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

[jmcrae]

This is not what the Church teaches.

Actually, Randy has presented very well what the ordinary means of salvation is.

It is also true that God is above the Church, and above the Sacraments, and can perform miracles to save those who are not saved by ordinary means. Sober reflection reminds us that miracles are not all that common, however (hence the term “miracle” to describe them).

Just speaking for myself, I would not consider it wise to entrust my soul to the off-chance that I might be special enough for God to make a miracle just for me. After all, someone goes to Hell, and they probably thought they were pretty special, too.

 

[EphelDuath]

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

The author of the PE of James was trying to explain a reason for the assumption of Mary, because he was assuming that everybody already believed it but wanted to change the orthodox theology behind it.

Or, to give an analogy. You might read a folk story in medieval South Korea whereby people will explain how this enormous mushroom grew in some guy’s back yard. The very fact that they are attempting to explain how it happened, has the underlying assumption that the intended audience already believed in it.

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

It has been, several times. The alleged “brothers of Jesus” are the sons of Mary, wife of Cleopas (Matt. 27:56; Mark 15:47), and Ezekiel outright says that the mother of God cannot give birth to others (Ezekiel 44:2). Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant (Hebrews 9:4). Revelation 12:14 shows that Mary was assumed into heaven, which is also foreshadowed in Song of Songs 2:2-10, Proverbs 8:17-35 and Psalm 45:9-15. Etc.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

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

This question is off topic and not related to your thread title. Are you sola Scriptura now? The Marian references that are drawn from Scripture are often inferred or implicit. But as these doctrines come from the Holy Catholic Church, they are believed to be a part of Divine Revelation, on the same level with Holy Scripture. That is also a Catholic Dogma; viz: that Divine Revelation is voiced through the Catholic Church and the Holy Scripture, not just one or just the other. There are no Marian doctrines that are contrary to the sense of Scripture, as interpreted by the Holy Catholic Church.

If you find that too difficult to swallow, you should have even more trouble swallowing the Scriptures, with its ambiguity, incomprehensibility, self-contradiction, and many many other difficulties for the implacable skeptic.

 

[Cachonga]

EphelDuath:

The author of the PE of James was trying to explain a reason for the assumption of Mary, because he was assuming that everybody already believed it but wanted to change the orthodox theology behind it.

So you’re saying it’s OK to use heretical sources to establish Christian doctrine?

EphelDuath:

The alleged “brothers of Jesus” are the sons of Mary, wife of Cleopas (Matt. 27:56; Mark 15:47), and Ezekiel outright says that the mother of God cannot give birth to others (Ezekiel 44:2). Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant (Hebrews 9:4). Revelation 12:14 shows that Mary was assumed into heaven, which is also foreshadowed in Song of Songs 2:2-10, Proverbs 8:17-35 and Psalm 45:9-15. Etc.

What is your evidence? You are asserting that the “brother’s of Jesus” are sons of Mary, the wife of Cleopas. Why don’t the people Jesus grew up with mention Cleopas and Mary (his wife)? What is the relation with Mary (the mother of Jesus)? When did the Church infallibly declare this “truth”? (And if it hasn’t been “infallibly” declared by the Church, then why should anyone believe it?) Ezekiel 44:2 refers to the East Gate of Jerusalem. It is sealed, but when Jesus returns it will be opened and He will walk through it. (It’s my understanding that this prophecy is why the Muslims sealed this gate put a cemetery in front of it.) Heb 9:4 indicates Mary is the New Ark of the Covenant? So what happens when the items in the Ark are removed (like when Jesus was born)? I believe that Jesus is a better New Ark of the Covenant, and Mary would have been foreshadowed by the Gershonites (they’re the folks that carried the Ark from place to place, just like Mary carried Jesus for nine months). Rev 12:14 shows Mary was assumed into Heaven? Victorinus, who wrote in the late 3rd/early 4th century, wrote a commentary on the Apocalypse of John (Revelation). I’ve already shown that he doesn’t mention Mary in regard to Rev 12:1. Here’s what he says about Rev 12:14 – “Two great wings"] are the two prophets-Elias, and the prophet who shall be with him.” Again, no mention of Mary. Song of Songs 2:2-10 foreshadows Mary’s Assumption? That is quite an assumption on your part (or has THIS been “infallibly” defined by the Church?). I have also looked at Proverbs 8 and Psalms 45, but I don’t see anything that would indicate what you are asserting.

 

[Randy_Carson]

So, if she is the spouse of the Holy Spirit, wouldn’t that make the Holy Spirit the father of Jesus? And if she is already “married” to God (by way of the Holy Spirit), wouldn’t it be adultery for her to be a member of the Bride of Christ?

Sheesh. Talk about mixing your metaphors… Do you really think that God LITERALLY married Mary? But even if you want to go down that rabbit trail, are you suggesting that because Mary could be called the spouse of the Holy Spirit, she is committing adultery by being included in the Church as Bride of Christ? As if Jesus and the Holy Spirit are two brothers fighting over the same girl?

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

Perhaps this is all new to you, a Protestant. You can read more about this here:

Is Mary’s Queenship Biblical?
By Edward P. Sri
catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9812fea2.asp

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

You’re swinging wildly here…I think you need to take a few deep breaths…maybe go for a long walk. Along the way, you might reflect on these writings from the Early Church Fathers on the Immaculate Conception dating back to the third century:

Early Church Fathers on the Immaculate Conception

Justin Martyr

[Jesus] became man by the Virgin so that the course that was taken by disobedience in the beginning through the agency of the serpent might be also the very course by which it would be put down. Eve, a virgin and undefiled, conceived the word of the serpent and bore disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy when the angel Gabriel announced to her the glad tidings that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her and the power of the Most High would overshadow her, for which reason the Holy One being born of her is the Son of God. And she replied, “Be it done unto me according to your word” (Luke 1:38) (Dialogue with Trypho 100 [A.D. 155]).

St. Irenaeus (180 AD)

“Consequently, then, Mary the Virgin is found to be obedient, saying: ‘Behold, O Lord, your handmaid; be it done to me according to your word.’ Eve, however, was disobedient; and when yet a virgin, she did not obey… having become disobedient, was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race; so also Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless a virgin, being obedient, was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race… Thus, the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the virgin Mary loosed through faith.” (Against the Heresies, Book III [A.D. 180]).

St. Irenaeus uses “virginity” as a sign of sinlessness (i.e. Mary was sinless just as Eve was sinless before the Fall).

Hippolytus

He [Jesus] was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle [Mary] was exempt from defilement and corruption (*Orat. In Illud, Dominus pascit me, in Gallandi, Bibl. Patrum, II, 496 *ante [A.D. 235]).

Origen

This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one (Homily 1 [A.D. 244]).

St. Ambrose of Milan (340-397)

“Mary, a virgin not only undefiled but a virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free from every stain.”

St. Ephraem the Syrian (c. 350)

You alone and your Mother are more beautiful than any others, for there is neither blemish in you nor any stains upon your Mother. Who of my children can compare in beauty to these? (Nisibene Hymns 27:8 A. D. 361]).

“My Lady Most Holy, All-Pure, All-Immaculate, All-Stainless, All-Undefiled, All-Incorrupt, All-Inviolate …Spotless Robe of Him Who clothes Himself with light as with a garment …Flower unfading, purple woven by God, alone Most Immaculate.” (Ibid)

Ambrose of Milan

Come, then, and search out your sheep, not through your servants or hired men, but do it yourself. Lift me up bodily and in the flesh, which is fallen in Adam. Lift me up not from Sarah but from Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace had made inviolate, free of every stain of sin (Commentary on Psalm 118:22-30 [A.D. 387]).

Gregory Nazianzen

He was conceived by the virgin, who had been first purified by the Spirit in soul and body; for, as it was fitting that childbearing should receive its share of honor, so it was necessary that virginity should receive even greater honor (Sermon 38 [d. A.D. 390]).

St. Augustine** (c.390 AD)**

“Every personal sin must be excluded from the Blessed Virgin Mary for the sake of the honor of God.”

We must except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honor to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin (Nature and Grace 36:42 [A.D. 415]).

The promulgation of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception simply formally defined something that the Church OBVIOUSLY held as true for more than a thousand years.

Unlike sola scriptura and sola fide which are non-biblical novelties by comparison.

 

[jmcrae]

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

The early Christians prayed the Hail Mary prayer - the same one that we use today. They even inscribed it in the walls of the Catacombs where they went for Mass during the time of persecution. (Josh McDowell in his book Evidence That Demands a Verdict uses this fact as evidence that there were Christians worshipping Jesus as early as 70 AD.)

The words of the Hail Mary prayer are also found in Scripture.

 

[Cachonga]

Randy Carson:

Sheesh. Talk about mixing your metaphors… Do you really think that God LITERALLY married Mary?

I’m not the one who called Mary the “Spouse of the Holy Spirit”. I’m saying that Mary CANNOT be the “spouse of the Holt Spirit” and (a member of) the Bride of Christ.

Is Mary’s Queenship Biblical?

Read the article. Not convinced. I don’t see the “queen mother” having any authority within the Kingdom (except what the King will allow, such as Jezebeel and her priests and prophets, or Maachah, mother of King Asa, whom the King deposed because “she made a horrid thing for Asherah” (1 Kings 15:13)). Plus, Queen Vashti was the wife of the King (as recorded in Esther). After the King banished her and felt sorry later, there was a “Medo-Persian Top Model” contest to find a replacement. Surely you don’t imagine the King was looking for a replacement for his mother? I would also point out that there was a Queen Mother in England until a few years ago (go to news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/obituaries/queen_mother/funeral_procession/procession.stm for more info).

Early Church Fathers on the Immaculate Conception

I noticed there was a lack of scripture references for the opinions given. I would also point out that there were heretical works prior to these Fathers that also supported the Marian dogmas. How can I (or you, or anyone) know that these Fathers weren’t influenced by these heretical works?

jmcrae:

The early Christians prayed the Hail Mary prayer - the same one that we use today. They even inscribed it in the walls of the Catacombs where they went for Mass during the time of persecution. (Josh McDowell in his book Evidence That Demands a Verdict uses this fact as evidence that there were Christians worshipping Jesus as early as 70 AD.)

The words of the Hail Mary prayer are also found in Scripture.

I’ve never read Josh McDowell’s book, but since Paul wrote a letter to the Romans, and he was martyred before 70 AD, I wouldn’t think that would be a problem. I would like to check into it, though. Could you provide the page #? As for the Hail Mary being in scripture, I believe the scripture part of the prayer would be limited to “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.” (Luke 1:28) and “Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.” (Luke 1:42). Where does the rest of the prayer come from?

 

[JJ59]

Wait, how is it inaccurate? Luke gives several paralells to show that Mary is a “type” of the Ark of the Covenant. Are you saying the infallible Word of God is inaccurate? I must have misunderstood.

Again, Mary is not exacly the Ark of the Covenant. 1 Peter 3:18–22 says Noah’s Ark is like baptism, but baptism has nothing to do with wood, or animals being put in it.

Odd that you quote the Fathers when they support your view. The Early Church Fathers showed belief in things like the Real Presence, the Papacy, etc. In short, they’ve got ‘Catholic’ written all over them!

The scriptures also don’t say anything about the Bible being our only authority. I don’t see you rebuking that viewpoint.

God Bless.

 

[maryrev12]

maryrev12 – i…I also believe she was just as human as anyone else, and I believe the Bible makes it clear she had other children

no -since the Bible came to us from the Church- which is the pillar and foundation of our faith ( 1 tim3:15) we yield to the authority of Jesus found in his Church. You are a part of a schism that has broken away and preaches a new gospel and no longer yields to that authority and have been lied to by the father of lies…this lie that the mother of God had other children… That sounds harsh - I believe you are sincere in your love for Christ however.

(she was certainly engaged BEFORE the angel came to her). Am I ignorant because I question the teaching of the Church?

no- that would not cause ignorance-I do not know your story- but perhaps you grew up in the Church but were only going through the motions… then your first real encounter with Jesus’s love was through a non catholic. Because this Epiphany occurred with a non catholic you were compelled to entertain there teachings and accepted them.

1 John 4:1 says, “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.” In light of scripture, how can I not question the Church teachings?

This is a warning from the Bishop Paul to his flock to remain in the true Church… the one Jesus started. You still have membership- all you need to do is to go to confession. Who started the church you belong to now?

… As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” (Gal 1:6-9).

I think you are implying here that the Catholic Church has succumbed to the father of lies and is teaching false gospels- but the Lord himself promised to guide the Church unto all truth and that the gates of hell will not prevail against it. my hope and faith are in Christ not the Church- but I love the Church because He brought me here- away from the divided life of protestantism into the fullness of truth - this safe wonderful place that the Lord Jesus himself prayed for-" Lord let them be ONE as we are…"

Virginity is not bad. I am well over 45 years of age, and I can count the number of people I’ve had sex with in my entire life on one finger – and that is my wife (and we didn’t even meet until after I was 30).

Where did the strength and moral fortitude to remain virgin originate in you? Looks like you were taught that from our Lords Church?

Virginity is good, however, perpetual virgins do not marry.

It was common practice for young ladys who were consecrated virgins to in fact marry to be protected and cared for and no- they did not have sex

Do you think that married couples have sex because of lust? And where did contraception and birth control come from?

The mother of Jesus was called to a consecrated life of virginity. We know this because the Church founded by Jesus passed this teaching down orally. It is not contained in scripture- but that doesn’t mean it isn’t true. Jesus didn’t command his disciples to create scripture as an authoritative guide for the Church. It could never work since it can not speak to all issues- it is a book and can not speak. The consecrated life is a higher calling.Protestants deny this teaching . With only scripture to guide them they have a limited vision of the life of the mother of Jesus. They have the verse where Jesus calls her “woman”… they have other verses that seem to imply Jesus was deliberately down playing her role ( mark 3:30-34) With only scripture to guide you it would seem a logical conclusion. And adding to this we have in our society a sexual obsession- I brought in birth control for a reason. Protestants practice birth control- which highly offends God. Protestants do not believe that there is a higher calling to remain virgin. Believing the mother of Jesus had sex aids them in support of this.Furthermore since it is not a higher calling to remain virgin then a “healthy obsession” with sex is good- which then led to birth control as good

… You seem to be dragging in straw men into this discussion. Do you think we can’t read and understand the original languages in which the scriptures were written?

I believe men appointed by God ( 1 co. 9:17 Gal. 2:7 1 thes. 2:4 1 ti. 6:20 amongst others) are meant to lead the Church founded by Jesus- One Lord One faith One Baptism. The father of lies convinced some that “of course you can read it and understand it- you don’t need the leaders of the church you can be your own authority” and so he divided the body of Christ and is gaining ground because of it.

And who do you think the author of Scripture is? We know who wrote the books- as it says in 2 Pet. 1:20 Holy men lead by the Holy Spiri and Peter also warns us against personal interpretation

…The Scriptures are God-breathed (theopneustos). God is the author of Scripture (Old and New Testament).

True- but through men… men appointed to lead

It was through prayer and fasting and seeking God that I came out of the Roman Catholic Church.

I don’t want to disagree with you here- that would seem rude and I don’t want to be- the prayer and fasting brought you closer to Christ. The newness of your relationship to Him filled you with joy. I believe you associated this with your new protestant friends and they convinced you to leave the Church and be with them. You thought it was the right thing to do because you were filled with such revelation at the time. Yet you can wander the world of the protestant and bounce from church to church as I did in search for the truth and all will clai they have it and all will tell you its because the Holy Spirit led them and yet they all disagree! They are NOT “ONE”. Jesus did not lie to us- the devil did. Jesus did not leave His Church- He is still here as He promised.

God love you!!

 

[Cachonga]

jj59 - the problem is the parallels do not follow through. What I mean is – Mary was pregnant for only 9 months. If she was the “New Ark of the Covenant”, wouldn’t she have to carry Jesus throughout His life? I admit she followed along as He ministered, but when I see things like Matt 12:46-50 and Mark 3:32-35, I have to ask, IF she IS the New Ark, why is she not at His side as He ministers? What happened to the “Ark” that it has become separated from the Law, the Rod and the Manna? I would also point out that the Scripture makes it clear that Jesus is the New Adam, as well as a clear parallel between Noah’s Ark and Baptism (as you pointed out), but does not make any such parallels about Mary. It is dangerous to go beyond the Word of God (this is what Eve did that caused her to eat the fruit). The infallible Word of God is not inaccurate, but these alleged parallels don’t work when examined in detail. I used the Early Fathers to point out that the claim that Mary was considered the New Ark of the Covenant was NOT a universal opinion. I do not consider them infallible, especially when they deviate from Scripture. In regard to their views on other doctrines, that is beyond the scope of this thread. In regard to sola scriptura, I have already given my opinion on that in your thread on that topic, so there is no need to bring it into this thread.

maryrev12:

I think you are implying here that the Catholic Church has succumbed to the father of lies and is teaching false gospels

I would ask you – if an unbeliever came to you and asked “What must I do to be saved?”, what would your response be? Compare that to Paul’s answer to the Philippian jailer in Acts 16:31. Has the Gospel changed? My “moral fortitude” came from God (I can honestly say there were many times that, if I had opportunity, I would have taken it; it is by God’s grace and mercy that the opportunity never came along).

It was common practice for young ladys who were consecrated virgins to in fact marry to be protected and cared for and no- they did not have sex

Prove this assertion! What documentation do you have? Who else do you have a record of as having this type of “arrangement”? You presume a lot of things about me, and clearly rely on your Church above the written Word of God. When I pointed out that the Scriptures are God-breathed (as found in 2 Tim 3:16), you replied “True- but through men… men appointed to lead “. Yes, God used men to write the Scriptures, but God is still the author. Wouldn’t you agree that God knows what He means?

 

[maryrev12]

jj59 - the problem is the parallels do not follow through. What I mean is – Mary was pregnant for only 9 months. If she was the “New Ark of the Covenant”, wouldn’t she have to carry Jesus throughout His life? I admit she followed along as He ministered, but when I see things like Matt 12:46-50 and Mark 3:32-35, I have to ask, IF she IS the New Ark, why is she not at His side as He ministers? What happened to the “Ark” that it has become separated from the Law, the Rod and the Manna? I would also point out that the Scripture makes it clear that Jesus is the New Adam, as well as a clear parallel between Noah’s Ark and Baptism (as you pointed out), but does not make any such parallels about Mary. It is dangerous to go beyond the Word of God (this is what Eve did that caused her to eat the fruit). The infallible Word of God is not inaccurate, but these alleged parallels don’t work when examined in detail. I used the Early Fathers to point out that the claim that Mary was considered the New Ark of the Covenant was NOT a universal opinion. I do not consider them infallible, especially when they deviate from Scripture. In regard to their views on other doctrines, that is beyond the scope of this thread. In regard to sola scriptura, I have already given my opinion on that in your thread on that topic, so there is no need to bring it into this thread.

I would ask you – if an unbeliever came to you and asked “What must I do to be saved?”, what would your response be? Compare that to Paul’s answer to the Philippian jailer in Acts 16:31. Has the Gospel changed? My “moral fortitude” came from God (I can honestly say there were many times that, if I had opportunity, I would have taken it; it is by God’s grace and mercy that the opportunity never came along). Prove this assertion! What documentation do you have? Who else do you have a record of as having this type of “arrangement”? You presume a lot of things about me, and clearly rely on your Church above the written Word of God. When I pointed out that the Scriptures are God-breathed (as found in 2 Tim 3:16), you replied “True- but through men… men appointed to lead “. Yes, God used men to write the Scriptures, but God is still the author. Wouldn’t you agree that God knows what He means?

what do you think a Catholic would say? I’d say pray and ask for forgiveness… and when you sin pray some more! Join with the body of Christ in accordance with the scriptures and Church teaching- be baptised and take part in the eucharist- scripture teaches this- and so does the Church. btw Where does Scripture’s authority come from? and you can not give the one word answer “God!” because if God had shouted from heaven " this book is my sacred word" if certainly would have been recorded somewhere. So since we know that did not happen- where does Scripture get its authority?

 

[jmcrae]

Yes, God used men to write the Scriptures, but God is still the author. Wouldn’t you agree that God knows what He means?

Are we to presume that God waited until now to tell what He means, and only to the members of your particular sect - but no one (not even the original writers, since they taught what the Catholic Church now teaches) has known it for these 2,000 years, except for you and those who believe like you?

 

[Cachonga]

maryrev12:

I’d say pray and ask for forgiveness… and when you sin pray some more! Join with the body of Christ in accordance with the scriptures and Church teaching- be baptised and take part in the eucharist

Compare this with Acts 16:31 – “And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.” Just curious, when were you going to tell the new convert about the other things (“infallible” pope, belief of Marian dogmas, etc…)? While this is not a topic on the gospel, I think it’s clear that the church has added to the gospel.

Where does Scripture’s authority come from? and you can not give the one word answer “God!” because if God had shouted from heaven " this book is my sacred word" if certainly would have been recorded somewhere. So since we know that did not happen- where does Scripture get its authority?

You are mistaken. 2 Tim 3:16 says, “every Writing {is} God-breathed, and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for setting aright, for instruction that {is} in righteousness” (YLT) Notice, scripture itself says it is God-breathed (theopneustos).

jmcrae – this is off topic and not even worthy of comment.

 

[jmcrae]

You are mistaken. 2 Tim 3:16 says, “every Writing {is} God-breathed, and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for setting aright, for instruction that {is} in righteousness” (YLT) Notice, scripture itself says it is God-breathed (theopneustos).

You are not “getting” that the Bible didn’t fall fully formed out of the sky. Nor was anyone receiving aural locutions from God, nor taking dictation from God in the manner of a secretary.

Rather, the early Bishops of the Church wrote instructional letters and teaching documents for their followers, which then were copied and passed on to others, until the question arose, which of these documents were authoritative, and suitable to be used for Catechetical instruction and to be read out at Mass and in other liturgies of the Church? For nearly 200 years, the Bishops of the whole Church debated this question, until finally in the late 300s AD, three local Councils (Rome, Carthage, and Hippo) came to agree on a common canon of the Scriptures, which was then infallibly proclaimed in 405 AD by Pope Innocent I, to be the definitive canon of the Christian Scriptures. St. Jerome then translated all of those books into the common language of the people, bound them together into a single big book with stitching and covers, gave it to a monastery to be copied and distributed to the Churches, and this is how we came to have the Bible as we know it today.

Now - if none of those people had the charism of infallibility, how can we know that the Bible itself is inerrent? Or that we even have a Bible?

 

[Cachonga]

jmcrae - as I said before, this is off topic and not worthy of comment.

 

[catharina]

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!

First of all, my condolences.
To any who leave the sanctuary of Holy Mother Church, I offer my condolences.

I’m sorry that your thread is still running and I won’t read all of it before I respond.

I take it that the Church you “joined” is not one that leads back to Jesus Christ in His life.
Meaning it is not a Church of Apostolic succession, of uninterrupted Sacraments.
Therefore I can’t even guess the number of errors you have accepted.

Our Lord gave us the Church to protect us and to instruct us.
Teachings have flowed to all Catholics for 2000 years.
Why you chose to abandon the ship of Peter is unknown to me.

That you choose to spurn the mother of Our Lord is evidence of your wrong choice.
Would you expect to be acceptable to a friend or spouse or neighbor or boss if
you made it clear that you BELIEVE his/her mother is unworthy in your eyes?

In the Church, we have Scripture and Tradition. Tradition is our teaching authority.
You in your church with your fellow believers lack that tradition.

You are stuck in time in opposition to the honors granted to the mother of Our Lord.
My condolences - and a word of advice: examine your conscience.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I’m not the one who called Mary the “Spouse of the Holy Spirit”. I’m saying that Mary CANNOT be the “spouse of the Holt Spirit” and (a member of) the Bride of Christ.

First, please learn to use the quote function. Responding to your responses is tedious.

Second, Mary IS the the spouse of the Holy Spirit and a part (not the complete) Bride of Christ, but you can only take this type of language so far. For example, is the Church the Bride of Christ or the Body of Christ?

Does Jesus marry Himself?

Read the article. Not convinced. I don’t see the “queen mother” having any authority within the Kingdom (except what the King will allow,

Why would it be any different for Mary? Perhaps you should buy his book…I did.

I noticed there was a lack of scripture references for the opinions given. I would also point out that there were heretical works prior to these Fathers that also supported the Marian dogmas. How can I (or you, or anyone) know that these Fathers weren’t influenced by these heretical works?

Since the canon of scripture was not established until AFTER some of the earliest of these quotes, one can understand why this is the case. However, it is a weakness (and not a strength) that Protestantism is forced to look exclusively to scripture after having separated itself from Sacred Tradition and the Church that God established.

I’ve never read Josh McDowell’s book, but since Paul wrote a letter to the Romans, and he was martyred before 70 AD, I wouldn’t think that would be a problem. I would like to check into it, though. Could you provide the page #? As for the Hail Mary being in scripture, I believe the scripture part of the prayer would be limited to “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.” (Luke 1:28) and “Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.” (Luke 1:42). Where does the rest of the prayer come from?

From the heart.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Wait, how is it inaccurate? Luke gives several paralells to show that Mary is a “type” of the Ark of the Covenant. Are you saying the infallible Word of God is inaccurate? I must have misunderstood.

Not just Luke - John and Hebrews support the parallel, also:

Mary as the New Ark of the Covenant Proved from Scripture

The ark of the Old Covenant contained the words of God written on Stone. (Deut. 10:5, Hebrews 9:4) Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, contained the Word of God made flesh. (John 1:1)

The ark of the Old Covenant contained the jar of manna which came down from heaven. Those who ate of this bread still died. (Exodus 16:32, Hebrews 9:4) Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, contained Jesus, the bread of life which came down from heaven. Those who eat of this bread will live forever. (John 6:31-41)

The ark of the Old Covenant contained the staff of Aaron which had budded as proof as his priesthood. (Number 17:1-9) Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, contained Jesus, our high priest, Himself. (Hebrews 4:14)

The ark of the Old Covenant was overshadowed by the glory cloud. (Exodus 40:34-35) Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit. (Luke 1:35)

The ark traveled to the house of Obed-edom in the hill country of Judea. (2 Sam. 6:1–11) Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, traveled to the house of Elizabeth and Zechariah in the hill country of Judea. (Luke 1:39)

A man touched the ark of the Old Covenant to steady it without God’s permission and was struck dead on the spot. David was filled with awe and said, “Who am I that the Ark of the Lord should come unto me?” (2 Samuel 6:9) Elizabeth is filled with the Holy Spirit and said, “Who am I that the mother of my Lord should come unto me?” (Luke 1:43)

The ark of the Old Covenant remained in the house of Obed-edom for three months. (2 Sam. 6:11) Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, remained in the house of Elizabeth for three months (Luke 1:56).

The house of Obed-edom was blessed by the presence of the ark of the Old Covenant. (2 Sam. 6:11) In the account of Mary’s visit to Elizabeth, the word blessed is used three times; surely Elizabeth’s house was blessed by God. (Luke 1:39–45)

The ark of the Old Covenant returns home and ends up in Jerusalem, God’s presence and glory is revealed in the temple. (2 Sam. 6:12; 1 Kgs. 8:9–11) Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, returns home and eventually ends up in Jerusalem, where she presents God incarnate in the temple. (Luke 1:56; 2:21–22)

Dressed as a priest, David danced and leapt in front of the ark of the Old Covenant. (2 Sam. 6:14) John the Baptist—of priestly lineage—leapt in his mother’s womb at the approach of Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant. (Luke 1:41)

David shouts in the presence of the ark of the Old Covenant. (2 Sam. 6:15) Elizabeth “exclaimed with a loud cry” in the presence of the Mary, the Ark of the Old Covenant. (Luke 1:42)

The ark of the Old Covenant disappeared, and no trace of it can be found anywhere on earth. Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, was assumed bodily into heaven by God at the end of her earthly life, and no trace of her can be found anywhere on earth.

 

[Randy_Carson]

jmcrae - as I said before, this is off topic and not worthy of comment.

Perhaps.

But the excuse is too convenient for you to use it credibly.

You’re being evasive, and everyone knows it.

 

[maryrev12]

Compare this with Acts 16:31 – “And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.” Just curious, when were you going to tell the new convert about the other things (“infallible” pope, belief of Marian dogmas, etc…)? While this is not a topic on the gospel, I think it’s clear that the church has added to the gospel. You are mistaken. 2 Tim 3:16 says, “every Writing {is} God-breathed, and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for setting aright, for instruction that {is} in righteousness” (YLT) Notice, scripture itself says it is God-breathed (theopneustos).

jmcrae – this is off topic and not even worthy of comment.

So a Bishop of the Church-Paul- with the authority he received from God declared Scripture is God breathed. my point exactly.

The Scriptures received there authority from the Church- it isn’t the other way around. Jesus’s Church- the one you walked away from. I’m glad that you came to Christ though- if that was the only way then good came out of it. )Our protestant brothers and sisters are our family- they’ve cut themselves off from the head though-

As for teaching a convert the beauties of Jesus’s Church- that is a privilage I hope to exercise as often as possible. Its far easier to teach Catholic Christianity than all the mixtures of different belief in the Prot. world. Plus becuas eit is the TRUTH- you don’t have to ignore parts of Scripture - it all fits together perfectly!