If Mariology didn't come from the Scriptures or the Early Church, then how can it be viewed as truth?

[Zooey]

No, its not and no it wasn’t. Mary being assumed into heaven is NOT in the Bible and Mary being unblemished by sin is refuted by Scripture where she herself declared God as her Savior. These are only two examples of the Many. Mary being Immaculately conceived was not taught in the Early Church and in fact didn’t become catholic teaching until the 19th century either. There seems to be a very large gap between Scipture/EC and many of the Roman teachings. The Dogmas of Mary are just some of the many.

That is perfectly true! I had never looked at that aspect of the subject. Thank you! I learned something today!

 

[mskejj]

I have heard Catholics say many different things to try and justify the titles that they attach to Mary that the Bible nor the Early Church do. I am still far from convinced that God himself would want us to view Mary as unblemished by sin and the queen of heaven etc.

Here is a video explaining these issues from Scripture…These things are all implied throughout Scripture through typology which is how the ECF and the Catholic Church reads Scripture.

youtube.com/watch?v=kUdYeYy3NQA

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Welcome home! Must’ve been a bumpy ride to Rome, by the sounds of it!

God bless.

Scott

:tiphat: Thanks! I credit St. Damien of Molokai. He started me on the path to Rome.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Being believed by the church but yet not being declared dogma for over 1800 years?? That doesn’t even make sense. It sounds like it went through a ton of refutation for a long long time to me.

Hello,

I just want to make sure you don’t miss this, from my post on the first page of this thread:

*Where did you get this very unbiblical notion that everything man needs to know about Christianity is found in the Bible? It was unheard of before the 16th century.

Do you know that the Catholic Church selected 27 of her own writings, canonized them, and named them the New Testament at the end of the fourth century? The NT is not a systematic instruction book in Christianity. It isn’t an instruction book at all! It’s the written record of the Church’s life during the first 50 years or so after her founding by Jesus Christ. And it contains only part of the teaching of the Apostles. There’s also Sacred Apostolic Tradition. The NT is the part of Sacred Tradition that got written down.*

I just want to be sure you understand where we got the Bible, so you don’t jump to conclusions again about what the Catholic Church teaches. Most Protestants don’t know this, so I’m not blaming you. I just want to share it with you so you can put things in their proper order. The Catholic Church is much older than the Bible.

Here’s a little book online that explains it in detail:

catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/wbible.htm

Hang around. We’ll be glad to answer all your questions.

Jim Dandy

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by pritchard85
Being believed by the church but yet not being declared dogma for over 1800 years?? That doesn’t even make sense. It sounds like it went through a ton of refutation for a long long time to me.

Does not make sense? Try this for starters: The doctrine of the Trinity was not ratified until 325 A.D. Why declare it doctrine/dogma 300+ years later? Hey…what about the canon of scripture? Over 400 years?

 

[Nicea325]

Hello,

I just want to make sure you don’t miss this, from my post on the first page of this thread:

*Where did you get this very unbiblical notion that everything man needs to know about Christianity is found in the Bible? It was unheard of before the 16th century.

Do you know that the Catholic Church selected 27 of her own writings, canonized them, and named them the New Testament at the end of the fourth century? The NT is not a systematic instruction book in Christianity. It isn’t an instruction book at all! It’s the written record of the Church’s life during the first 50 years or so after her founding by Jesus Christ. And it contains only part of the teaching of the Apostles. There’s also Sacred Apostolic Tradition. The NT is the part of Sacred Tradition that got written down.*

I just want to be sure you understand where we got the Bible, so you don’t jump to conclusions again about what the Catholic Church teaches. Most Protestants don’t know this, so I’m not blaming you. I just want to share it with you so you can put things in their proper order. The Catholic Church is much older than the Bible.

Here’s a little book online that explains it in detail:

catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/wbible.htm

Hang around. We’ll be glad to answer all your questions.

Jim Dandy

Jim,

That is the whole issue with many Protestants. The premise that everything must be in the Bible or else it is false. I first would like to know where Jesus even founded such a belief that everything must be in the Bible and that the Bible is “the” only source for Truth?

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Mind if I but in?

Why do you trust the Bible so much. Don’t you know it was given to you by (gasp) the Catholic Church - that very Church that teaches SO many false things?

Come on now. After looking through this thread you seem very ignorant of Catholic teaching. But, I shouldn’t be complaining, since I once was too.

God bless you on your faith journey.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Mind if I but in?

Why do you trust the Bible so much? Don’t you know it was given to you by (gasp) the Catholic Church - that very Church that teaches SO many false things?

Come on now. After looking through this thread you seem very ignorant of Catholic teaching. But, I shouldn’t be complaining, since I once was too.

God bless you on your faith journey.

 

[Saint_Anonymous]

Here is a video explaining these issues from Scripture…These things are all implied throughout Scripture through typology which is how the ECF and the Catholic Church reads Scripture.

youtube.com/watch?v=kUdYeYy3NQA

This was a very good link. In fact if I could give you an award for sharing it I would. :yeah_me:

 

[pritchard85]

Hello,

I just want to make sure you don’t miss this, from my post on the first page of this thread:

*Where did you get this very unbiblical notion that everything man needs to know about Christianity is found in the Bible? It was unheard of before the 16th century.

Do you know that the Catholic Church selected 27 of her own writings, canonized them, and named them the New Testament at the end of the fourth century? The NT is not a systematic instruction book in Christianity. It isn’t an instruction book at all! It’s the written record of the Church’s life during the first 50 years or so after her founding by Jesus Christ. And it contains only part of the teaching of the Apostles. There’s also Sacred Apostolic Tradition. The NT is the part of Sacred Tradition that got written down.*

I just want to be sure you understand where we got the Bible, so you don’t jump to conclusions again about what the Catholic Church teaches. Most Protestants don’t know this, so I’m not blaming you. I just want to share it with you so you can put things in their proper order.

The Catholic Church is much older than the Bible.

Thank you, yes I do understand where we got the Bible, but the problem is that it is much more complex than how you make it sound. Firstly, St. Jerome when he had compiled the Latin Vulgate recommended that the Apocrypha not be put into the same context as the other inspired books, but yet it was. Secondly, the books of Scripture were compiled together by the early Church which was both East and West at this time. And thridly, the councils which were responsible for the canon (Hippo and Carthage) ultimately became part of the Eastern Orthodox church.

 

[Nicea325]

Thank you, yes I do understand where we got the Bible, but the problem is that it is much more complex than how you make it sound. Firstly, St. Jerome when he had compiled the Latin Vulgate recommended that the Apocrypha not be put into the same context as the other inspired books, but yet it was. Secondly, the books of Scripture were compiled together by the early Church which was both East and West at this time. And thridly, the councils which were responsible for the canon (Hippo and Carthage) ultimately became part of the Eastern Orthodox church.

Yeah St.Jerome was ONE man not the entire voice of the church. He submitted his will for the will of the Church,the mystical Body of Christ-that is the difference between Jerome and Martin Luther who more concerned with his own agendas and personal doctrines.

BTW: You have not answered the question:

Where did Jesus or the 12 teach everything must be in the Bible in order to be true? Where does the Bible teach explicitness?

I did not know Jesus made the Bible “the” final authority? When and where?

 

[pritchard85]

Yeah St.Jerome was ONE man not the entire voice of the church. He submitted his will for the will of the Church,the mystical Body of Christ-that is the difference between Jerome and Martin Luther who more concerned with his own agendas and personal doctrines.

You are bordering on being disingenuous and brash.

BTW: You have not answered the question:

Just by this question it is obvious that you have never read Scripture in its fullness.

 

[perro_sarnoso]

I have heard Catholics say many different things to try and justify the titles that they attach to Mary that the Bible nor the Early Church do. I am still far from convinced that God himself would want us to view Mary as unblemished by sin and the queen of heaven etc.

Everything we say and know about the Immaculate, Perpetual Virgin, Mother of God - comes from Scripture, the Early Church, Tradition and Divine Revelation.

However near or far you may find yourself from Catholic thought it will not change who we are.

We don’t change our stripes for anyone. You’re either catholic or you are not.

 

[The_Scott]

Just by this question it is obvious that you have never read Scripture in its fullness.

Or, y’know, you could tell us. Instead of saying “well obviously you haven’t read Scripture,” why don’t you actually answer the question? Enlighten us.

Where in the Bible does it say that everything must come from the Bible? Where in the Bible does it say that, if it isn’t in the Bible, then it isn’t true?

As a counter-argument, I offer the following. We are actually told to listen to Scripture and Tradition:

“Retain the standard of sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus.” – 2 Timothy 1:13

“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.” – 2 Thessalonian 2:15

“Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.” – 1 Corinthians 11:2

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
Yeah St.Jerome was ONE man not the entire voice of the church. He submitted his will for the will of the Church,the mystical Body of Christ-that is the difference between Jerome and Martin Luther who more concerned with his own agendas and personal doctrines.

You are bordering on being disingenuous and brash.

Well you already crossed the border of being elusive and disingenious. You have yet to provide a single shred of evidence rebuking my information,so I would suggest you look up the term disingenious and brash.

Quote:
BTW: You have not answered the question:

Where did Jesus or the 12 teach everything must be in the Bible in order to be true? Where does the Bible teach explicitness?

I did not know Jesus made the Bible “the” final authority? When and where?

Just by this question it is obvious that you have never read Scripture in its fullness.

Let me know when you can stop dancing and actually answer ANY of my questions.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Thank you, yes I do understand where we got the Bible, but the problem is that it is much more complex than how you make it sound. Firstly, St. Jerome when he had compiled the Latin Vulgate recommended that the Apocrypha not be put into the same context as the other inspired books, but yet it was. Secondly, the books of Scripture were compiled together by the early Church which was both East and West at this time. And thridly, the councils which were responsible for the canon (Hippo and Carthage) ultimately became part of the Eastern Orthodox church.

1. That was St. Jerome’s early opinion, but he was a loyal son of the Church. After the Council of Rome (A.D. 382), Pope Damasus I commissioned him to make a new Latin translation of the Scriptures. The result was the Vulgate, which contains the canon of the Roman council. St. Jerome ultimately recognized that the Church alone had the authority to determine the canon. St. Augustine presided over the subsequent Councils of Hippo (383) and Carthage (397, 419) which affirmed the same canon. Do you think there was a struggle between St. Augustine and. St. Jerome?

I would like to see the request you allege was made by St. Jerome concerning the Vulgate. Please post it.

1. Yes, the canon was decided by the undivided Church. So?
2. What does your third comment have to do with anything?

You haven’t answered the important question: Where did you get the notion that everything pertaining to Christianity is (or should be) written in the book compiled and named the Bible by the Catholic Church at the end of the fourth century? Why would the doctrines pertaining to Mary necessarily have to be explicitly stated in a book written for insiders – by Catholics, to Catholics, and for Catholics? The NT was never meant to be read outside the Church. Look at the beginning of each writing, and you’ll see to whom it was addressed.

Jim Dandy

 

[Cavaradossi]

Thank you, yes I do understand where we got the Bible, but the problem is that it is much more complex than how you make it sound. Firstly, St. Jerome when he had compiled the Latin Vulgate recommended that the Apocrypha not be put into the same context as the other inspired books, but yet it was. Secondly, the books of Scripture were compiled together by the early Church which was both East and West at this time. And thridly, the councils which were responsible for the canon (Hippo and Carthage) ultimately became part of the Eastern Orthodox church.

That really isn’t a good time-line at all. Hippo and Carthage really had little to do with determining the canon in the East. A definitive Eastern canon didn’t emerge for several hundred years after that.

 

[pablope]

1. That was St. Jerome’s
2. What does your third comment have to do with anything?

You haven’t answered the important question: Where did you get the notion that everything pertaining to Christianity is (or should be) written in the book compiled and named the Bible by the Catholic Church at the end of the fourth century? Why would the doctrines pertaining to Mary necessarily have to be explicitly stated in a book written for insiders – by Catholics, to Catholics, and for Catholics? The NT was never meant to be read outside the Church. Look at the beginning of each writing, and you’ll see to whom it was addressed.

Jim Dandy

Plus…the reason for compiling the books of the Bible, and canonizing them was for a standard list of books to be read during the Mass. The Bible was never intended to be a book where doctrine was extracted.

It was the protestants who mis-used the Bible, implying doctrine in its pages. When Martin Luther threw out the authority of the pope, he lost his connection to the Church and the only appeal to authority he had left was to the Bible. And look at the fruits…never ending, splitting denominations.

 

[Saint_Anonymous]

Plus…the reason for compiling the books of the Bible, and canonizing them was for a standard list of books to be read during the Mass. The Bible was never intended to be a book where doctrine was extracted.

It was the protestants who mis-used the Bible, implying doctrine in its pages. When Martin Luther threw out the authority of the pope, he lost his connection to the Church and the only appeal to authority he had left was to the Bible. And look at the fruits…never ending, splitting denominations.

That’s always the consequence of sin…it separates you further from the Truth. If you use God’s gifts correctly (meaning to follow His will) they will do nothing but benefit mankind: however, if you use His gifts to do your own thing then they will do nothing but crush you. Their differences in spiritualties between Catholic and non-Catholic faiths are a representation of the two thieves that where on the cross next to Christ. Gestas wanting to be free from the Cross (Protestant Spirituality) while Dismas accepting his cross in order to be free for, Jesus Christ (Catholic Spirituality).

 

[amber_lux]

Jmd96;8258821:

It was formally declared a part of Christian belief in 325 AD because the Arian heresy called it into question. That doesn’t mean that it wasn’t believed by Christians for 300 years.

Prior to the First Council of Nicaea, Trinitarianism was completely unknown amongst the laity, and virtually unknown amongst the clergy. This is why the First Nicence Creed advocates Modalism, and not Trinitarianism.

At the First Council in Constantinople, the Nicene Creed was revised to be more Trinitarian in orientation. This literally is a case of where the old defenders of the faith died out, and new converts were not taught the Traditional Christian Theology, but the manufactured theology of the early fourth century.

However, even the Trinitarianism of Council of Ephasus bears no resemblence to the Trinitarianism that is taught in contemporary Christianity – both Catholic and Protestant. Indeed, it is so different that were one to advocate it today, one would be accused of hersy, and advocating a non-Trinitarian theology. Inasmuch as it is much closer to Monarchal modalism, than it is to contemproty Trinitarian theology, that probably would be an accurate assessment.