.

Let’s see – Matt 10:2 lists James (brother of John, son of Zebedee), Matt 10:3 lists James son of Alpheus, Matt 13:55 lists James as a BROTHER of Jesus (no mention of Zebedee or Alpheus, by people who KNEW Jesus AND HIS FAMILY). Mark 15:40 also lists James the less. John 7:5 says, “For neither did his brethren believe in him.” (read John 7:1-10 for context) Seems clear to me that Mat 13:55 is not referring to James, son of Zebedee or James son of Alpheus. In this, we agree. However, you still haven’t proven that James, Joseph, Simon and Judas are NOT uterine brothers of Jesus (same goes for the sisters).

And who are Gods’ friends, who are rejoicing? The Saints and Angels in Heaven, of course! Which means that they are aware of when we get lost, and when we get found. Is there any good reason why they, therefore, would not pray for us and intercede for us at the Throne of Heaven, when we are lost?

The point is that the rejoicing takes place when GOD TELLS HIS FRIENDS about the lost sheep being found! I have addressed prayers to saints above, and will leave it at that.

The same way that I myself can be mother, sister, daughter, and friend…

So you think God is Father the way you’re mother, and Son the way you are daughter? Rather than continue on this line (which is off topic), I would ask you to find for me ANY mention of Queen in relation to Heaven. God is King! I find no place in scripture for a Queen.

They couldn’t “deny it” - any more than people living prior to the time of Columbus could “deny” that the world was round - they had no way of knowing what shape the world was, yet, since they didn’t yet understand it. Once these things were understood, they became required for belief, because they are true.

So the doctrine changed because, for some strange reason, the Pope decided it was true? On what Biblical evidence did this happen?

… Once a thing has been discovered, either in the world of science, or in the world of the spirit, it has become known to be true, and therefore, required for belief.

Apart from divine revelation, how is it possible to know these things? And, if it took over 1800 years to “discover” Mary’s Immaculate Conception, then isn’t the claim that this has been the “constant teaching of the church for 2000 years” a lie?

The Scriptures themselves were not discovered to be “scriptural” until the late 300s AD. I doubt that St. Paul worried about things being “scriptural” - he was more worried about preaching and writing whatever is true.

Not to get sidetracked into a discussion on the cannon, but we know the Scriptures are God-breathed (theopnuestos, see 2 Tim 3:16), therefore, it is trustworthy. So what Paul told the Philippian jailer in Acts 16:31 is just as true today as it was then.

 

[jmcrae]

Luke 1:29 reads, “Who having heard, was troubled at his saying, and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be.” Mary recognized this as a GREETING (or salutation) -

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.

 

[jmcrae]

jmcrae – Let’s see – Matt 10:2 lists James (brother of John, son of Zebedee), Matt 10:3 lists James son of Alpheus, Matt 13:55 lists James as a BROTHER of Jesus (no mention of Zebedee or Alpheus, by people who KNEW Jesus AND HIS FAMILY).

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. Could Mary and Joseph have had other children living in the same house with them? I am sure some people, including my neighbors, think that my nieces and nephews are really my sons and daughters, and I have already mentioned sisters of mine who are not related to me biologically, but outsiders would probably think that we are all the children of my mother and her husband. Doesn’t make it true.

So you think God is Father the way you’re mother, and Son the way you are daughter?

NO, of course not. I am not a modalist heretic.

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. She is the daughter of God the Father. She is the mother of God the Son. As a daughter of God the Father, she is also sister to God the Son. And she is the spouse of the Holy Spirit, by whose action she became the mother of God the Son.

Rather than continue on this line (which is off topic), I would ask you to find for me ANY mention of Queen in relation to Heaven.

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.

So the doctrine changed because, for some strange reason, the Pope decided it was true?

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

On what Biblical evidence did this happen? Apart from divine revelation, how is it possible to know these things? And, if it took over 1800 years to “discover” Mary’s Immaculate Conception, then isn’t the claim that this has been the “constant teaching of the church for 2000 years” a lie?

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

In the same way, Mary has always been who she is, even when theologians and scholars of the Church were wondering what to make of the various references to her in the Scriptures and the Holy Tradition - such as “the New Eve,” and this “untying the knot of Eve” etc.

When they finally put it together, they were able to put into language what every Catholic had always instinctively known - that Mary, the Mother of the Word Incarnate, was Immaculately conceived - thus bringing into focus how it is that Mary could be (as the Holy Tradition has always called her) the “New Eve.” A sinless virgin whose “Yes” to God undid the power of Eve’s “Yes” to Satan.

Just as finally understanding that the world is a ball finally made sense of the mystery of ships and other moving objects disappearing bottom-first over the horizon.

 

[JJ59]

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.

Oh, thank you. I’m still an amateur though .

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

It’s not a perfect prefiguring. Nothing in the Bible really is. Like how Jesus is forshadowed as the Passover Lamb. We could ask, “Where is his wool, then?” or “Why don’t we eat him?” (Although this one is no problem for Catholics, who eat Jesus in the Eucharist) or pretty much any way he does not exactly fulfil the role.

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.

Consider this as well:

In the Book of Revelation (11:19 and on-- But remember, chapters and verses only came into practice centuries later.) we read, “Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and within his temple was seen the ark of his covenant. And there came flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake and a great hailstorm. A great and wondrous sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth. (12:5) …She gave birth to a son, a male child, who will rule all the nations with an iron scepter.” So we read about a woman identified with the Ark of the Covenant giving birth to Jesus. It’s Mary, or at least partly. (Revelation is a complicated book. It’s probably part-Mary, part-Israel, part-Church)

Giving evidence for Marian devotion isn’t supposed to convince you to become Catholic. It’s that plus the evidence for the Papacy, plus the evidence for the Eucharist, plus the evidence for justification, etc. etc. etc.

God Bless.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy Carson – jumping ahead a bit, but I would like to say “Thanks!” for the help This should make my responses easier for everyone to follow (guess this is why he’s a Forum Supporter).

My pleasure. BTW, notice that the quote function automatically fills in the name of the person you are quoting so you don’t have to.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy Carson – in brief – you still have not proven that “Full of Grace” equals “Immaculate Conception”, you have not offered any lexicon, concordance, dictionary or thesaurus that equates Grace with Sinless, and even IF Mary HAD to be sinless to be the Mother of the Son of God, there is nothing that would indicate WHEN this (presumed) sinlessness was bestowed upon her (maybe at conception, maybe when she was 10, maybe an hour before the angel showed up, maybe 1/1000 seconds before the angel showed up, no way to know, just that it occurred before the angel greeted her).

Well, the encouraging part of what you have just written is that you acknowledge that God could do it at any time He wanted to, agreed? So, if He wanted Mary to be conceived without sin, no problem. After all, He made Adam and Eve the same way.

This is the best explanation I’ve heard about how a saint in heaven MIGHT be able to hear and answer prayers. However, I find nothing to convince me that anyone in Heaven (other than God) can hear anything that is going on here on Earth. Sure, and MAYBE, they ARE interceding for us in the same way we would intercede for believers in other countries. I can pray for believers in China without knowing their individual name or specific needs.

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

Gal 3:28 says, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” In Matt 22:30 Jesus says, “For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.”

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

Already addressed. I found a commentary from the late 3rd/early 4th century by Victorinus. Again, here’s what he says, “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 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,12 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.” I didn’t see Mary mentioned in this commentary. This is the earliest reference I have been able to find to Rev 12:1, and it refutes the Catholic claim that this has always been taught as being Mary.

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.

Once again, look at Matt 12:46-49 and see how he treated his mother. I notice He didn’t demand that a path be cleared for her to come in and see Him, or so that He could go out and bow down to her. Instead, He makes it clear that she is equal to all other believers.

Right. Mary is nothing special…equal to you and me. No biggie.

200 years ago, I was free to believe or not believe that Mary was immaculately conceived. 100 years ago, I was free to believe or not believe in the Assumption. Now, I HAVE to believe BOTH to be in good standing with the Catholic Church. How long have these been doctrines of the Church?

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.

Immaculate Conception, made dogma in the middle of the 19th century. Contradicted by Scripture (as already demonstrated). Until you can show that “Full of Grace” equals “Sinless”. I suggest you have a contradiction.

No such demonstration has been given. You made an attempt, perhaps, but proved nothing. 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. You Protestants are fond of solas; this is a good one for you to believe in.

 

[mmmcounts]

It doesn’t. In rejecting the Marian dogmas, you are rejecting apocryphal texts such as the Gospel of James and the Gospel of Peter from which they originate. This does not affect your relationship with Jesus Christ. It does affect your relationship with the Roman Catholic Church, though, because doing this puts your beliefs at odds with official church doctrine. However, membership/non-membership in the Roman Catholic Church does not affect your relationship with Jesus Christ, nor does the fact that you withhold full assent to dogmas promulgated by “ecumenical” councils after they stopped being ecumenical.

 

[Nicholas_II]

It doesn’t. In rejecting the Marian dogmas, you are rejecting apocryphal texts such as the Gospel of James and the Gospel of Peter from which they originate. This does not affect your relationship with Jesus Christ. It does affect your relationship with the Roman Catholic Church, though, because doing this puts your beliefs at odds with official church doctrine. However, membership/non-membership in the Roman Catholic Church does not affect your relationship with Jesus Christ, nor does the fact that you withhold full assent to dogmas promulgated by “ecumenical” councils after they stopped being ecumenical.

This is all very neat and looks pretty pious, tidy and attractive, like most Protestant dialogue but when you take a closer look at this position it denies many things Jesus thought important; e.g

1. Jesus’ incarnation and his susequent life as a member of the People of God, along with the traditions and relgious observances they carried as from the ancients.
2. That Jesus did things and allowed thing to be done that on the outset didnt effect his communion with the Father, e.g Baptism, Offerings, Temple Worship, etc.
3. That Jesus came to fullfil those observances and ordinances of the People of God, that his communion with the Father, as well as being a Divine relationship, was also a human one as a member of that ecclessia, that People, Israel…
4. That the community he formed was based on the old one, and that he made it the carrier of the faith, in a similar way to the old. That this was in no way based soley on the letter alone, but on the spirit, and that this in itself proves that it was to be a carrier of the faith.

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.

 

[EphelDuath]

It doesn’t. In rejecting the Marian dogmas, you are rejecting apocryphal texts such as the Gospel of James and the Gospel of Peter from which they originate.

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.

Every Marian doctrine can be found in scripture, however.

However, membership/non-membership in the Roman Catholic Church does not affect your relationship with Jesus Christ,

It most certainly does. Paul tells us that “you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Timothy 3:15).

 

[mmmcounts]

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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

 

[Randy_Carson]

It doesn’t.

It does.

According to the scriptures, how many Churches did Jesus promise to build?

(Hint: Matthew 16:18)

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.

In this argument, the necessities are all normative necessities and the kind of membership being discussed is formal membership. The argument has a logically valid form (in fact, it expresses a variation on what is known as the “hypothetical syllogism” argument form), meaning that the truth of its conclusion depends only on the truth of the premises it contains.

The first premise we may take as established. The verses quoted earlier, John 14:6 and Acts 4:11-12, show that it is (normatively) necessary to be a Christian to be saved.

Both Protestants and Catholics also agree on the second premise, though they disagree over the nature of Christ’s Church. Protestants say it is necessary to be a member of Christ’s Church to be a Christian because in their view all true Christians are automatically members of Christ’s Church, which they define as the invisible, spiritual communion of all true Christians.

Catholics say that it is normatively necessary for Christians to be members of Christ’s Church for two reasons. First, because baptism automatically incorporates one into the Catholic Church (Rom. 6:3, Gal. 3:27) unless some assault on the unity of the Church – such as heresy or schism – prevents one from being or remaining fully incorporated into it (cf. Rom. 11:19-23, Col. 2:18-19). Because baptism is the means by which one becomes a Christian, there is a necessity of means for a Christian to be a Catholic.

Second, because Christ also commands his followers to be subject to the Church leaders he has established (including the pope). This means it is also a necessity of precept for a Christian to be a member of the Catholic Church (1 Thess. 5:12-13, Heb. 13:7, 17; cf. Matt. 16:18, Luke 10:16, Acts 20:28).

---

When a Protestant objects to the above argument, it will be to the third proposition – that the Catholic Church is the Church Christ founded. Both sides agree on the other three points. While it is beyond the scope of this article to give a full proof of the third proposition (this is one of the major tasks of Catholic apologetics), we can offer a limited proof.

Both Protestants and Catholics agree that Christ founded some Church and that this Church will remain forever (Matt. 16:18). The question is whether this Church is a visible communion that can be identified or whether is it a purely spiritual communion made up of all the saved. If it is a visible communion, the Catholic Church is the only plausible candidate, since only this Church extends back far enough (the Eastern Orthodox communion did not finally break with Rome until the 1450s, a mere sixty years before the Protestant Reformation). We can thus give a limited argument for the third proposition by showing the Church Christ founded is a visible communion.

This is proven in Matthew 16:17-19, the passage in which Christ promised the gates of hell would never prevail against his Church (meaning that it would always exist). Several factors in the text show he was talking about a visible communion.

First, Jesus made Peter head of this Church (Matt. 16:18), yet Jesus was certainly not making Peter the head of an invisible Church. It is Christ’s own prerogative to be head of the invisible communion of Christians stretching from heaven to earth (Eph. 5:23). Therefore, he must have made Peter the head of a visible, earthly church. (We will not argue here that Jesus made Peter the head; even if one disagrees, the remaining arguments prove our case.)

Second, Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 16:19), which are for use in Church government (compare Isa. 22:22 – the only Old Testament parallel to this verse). But one cannot govern an invisible communion of believers, only a visible one.

Third, Jesus gave Peter the power of binding and loosing (Matt. 16:19), which Matthew 18:17-18 indicates is used in Church discipline. But one cannot exercise Church discipline over an invisible body. Indeed, Matt. 18:17-18 refers it to public excommunication, in which an individual is treated by the church as “a gentile or a tax collector” (that is, as an unbeliever).

Fourth, Jesus explicitly stated that Peter would exercise the power of binding and loosing on earth. This shows his authority is an earthly one, over an earthly Church.

Fifth, Jesus promised the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church (Matt. 16:18), meaning that it would never perish. But it would be ridiculous to promise that an invisible Church would not pass out of existence since some of the Church’s members are in heaven and Christ’s heavenly Church cannot pass away by its very nature. Only a visible, earthly communion needs a promise that it will never perish.

There are thus abundant reasons to conclude that the Church Jesus was discussing in Matthew 16:17-19 was a visible communion of believers, and, since only the Catholic Church goes back that far, only it can be the one Christ founded.

Hope this helps. :tiphat: