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

[GaryTaylor]

Tertullian, in the early 200’s AD was the first to mention the primitive form of a trinity. He is the first person to use the word “trinity” and he was the first person to formulate the idea of one substance having three persons.

The creed that came out of the Counsel of Nicea in 325 AD did not explicate the trinity. It simply proclaimed the divinity of Christ, rejecting Arianism. There was no resolution on the “personhood” of the Holy Spirit. That notion would not arise in full strength until the Counsel of Constantinople in 381 AD.

Basilius, commonly known as Basil, bishop of Caesarea in the later 300’s AD, formulated ideas as to what the Holy Spirit was. This was mainly in reaction to Arius who was his enemy doctrinally. Basil and others such as Gregory of Nazianzus and Gregory of Nyssa were encouraged to develop ideas to combat the idea of arianism. The person who encouraged them was Athanasius who hated Arianism and wanted to wipe it out.

Gregory of Nazianzus acknowledged that the scripture does not refer to the Holy Spirit as God. Therefore they (he and the other Gregory and Basil) would have to pursue a line of logic outside of scripture in order to formulate the Holy Spirit to be more than it really is.

Using human reasoning, Basil concluded that spirit itself necessarily meant unchangeable. This is contrary to the teaching of scripture (some angels, for example, changed – they followed Satan!). Nevertheless it appealed to the academic minds of that day. Also using human reasoning, Basil concluded that if the Spirit was sanctified, how could it be anything less than divine. The next logical step (also using human reasoning) was to declare the Holy Spirit a person. And that is exactly what he did.

This reasoning was the basis for the creed that came out of the Counsel of Constantinople in 381 AD. This creed declared the Holy Spirit to be co-equal and co-essential to God the Father and God the Son. It was the origin of the doctrine of God in three persons, holy trinity, the doctrine that is popular even in today’s information age.
“History of the Trinity”

 

[The_Scott]

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.

With all due respect, I believe this is off-topic. The current topic in this thread is Mariology, and not the doctrine of the Trinity. Even though what you bring up is fascinating, I think it should be deleted/moved.

You can always create your own thread about this. I’d be interested in answering this, and seeing where it goes!

 

[StevenFrancis]

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.

Two things pop right out here. First, your title for the thread. Who says Mariology doesn’t eminate from scripture and the early Church? It seems perfectly reasonable to me from what we DO have in scripture, and the thoughts of the Church fathers, that the Church HAS drawn the correct conclusions.

Secondly, why are so many non-catholic Christians so bothered by Mary? It’s something I’m trying to understand. I’ve only been Catholic since 2006. I’m 54 years old. I don’t recall in all my 48 years of not being a Catholic, ever having any kind of negative thought or feeling about our blessed mother. When I first started becoming interested in Catholicism, (circa 2004?), I remember being a little bit curious about the rosary, but as I discovered more and more of the marian concepts in the scripture itself, and then the devotion of the saints and the Church Fathers, it became pretty clear.

Everything the Church holds to be true about Mary, is because of Jesus Christ. It’s because of who He is. With sound reasoning you end up extrapolating the Church’s teachings on Mary, because of your belief in Jesus as the Son of the living God. It really just makes sense. One thing starts following the other, without even cracking a book. But certainly once you start investigating some of the Catholic exegesis of Holy writ, and reading some of the Fathers, start thinking about the confirmed aparations at Lourdes and Fatima. Our Lady of Guadalupe. It goes on and on. It becomes very difficult to discount what the Church has found and declared over our history.

If you’d like to take each aspect of "Maryology and discuss any given point, I’d be happy to post good solid Catholic references and study material for each particular aspect.

May I ask if there is one particular point which may open up the rest of it to you?

Just right off, I’d like to recommend a deep prayerful reading of the Gospel of Luke. Just a line or two a day.

Then, read the opening few lines of John’s Gospel. Then pray some more.

Finally, with no books at all, then simply sit in a quiet environment. Perhaps with a pad of paper and a pencil, if necessary. Reflect on the gospels, and then reflect on who Jesus Christ was/is. What does the incarnation mean? Who was Mary? Why was she chosen? Think about the annuciation, and Elizabeth. About John the Baptist.

Think some more about the son of man, son of God. About the incarnation. About the Holy Spirit. What to the Angels say?

Pray for more understanding of the divinity of Jesus Christ. Think about the ark of the covenant from the Old Testament. Think of it’s extraordinary beauty. It’s power.

Think about the Holy of Holies at the temple. Who can enter the Holy of Holies? What was in there? Think about Eve and the serpent. Think about the woman in heaven in St. John’s apocalypse.

Is Jesus truly the son of God to you?

If you keep thinking of all this, it should start adding up.

At any rate, you most likely will at least develop an understanding of why the Church believes what she believes, even if you can’t make that last step and agree with her. You’ll at least be less against her conclusions.

The thing I ponder now, is just the opposite. What do protestants have against the blessed virgin? Why is it important to them that she NOT be revered? Why do they NOT want her to be the Queen of Heaven. If it’s not her, then who on earth is it? What is wrong with with Marian devotion?

What are the Protestant thoughts on Marian apparitions which have been investigated, and have proven to be miraculous.

Who do you say Mary is? Why do you NOT believe perpetual virginity? Why do you believe she would suffer the pain of death, when death is the wages of sin? Why do you believe that she was sinful? If she was, why did God choose her?

Why would Elizabeth refer to her as she does in Luke?

Why did Martin Luther have Marian devotion?

Well, you get the idea.

I just don’t understand the modern protestant movement against Mary. I don’t understand how the link isn’t made in the modern mind that with the devaluation of Mary comes the devaluation of Christ’s divinity, which alters every aspect of Christianity. How it can, (and has throughout history) lead to heresies.

I guess I need help uderstanding how others don’t understand.

Anyway,

all meant in charity.

I hope you end up finding your answers,

Blessings,

Steven

 

[pritchard85]

Two things pop right out here. First, your title for the thread. Who says Mariology doesn’t eminate from scripture and the early Church? It seems perfectly reasonable to me from what we DO have in scripture, and the thoughts of the Church fathers, that the Church HAS drawn the correct conclusions I would ask from where exactly in Scripture??

Secondly, why are so many non-catholic Christians so bothered by Mary

Not bothered at all by Mary. Bothered severely at what the Roman church has made out of her though.

It’s something I’m trying to understand. I’ve only been Catholic since 2006. I’m 54 years old. I don’t recall in all my 48 years of not being a Catholic, ever having any kind of negative thought or feeling about our blessed mother. When I first started becoming interested in Catholicism, (circa 2004?), I remember being a little bit curious about the rosary, but as I discovered more and more of the marian concepts in the scripture itself, and then the devotion of the saints and the Church Fathers, it became pretty clear

And I would never suggest anyone having negative feelings toward the Blessed Virgin. That seems to be a horrible misconception that Catholics have about all Protestants and it’s dead wrong.

Everything the Church holds to be true about Mary, is because of Jesus Christ. It’s because of who He is. With sound reasoning you end up extrapolating the Church’s teachings on Mary, because of your belief in Jesus as the Son of the living God. It really just makes sense. One thing starts following the other, without even cracking a book. But certainly once you start investigating some of the Catholic exegesis of Holy writ, and reading some of the Fathers, start thinking about the confirmed aparations at Lourdes and Fatima. Our Lady of Guadalupe. It goes on and on. It becomes very difficult to discount what the Church has found and declared over our history\

I don’t agree. The Roman Catholic church has elevated Mary to divine status which does nothing to point to Christ.

Just right off, I’d like to recommend a deep prayerful reading of the Gospel of Luke. Just a line or two a day

I’ve read Luke’s Gospel probably twenty times when I was Catholic and many since and I never once understood it to show Mary in the way the Catholic church does.

 

[JJ59]

Not bothered at all by Mary. Bothered severely at what the Roman church has made out of her though.

And I would never suggest anyone having negative feelings toward the Blessed Virgin. That seems to be a horrible misconception that Catholics have about all Protestants and it’s dead wrong.

I don’t agree. The Roman Catholic church has elevated Mary to divine status which does nothing to point to Christ.

I’ve read Luke’s Gospel probably twenty times when I was Catholic and many since and I never once understood it to show Mary in the way the Catholic church does.

Hey, just a suggestion, instead of popping in every once in a while and picking out one post out of a dozen to dismiss with a few setences, how about you legitimately address some of the arguments in this thread for the Catholic view of Mary and show why they don’t work?

God bless,

 

[pritchard85]

Hey, just a suggestion, instead of popping in every once in a while and picking out one post out of a dozen to dismiss with a few setences, how about you legitimately address some of the arguments in this thread for the Catholic view of Mary and show why they don’t work?

God bless,

 

[The_Scott]

And, I think I have addressed the real problems with the Catholic view of Mary. They don’t parallel Scripture.

 

[pritchard85]

pritchard85;8266600:

Can you please give some examples from Scripture, about how Catholic Mary isn’t the Biblical Mary, as you claim? Specific verses, please.

No, that’s not how it works. You give me Scripture to prove that Mary is all that your church says she is. Immaculately conceived, Assumed into heaven body and spirit, perpetually virgin, perpetually sin free and the queen of heaven for starters. I said that those things are not supported by Scripture. You refute it with Scripture.

 

[steve_b]

After being on this forum for many years, reading the Ante-Nicene writings, and reading this debate and watching debates on youtube, I firmly believe that the answer is in the middle. Protestants views are inadequate. Catholic views are overstated.
I suppose I would fall in the Anglican camp. Although too be fair I do not know the official positions of the other apostolic churches like Oriental Orthodoxy or the Church of the East. I do know the position of the Eastern Orthodox.
Its a big topic, welcome

When the Divine Will of the Father Son and HS, selects Mary from ALL eternity to be the one to give the second person of the Trinity, His humanity, And Mary says yes, Jesus is flesh of her flesh, bone of her bone, and she carries Him for 9 months, and delivers the redeemer of the world, Son of God, Son of Mary. And the the 2 of them were prophesied in Gen 3:15, and Jesus carries that flesh to the cross, I really don’t think one can overstate her position in salvation history.

 

[steve_b]

Hey, great idea if I had all day and night to do that which I don’t.

And, I think I have addressed the real problems with the Catholic view of Mary. They don’t parallel Scripture.

 

[steve_b]

I don’t agree. The Roman Catholic church has elevated Mary to divine status which does nothing to point to Christ.

Quote the source. Don’t dodge this question

 

[twopekinguys]

The_Scott;8266639:

No, that’s not how it works. You give me Scripture to prove that Mary is all that your church says she is. Immaculately conceived, Assumed into heaven body and spirit, perpetually virgin, perpetually sin free and the queen of heaven for starters. I said that those things are not supported by Scripture. You refute it with Scripture.

Actually, that is how it works. You made a claim, you back it up.

 

[JJ59]

Hey, great idea if I had all day and night to do that which I don’t.

Well, you started the thread, you kinda committed to providing legitimate refutations to honest repliers.

And, I think I have addressed the real problems with the Catholic view of Mary. They don’t parallel Scripture.

But that’s just a blanket statement that you haven’t actually supported. People have given a multitude of verses supporting Marian beliefs, and you just wave it away in mere sentences. Please support your viewpoint with real arguments.

Hint: “They don’t parallel Scripture” is completely subjective, and not an actual argument unless you elaborate.

God bless,

 

[MaryTeresa2]

I don’t agree. The Roman Catholic church has elevated Mary to divine status which does nothing to point to Christ.

Wait a second, what makes you think that the RCC has elevated Mary to divine status?

We venerate Mary, we do NOT worship Mary, big difference! We worship, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

No Mary, No Jesus… Know Mary, Know Jesus…

If you knew Mary the way we do, you would know she always points to her Son. It’s Mary’s humble fiat, ‘Let it be done unto me according to Thy Word’… and her continued ‘Yes’ to God that sets the example of ultimate humility we Catholics aspire to. Mary seeks nothing for herself.

BTW, I’m a convert from the Methodist church, 40 years ago. I now belong to the Order of Secular Servants of Mary. I know how I got there and I know why. I serve Our Lord Jesus Christ by following the example of His Blessed Mother.

Peace be with you.

MaryTeresa, OSSM

 

[twopekinguys]

Wait a second, what makes you think that the RCC has elevated Mary to divine status?

We venerate Mary, we do NOT worship Mary, big difference! We worship, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

No Mary, No Jesus… Know Mary, Know Jesus…

If you knew Mary the way we do, you would know she always points to her Son. It’s Mary’s humble fiat, ‘Let it be done unto me according to Thy Word’… and her continued ‘Yes’ to God that sets the example of ultimate humility we Catholics aspire to. Mary seeks nothing for herself.

BTW, I’m a convert from the Methodist church, 40 years ago. I now belong to the Order of Secular Servants of Mary. I know how I got there and I know why. I serve Our Lord Jesus Christ by following the example of His Blessed Mother.

Peace be with you.

MaryTeresa, OSSM

 

[The_Scott]

No, that’s not how it works. You give me Scripture to prove that Mary is all that your church says she is. Immaculately conceived, Assumed into heaven body and spirit, perpetually virgin, perpetually sin free and the queen of heaven for starters. I said that those things are not supported by Scripture. You refute it with Scripture.

1. that is how it works.
2. I even said please.
3. I did give you scriptural passages, I’ll think the best and assume you didn’t see them. I’ll post it again, below.

Note: In order to understand some of these, remember that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant.

Regarding the Immaculate Conception of Mary

[The LORD said to the snake] “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel." – Genesis 3:15

One alone is my dove, my perfect one,
her mother’s chosen,
the dear one of her parent.
The daughters saw her and declared her fortunate,
the queens and concubines, and they sang her praises --Song of Songs 6:9

And coming to her, he said, “Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you.” – Luke 1:28

Then the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God.” – Luke 1:30

When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the infant leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth, filled with the holy Spirit, cried out in a loud voice and said, "Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb.” – Luke 1:41-2

[Mary said,] “For he has looked upon his handmaid’s lowliness; behold, from now on will all ages call me blessed.” – Luke 1:48
Then the dragon became angry with the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring, those who keep God’s commandments and bear witness to Jesus. – Revelation 12:17

Ex 25:11-21 – The Ark of the Old Covenant is made of purest gold for God’s word.

Regarding The Assumption of Mary into Heaven

"Arise, LORD, come to your resting place, you and your majestic ark.” – Psalms 132:8

A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. She was with child and wailed aloud in pain as she labored to give birth. – Revelation 12:1–2

Then the dragon became angry with the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring, those who keep God’s commandments and bear witness to Jesus. – Revelation 12:17

And the temple of God which is in heaven was opened; and the ark of His covenant appeared in His temple, and there were flashes of lightning and sounds and peals of thunder and an earthquake and a great hailstorm. - Revelation 11:19

 

[MaryTeresa2]

No, that’s not how it works. You give me Scripture to prove that Mary is all that your church says she is. Immaculately conceived, Assumed into heaven body and spirit, perpetually virgin, perpetually sin free and the queen of heaven for starters. I said that those things are not supported by Scripture. You refute it with Scripture.

Please refer back to page 4, post # 47 by Jim Dandy and then figure out why this isn’t working for you.

You seem hung up on the solo scriptura thing and it doesn’t work, that’s why you do not understand the ‘fullness of faith’ that the Catholic Church teaches.

Jesus establishes His Church, the Church goes forth and preaches the Gospel by word of mouth, sometimes Paul, Peter (and the others) are away from the communities they teach, then they write letters… several hundred years go by, the Church (that Jesus established and gives the Keys of the Kingdom to Peter and the gates of hell shall not prevail against her…Apostolic succession…) has been growing according to tradition and teaching and inspiration (of the Holy Spirit, remember Pentecost?) NOW they compile these writings, the Gospels and Epistles and add them to the OT… voila! The Holy Bible.

Church first, Bible second.

Do you get why it’s not in Scripture?

Also if you really study Mariology you come to understand that Mary was ‘hidden’ during her lifetime. She appears in NT Scripture at very specific times only. Study those and her role in those times. (you must also study OT references to her and how they are connected) She is not to over shadow Jesus in any way. It’s later, once Jesus has Accended to His Throne that The Blessed Virgin takes a more active role in assisting us, her children here on Earth. Behold thy Mother…

What goal would she have but our salvation thru her Son?

Please seek to learn more, rather than to refute what is taught by the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Chruch for the past 2000+ years. It was and always will be His Church. The Protestant reformation came along 1500 years later and tossed the baby out with the bath water. Now you have thousands of churches relying on their own interpretation of solo scriptura, OR you can be Catholic!

Peace be with you.

 

[pablope]

The_Scott;8266639:

No, that’s not how it works. You give me Scripture to prove that Mary is all that your church says she is. Immaculately conceived, Assumed into heaven body and spirit, perpetually virgin, perpetually sin free and the queen of heaven for starters. I said that those things are not supported by Scripture. You refute it with Scripture.

Actually, the burden on proof is on you. Did your ideas about how catholics treat Mary just pop out of your head? No, these were fed to you by a source…a source that misunderstands the Catholic treatment of Mary. And it is a perception and and a lack of understanding, mostly fed by anti-Catholicism.

What you have said so far bears out this fact.

You are already coming from a position of pride and arrogance. I suggest you change your tune, otherwise, dialoging with you will not get anywhere…that is if you really want to learn the Catholic perspective, and not from your anti-Catholic spoon fed information.

 

[JJ59]

Quote the source. Don’t dodge this question

I second this request.

 

[mwok]

pritchard85:

From reading this thread and posts from you on other threads, it seems to me that you are angry at the Church(or someone in the Church) and are just looking for someone else who shares your anger.

I understand this anger because I felt the same way about the mormon church in which I grew up in.