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

[StrawberryJam]

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.

Have you no understanding of what her role and danger was?
Believe or not, there is no way of avoiding the fact that at her time her death was spared because a good man named Joseph kept her from being stoned to death.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

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.

The undeniable, historical fact is that the Catholic Church has told us what Scripture is (the inspired Word of God) – and what is Scripture (which books are the inspired Word of God and belong in the Bible and. therefore, which are not). The Catholic Church has also told us – and the Scriptures confirm – that all of God’s revelation is not contained in the Bible. So why do you insist that since the Marian doctrines aren’t explicitly in the Scriptures, they aren’t true? :whacky:

The New Testament consists of 27 of the Church’s own writings. So why do you believe the NT?

The Marian doctrines are from the same source as the Bible. Please explain your logic of rejecting one and accepting the other.

No Catholic Church, no Bible.

Jim Dandy

 

[StevenFrancis]

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 way it should work is that the OP (pritchard85), should post 1 problem he sees with the Catholic view of Mary; Ask what the Church actually believes about that one point; Allow the Catholic responder(s) a chance to lay out their answer to that ONE concern. You would then either accept or reject that answer, or tuck it away for later discernment or study. Then, once you’re satisfied that you have a full understanding of the Catholic answer, move on to your next point or question, and then repeat this process, one item at a time, until your have gotten the Catholic point of view expressed, and backed up in a reasonable and logical fashion, on a point by point basis. If you’ll do this, I think you’d find those you are dialoging with to be more charitable. More willing to honestly help you understand a point or principle, and provide richer information for you to ponder.

On the other hand, if your just using this forum as a chapel door to nail your thesis to, then the Catholic believers aren’t going to really provide you with any information you’d be willing to read or understand. You’ve already made up your mind, and you’re actually seeking an audience to hear your grievance, or theory, or idea, but the problem is, it’s not posted in that manner. I’ve heard this practice referred to as “baiting” before. Just postulating personal ideas to elicit an expected response with the ultimate hoped intent of possibly humiliating or backing another party into a corner in public. That wouldn’t be very charitable or fair to the believing Catholics who are trying to answer your questions with honesty, reason, and charity from the standpoint of the Church. Those are the only answers you should be getting here,

Anyway, speaking for myself, (though you weren’t speaking to me specifically), I’d be happy to address each of your concerns. One at a time. A seperate inquiry for each seperate concern.

Also, I’d like to recommend highly the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It is an indispensable guide book into the thought and soul of the Catholic Church, and includes references to scriptures, encyclicals, councils, Church Fathers, and so forth for each held teaching of the Church.

Finally, regarding Mariology, if you want a good book about the general concepts and principles, I highly recommend Scott Hahn’s “Hail Holy Queen”. It goes from start to finish on the Catholic doctrines, relates them to scripture, and explains why thing s are what they are, in a clear, concise and easy to follow format.

May God bless, and I hope you are able to not only find, but listen to the answers to your questions.

Steven

 

[JonNC]

=StevenFrancis;8268185
Actually, the way it should work is that the OP (pritchard85), should post 1 problem he sees with the Catholic view of Mary; Ask what the Church actually believes about that one point; Allow the Catholic responder(s) a chance to lay out their answer to that ONE concern. You would then either accept or reject that answer, or tuck it away for later discernment or study. Then, once you’re satisfied that you have a full understanding of the Catholic answer, move on to your next point or question, and then repeat this process, one item at a time, until your have gotten the Catholic point of view expressed, and backed up in a reasonable and logical fashion, on a point by point basis. If you’ll do this, I think you’d find those you are dialoging with to be more charitable. More willing to honestly help you understand a point or principle, and provide richer information for you to ponder.

On the other hand, if your just using this forum as a chapel door to nail your thesis to, then the Catholic believers aren’t going to really provide you with any information you’d be willing to read or understand. You’ve already made up your mind, and you’re actually seeking an audience to hear your grievance, or theory, or idea, but the problem is, it’s not posted in that manner. I’ve heard this practice referred to as “baiting” before. Just postulating personal ideas to elicit an expected response with the ultimate hoped intent of possibly humiliating or backing another party into a corner in public. That wouldn’t be very charitable or fair to the believing Catholics who are trying to answer your questions with honesty, reason, and charity from the standpoint of the Church. Those are the only answers you should be getting here,

Anyway, speaking for myself, (though you weren’t speaking to me specifically), I’d be happy to address each of your concerns. One at a time. A seperate inquiry for each seperate concern.

Also, I’d like to recommend highly the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It is an indispensable guide book into the thought and soul of the Catholic Church, and includes references to scriptures, encyclicals, councils, Church Fathers, and so forth for each held teaching of the Church.

Finally, regarding Mariology, if you want a good book about the general concepts and principles, I highly recommend Scott Hahn’s “Hail Holy Queen”. It goes from start to finish on the Catholic doctrines, relates them to scripture, and explains why thing s are what they are, in a clear, concise and easy to follow format.

May God bless, and I hope you are able to not only find, but listen to the answers to your questions.

Steven

An excellent post, Steven.

Jon

 

[Nevermore22]

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

I don’t think you have. You have not even posted Scripture to even try and support your views. You have not given any quotes from the ECF about the Blessed Virgin to support your views. You have not even tried to respond to the verses and quotes given to you.

CAF has gotten many posters coming here and accusing the Church and Catholics for believing in something they do not, and telling them they are wrong. Usually, like yourself, they are former Catholics. We here have seen it all before. You are not the first.

I, and many of us here, would love to discuss this with you. But in order to do that, you must respond in kind. Don’t just write blanket statements with nothing to back yourself up on. If we all stay charitable, and seek to understand and to just teach, then everyone will be better off.

Please to not think that I am being cruel. I am not. Just take these things into consideration.

In Christ through Mary,
Nevermore

 

[JustaServant]

**Scripture

I. The Uniqueness of Mary as the Mother of God**
Gen. 3:15 - we see from the very beginning that God gives Mary a unique role in salvation history. God says “I will put enmity between you and the woman, between your seed and her seed.” This refers to Jesus (the “emnity”) and Mary (the “woman”). The phrase “her seed” (spermatos) is not seen elsewhere in Scripture.

Gen 3:15 / Rev. 12:1 - the Scriptures begin and end with the woman battling satan. This points to the power of the woman with the seed and teaches us that Jesus and Mary are the new Adam and the new Eve.

John 2:4, 19:26 - Jesus calls Mary “woman” as she is called in Gen. 3:15. Just as Eve was the mother of the old creation, Mary is the mother of the new creation. This woman’s seed will crush the serpent’s skull.

Isaiah 7:14; Matt. 1:23 - a virgin (the Greek word used is “parthenos”) will bear a Son named Emmanuel, which means “God is with us.” John 1:14 - God in flesh dwelt among us. Mary is the Virgin Mother of God.

Matt. 2:11 - Luke emphasizes Jesus is with Mary His Mother, and the magi fall down before both of them, worshiping Jesus.

Luke 1:35 - the child will be called holy, the Son of God. Mary is the Mother of the Son of God, or the Mother of God (the “Theotokos”).

Luke 1:28 - “Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you.” These are the words spoken by God and delivered to us by the angel Gabriel (who is a messenger of God). Thus, when Catholics recite this verse while praying the Rosary, they are uttering the words of God.

Luke 1:28 - also, the phrase “full of grace” is translated from the Greek word “kecharitomene.” This is a unique title given to Mary, and suggests a perfection of grace from a past event. Mary is not just “highly favored.” She has been perfected in grace by God. “Full of grace” is only used to describe one other person - Jesus Christ in John 1:14.

Luke 1:38 - Mary’s fiat is “let it be done to me according to thy word.” Mary is the perfect model of faith in God, and is worthy of our veneration.

Luke 1:42 - “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb, Jesus.” The phrase “blessed are you among women” really means “you are most blessed of all women.” A circumlocution is used because there is no superlative in the Greek language. Note also that Elizabeth praises Mary first, and then Jesus. This is hyperdulia (but not latria which is worship owed to God alone). We too can go through Mary to praise Jesus. Finally, Catholics repeat these divinely inspired words of Elizabeth in the Rosary.

Luke 1:43 - Elizabeth’s use of “Mother of my Lord” (in Hebrew, Elizabeth used “Adonai” which means Lord God) is the equivalent of “Holy Mary, Mother of God” which Catholics pray in the Rosary. The formula is simple: Jesus is a divine person, and this person is God. Mary is Jesus’ Mother, so Mary is the mother of God (Mary is not just the Mother of Jesus’ human nature - mothers are mothers of persons, not natures).

Luke 1:44 - Mary’s voice causes John the Baptist to leap for joy in Elizabeth’s womb. Luke is teaching us that Mary is our powerful intercessor.

Luke 1:46 - Mary claims that her soul magnifies the Lord. This is a bold statement from a young Jewish girl from Nazareth. Her statement is a strong testimony to her uniqueness. Mary, as our Mother and intercessor, also magnifies our prayers.

Luke 1:48 - Mary prophesies that all generations shall call her blessed, as Catholics do in the “Hail Mary” prayer. What Protestant churches have existed in all generations (none), and how many of them call Mary blessed with special prayers and devotions?

Gal. 4:4 - God sent His Son, born of a woman, to redeem us. Mary is the woman with the redeemer. By calling Mary co-redemptrix, we are simply calling Mary “the woman with the redeemer.” This is because “co” is from the Latin word “cum” which means “with.” Therefore, “co-redemptrix” means “woman with the redeemer.” Mary had a unique but subordinate role to Jesus in salvation.

Eph. 1:1; Phil. 1:1; Col. 1:2 - the word “saints” (in Hebrew “qaddiysh”) means “holy” ones. So Mary is called Holy, the greatest Saint of all.

Luke 2:35 - Simeon prophesies that a sword would also pierce Mary’s soul. Mary thus plays a very important role in our redemption. While Jesus’ suffering was all that we needed for redemption, God desired Mary to participate on a subordinate level in her Son’s suffering, just as he allows us to participate through our own sufferings.

Luke 2:19,51 - Mary kept in mind all these things as she pondered them in her heart. Catholics remember this by devoting themselves to Mary’s Immaculate Heart and all the treasures and wisdom and knowledge contained therein.

 

[JustaServant]

The Early Church Fathers on
The Mother of God

The Early Church Fathers had no problem referring to Mary as the Mother of God. They saw it as a natural consequence of the Incarnation. The title has more to do with Jesus than Mary. It is an affirmation that Jesus was indeed God and not merely human as some had claimed.

Irenaeus

The Virgin Mary, being obedient to his word, received from an angel the glad tidings that she would bear God (Against Heresies, 5:19:1 [A.D. 189]).

Hippolytus

[T]o all generations they [the prophets] have pictured forth the grandest subjects for contemplation and for action. Thus, too, they preached of the advent of God in the flesh to the world, his advent by the spotless and God-bearing (theotokos) Mary in the way of birth and growth, and the manner of his life and conversation with men, and his manifestation by baptism, and the new birth that was to be to all men, and the regeneration by the laver [of baptism] (Discourse on the End of the World 1 [A.D. 217]).

Gregory the Wonderworker

For Luke, in the inspired Gospel narratives, delivers a testimony not to Joseph only, but also to Mary, the Mother of God, and gives this account with reference to the very family and house of David (Four Homilies 1 [A.D. 262]).

It is our duty to present to God, like sacrifices, all the festivals and hymnal celebrations; and first of all, [the feast of] the Annunciation to the holy Mother of God, to wit, the salutation made to her by the angel, “Hail, full of grace!” (ibid., 2).

Peter of Alexandria

They came to the church of the most blessed Mother of God, and ever-virgin Mary, which, as we began to say, he had constructed in the western quarter, in a suburb, for a cemetery of the martyrs (The Genuine Acts of Peter of Alexandria [A.D. 305]).

Methodius

Hail to you forever, you virgin Mother of God, our unceasing joy, for unto you do I again return. . . . Hail, you fount of the Son’s love for man. . . . Wherefore, we pray you, the most excellent among women, who boast in the confidence of your maternal honors, that you would unceasingly keep us in remembrance. O holy Mother of God, remember us, I say, who make our boast in you, and who in august hymns celebrate your memory, which will ever live, and never fade away (Oration on Simeon and Anna 7 [A.D. 305]).

Cyril of Jerusalem

The Father bears witness from heaven to his Son. The Holy Spirit bears witness, coming down bodily in the form of a dove. The archangel Gabriel bears witness, bringing the good tidings to Mary. The Virgin Mother of God bears witness (Catechetical Lectures 10:19 [A.D. 350]).

Ephraim the Syrian

Though still a virgin she carried a child in her womb, and the handmaid and work of his wisdom became the Mother of God (Songs of Praise 1:20 [A.D. 351]).

Athanasius

The Word begotten of the Father from on high, inexpressibly, inexplicably, incomprehensibly, and eternally, is he that is born in time here below of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God (The Incarnation of the Word of God 8 [A.D. 365]).

Epiphanius of Salamis

Being perfect at the side of the Father and incarnate among us, not in appearance but in truth, he [the Son] reshaped man to perfection in himself from Mary the Mother of God through the Holy Spirit (The Man Well-Anchored 75 [A.D. 374]).

Ambrose of Milan

The first thing which kindles ardor in learning is the greatness of the teacher. What is greater than the Mother of God? What more glorious than she whom Glory Itself chose? (The Virgins 2:2[7] [A.D. 377]).

Gregory of Nazianz

If anyone does not agree that holy Mary is Mother of God, he is at odds with the Godhead (Letter to Cledonius the Priest 101 [A.D. 382]).

 

[lax16]

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.

Hi pritchard85 - I know that many people misunderstand and disagree with the Catholics and their love of the Blessed Mother.

I have found it very interesting to read what the Orthodox, in particular the Coptic Christians, have to say about her. Their history is ancient, going back to St. Mark, and they have a very strong oral tradition. I love to read what they have to say about her and the Holy Family. There are some differences between what the East and the West have to say about Mary, but there are some things that are the same.

The Coptic Christians have an unbroken line of tradition dating back to the very beginning of the Church and should be considered when discussing what the Early Church thought about Mary.

Please read the following link and let me know what you think. (It is long, but the pages are short).

saint-mary.net/coptic_faith/SaintMaryintheOrthodoxConcept.pdf

 

[guanophore]

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.

Of course Mary was freed from sin by Jesus. How can anyone refrain from sin without the grace of God?

In order to understand why Mary is considered unblemished by sin, it is necessary to understand the OT imagery of the Ark of the Covenant. Mary, Theotokos (God bearer) was fashioned by God in the same way the Ark was prepared to receive that which it carried.

Just because you don’t see certain things in scripture does not make them absent. People without 3D glasses don’t see the movie in 3D. Your glasses make it impossible for you to “see” some things.

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.

You misunderstand dogma, Pritchard. The fact that a teaching is not formally declared does not mean it was not believed or taught prior to that time. You will not find the word “Trinity” in Scripture either, but that does not mean it wasn’t believed from the beginning.

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.

Yes, I can appreciate that this gap seems to be there. I used to suffer from it myself. It us curable.

 

[guanophore]

With alll due respect, if you do not wish to believe in any Marian beliefs, then don’t. No one is forcing you to believe or not. If Catholics wish to believe them, then why should that be any skin off your nose? To each his own.

Pritchard seems to have a significant degree of hostility toward Catholicism to work out. It has been showing up on several threads.

 

[guanophore]

Wow! Where do you pull that from Scripture??

CAtholics don’t “pull from Scripture” the doctrines of the faith, Pritchard. We receive these doctrines from the Apsotles, as Jesus intended. We see our faith reflected in the Scriptures because the faith that was once for all delivered to the Church is reflected in it’s pages. The faith of the Church produced the NT, not the other way around.

Being believed by the church but yet not being declared dogma for over 1800 years??

Certainly. When you study the history of your faith, you will find that dogmas are not declared unless there is rampant heresy that requires it.

Or do you honestly believe the Trinity did not exist before the Council of Nicea in 325?

That doesn’t even make sense. It sounds like it went through a ton of refutation for a long long time to me.

The presence of controversy does not make a dogma untrue. Most of Christendom fell prey to the Arian heresy, and the controversy was so persistent and ravaging that it threatened to split the Roman Empire. That is why Constantine called for the Nicean Council. The same is the case for the observance of the Sabbath.

Instead of clinging to the notion that a belief did not exist, what would happen if you approached with a more open mind, to investigate when and how it might have been believed?

All Marian dogmas are corollaries of dogmas about the nature of Christ. That is the place to start. You won’t find the term “hypostatic union” in your Bible either, but it is likely that you embrace this Catholic dogma without even knowing it’s source.

 

[guanophore]

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.

This is a very important point, too, about the authority of the Church, and the obedience of the saints to that authority. No single theologian has the authority to change the teachings of the Church that were committed to her by the Apostles. Jerome submitted all his scholarship and research to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. A millenia later, the Dead Sea Scrolls revealed that the books in question did indeed exist originally in Hebrew.

The Church had no way of knowing this at the time, but received the collection of books used by the Apostles, which contained the Deuterocanon. It was demonstrated that revelation from God is to be trusted over the scholarship of man.

Secondly, the books of Scripture were compiled together by the early Church which was both East and West at this time.

All Catholic, all the time, everywhere.

And thridly, the councils which were responsible for the canon (Hippo and Carthage) ultimately became part of the Eastern Orthodox church.

I think the relevancy of this is lost on me. DO you think the Orthodox do not revere Mary the way Catholics do?

 

[guanophore]

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??

Just for the record I want to say that the term “Mariology” is a modern one, and would be unknown to the early church. The devotion to Mary, coming from Jesus Himself and HIs Apostles and disciples, has been alive and well in the Church since before Jesus gave His Mother to the Church at the foot of the Cross. Devotion, however, is different that 'study", which is what “ology” means.

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

One has to wonder why this would bother you. I noticed a post asking this up the thread. Why should it bother you what Catholics believe about the Mother of the Lord? The fact that it “bothers severely” says much more about you than it does about us.

Devotion to Mary is not “Roman”, any more than the CC is “Roman”. If you study your family history, you will soon find that this devotion exists in Orthodoxy, who has no love lost on “Rome”, as well as the other 22 non-Roman (Eastern) Catholic Rites.

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.

Yes, I agree. Some Catholics have no experience at all with Protestants, and have about as many misconceptions as you do about the Catholic faith. Some Catholics have only met rabid fundamentalist bible christians that talk about Mary as some sort of a tube through which Jesus passed, almost as a bowel movement. Unfortunately those posts remain here on CAF to testify to their gross disrespect of the Mother of God.

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

It is a shame you were so poorly catechized, pritchard, but that is not your fault. What is your fault is to repeat lies and misinformation like this. You will be able to find no Catholic Teaching that Mary is divine because this is not what the CC believes and teaches. Get a grip, and find the truth, so you don’t have to keep embarrasing yourself like this. It is one thing to be led into error. It is another to remain in it when you find out you are there!

Mary does everything to point to Christ. Her soul magnifies the Lord. Anyone looking through her will see Him closer, and larger, because of her magnification. This does not make her divine. This is what all of us are called to do.

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.

Doggone those blinders.

You were never “Catholic” in faith. You were not taught the faith, and though you were baptized Catholic, you still do not understand the Catholic faith. You left what you did not know. Glad you are on the way back, though.

 

[babylonsfalling]

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.

Catholic perspective on Mary is actually more Biblical than protestant perspective.
Why aren’t protestants MORE Biblical when it comes to Mary?

“All generations shall call me blessed”

What do protestant churches actually DO on an ongoing basis to include themselves in all the generations which have called Mary blessed?
Who fulfills that prophecy better, Catholics or protestants?
We all know the answer so the next question becomes "Why won’t protestants join in and be part of those who actually participate in the fulfillment of that prophecy.
What’s the big deal anyway?

“Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb”

Is the above phrase said of Mary more among protestant churches than Catholic churches, or is it the other way around?

 

[JustaServant]

“We never give more honour to Jesus than when we honour his Mother, and we honour her simply and solely to honour him all the more perfectly. We go to her only as a way leading to the goal we seek - Jesus, her Son.”
–Saint Louis Marie de Montfort

 

[mark_a]

Mary being assumed into heaven is NOT in the Bible.

Unlike any other major Saint, no one has her bones nor has any Church around at the time of her death claimed to have her bones.

She was pre-raptured, I recon.

 

[Dpoc41]

To quote Dr Scott Hahn - Did Jesus obey the 10 commandments when he was on earth? of course HE did. Honour thy Father and Mother, Honour better translated as Glorify. Jesus glorified HIS Mother! should’nt we imitate Jesus?

 

[StevenFrancis]

Just for the record I want to say that the term “Mariology” is a modern one, and would be unknown to the early church. The devotion to Mary, coming from Jesus Himself and HIs Apostles and disciples, has been alive and well in the Church since before Jesus gave His Mother to the Church at the foot of the Cross. Devotion, however, is different that 'study", which is what “ology” means.

No argument here. I was using the term because it was the term used in the thread title by the OP, who I was disagreeing with about everything. But thanks, I should have also picked up on the wrongness of term as well.

Blessings,

Steven

 

[guanophore]

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

Actually, what you have demonstrated is:

1. You do not understanid what the CC believes and teaches about Mary
2. Your understanding of Scripture is not consistent with what the Apostles believed and taught.

 

[The_Scott]

Actually, what you have demonstrated is:

1. You do not understanid what the CC believes and teaches about Mary
2. Your understanding of Scripture is not consistent with what the Apostles believed and taught.

1. He hasn’t given one verse from Scripture (or the Church Fathers) to back up his claim.