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

[Road2Damascus]

And when the third day was ended, the voices were no longer heard; and from that time forth all knew that her spotless and precious body had been transferred to paradise.

interfaith.org/christianity/apocrypha-transitus-maria/

You can easily say Mary is the woman in Revelations 12 who gives birth to Jesus and all Christians in that book.

The capital city of Paraguay is named Asunción in honour of the Assumption of Mary. It was founded on August 15, 1537, by Juan de Salazar y Espinoza.

The Assumption, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assumption_of_Mary

Although the Assumption (Latin: ***ūmptiō, “taken up”) was only relatively recently defined as infallible dogma by the Catholic Church, and in spite of a statement by Saint Epiphanius of Salamis in AD 377 that no one knew whether Mary had died or not,[5] apocryphal accounts of the assumption of Mary into heaven have circulated since at least the 4th century. The Catholic Church itself interprets chapter 12 of the Book of Revelation as referring to it.

Apocrypha, dates back to the 6th century, the 500s, this book is not a part of the Bible, the New Testament is Christ centered.

Graffitti praying to Mary is found in the Catacombs among the first Christians who were persecuted. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blessed_Virgin_Mary_%28Roman_Catholic%29 mentions indeed where She is found in a 2nd century fresco in the Catacombs.

Martin Luther continued Praying the Rosary: liturgical.wordpress.com/2007/09/29/new-books-what-martin-luther-thought-about-prayer-beads/

And the Wikipedia shows one Reformer wrote:

For this reason we believe that the Virgin Mary, Begetter of God, the most pure bed and temple of the Holy Spirit, that is, her most holy body, was carried to heaven by angels.[28]

So yes, Reformers like Luther and Bullinger were correct:

In fact, there have been hypothesis set forth it is indeed, some American Protestants that are practicing Gnostic Religions.

amazon.com/Against-Protestant-Gnostics-Philip-Lee/dp/0195084365

 

[guanophore]

Tell me, why would I bother?

It is a just question, and goes back to your purpose in coming here. What might that be?

If you reveiw the forum rules, it will become clear that persons such as yourself who make assertions of this kind are expected to provide substance to back up their assertion. To date you have made many anti-Catholic assertions here, and you have yet to support any of them with references.

In addition, you have received a great many posts that refute your anti-Catholic assertions, to which you have refused to respond, and apparently even read. So, why should you bother?

You know they exist.

No, actually, which was the substance of my excitement. I am not aware of any polemics against the Mother of Our Lord until the Reformation.

You are not a stupid person.

How did you come to this conclusion???

It is curious that you treat all of us as though we are stupid, posting assertions you cannot defend, then refusing to read our responses. It is almost as if you believe posting anti-Catholic polemics will pursuade us to leave the Church, though you have no substance behind them. In my youth, this technique did, indeed, work. I left for a long time because I was ignorant of the faith into which I was baptized.

You know that the majority of your church has been questioned for centuries. Nobody needs to tell you that.

No, actually, I know nothing of the kind. Perhaps you can provide some sources to support this new anti-Catholic assertion? In my sojourn among my separated brethren, it is clear to me that Protestant ecclesial communities have retained the majority of the One Faith handed down to us from the Apostles.

I would love to discuss these things with honesty but yet you are the one that won’t. It’s just one Protestant insult after another unfounded and ignorant Protestant insult. Why waste my time being subjected to more?

There are plenty of knowledgeable Protestants on this board. Perhaps, if you are really open to learning, you will encounter them, and you will find that they are very valued here because of their humility, steadfast faith, and knowledge about their own tradition.

I agree about taking insults to yourself. It really is a waste of time. If that is what you came here expecting, then there is no reason to subject yourself.

 

[guanophore]

Really. So when the Reformation said that there was no Biblical evidence that Mary was assumed into heaven body and soul (and they were right) …

Did you not realize that most of the NT was written before Mary passed? The latest writer, John, is the one who preserves her identity as “Woman”, Mother of the Church, and Queen of Heaven.

Where in your bible does it say that everything essential to the faith is contained in the bible?

Do you know what year the NT was canonized? Do you know what year Mary was proclaimed Holy Theotokos?

Did you know that all those present to canonize the NT believed the Marian doctrines? I hope you will stick around here long enough to learn something about the history of your faith.

Perhaps you can supply us with writings from the Reformation that deny the Marian doctrines? Please start with the three major Reformers, Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli.

Here are some to get you started:

Martin Luther (1483-1546)

“Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary’s virginal womb…This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that.”

“Christ…was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him…I am inclined to agree with those who declare that ‘brothers’ really mean ‘cousins’ here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers.”

“A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ…”

“Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity…When Matthew says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her…This babble…is without justification…he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom.”

John Calvin (1509-1564)

“Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s ‘brothers’ are sometimes mentioned.”

“The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband…No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words…as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called ‘first-born’; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin…What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us…No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.”

“Under the word ‘brethren’ the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity.”

Huldreich Zwingli (1484-1531)

“I have never thought, still less taught, or declared publicly, anything concerning the subject of the ever Virgin Mary, Mother of our salvation, which could be considered dishonourable, impious, unworthy or evil…I believe with all my heart according to the word of holy gospel that this pure virgin bore for us the Son of God and that she remained, in the birth and after it, a pure and unsullied virgin, for eternity.”

Heinrich Bullinger (1504-1575)

“The Virgin Mary…completely sanctified by the grace and blood of her only Son and abundantly endowed by the gift of the Holy Spirit and preferred to all…now lives happily with Christ in heaven and is called and remains ever-Virgin and Mother of God.”

John Wesley (1703-1791)

“I believe…he [Jesus Christ] was born of the blessed Virgin, who, as well after as shebrought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin.”

 

[CompSciGuy]

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.

Standard argument from relativism.

The reason pritchards is bothering arguing against Mariology is because he believes [wrongly] that the doctrines of the Catholic Church regarding Mary are incorrect. If anything is to pritchard’s credit, it is that he knows that the truth is the truth no matter what he, you, I, or anyone else believes and it is important that we know the truth. Thus we have apologetics. It is such a sad thing to say “Believe what you want, to each his own.” To me, this is a worse thing even then to give a faulty defense of a falsehood.

 

[Zooey]

I have to agree.

Up to this point, the only response (if any) is that scriptures don’t say this, and don’t say that, or in this case, “I’ve seen several quotes by many of the faithful throughout the centuries that would refute this.”

Pritchard, Please provide a reference, link, quote (and who said it), anything that can be provided as a basis for what you are saying. Simply saying something isn’t right or true doesn’t really cut it.

You’ve been asked numerous times for some sort of reference, but to date, you haven’t provided anything but opinion.

In order to be taken seriously, and engage in meaningful dialog, you really do need to provide something to back up your assertions.

 

[JonNC]

Standard argument from relativism.

The reason pritchards is bothering arguing against Mariology is because he believes [wrongly] that the doctrines of the Catholic Church regarding Mary are incorrect. If anything is to pritchard’s credit, it is that he knows that the truth is the truth no matter what he, you, I, or anyone else believes and it is important that we know the truth. Thus we have apologetics. It is such a sad thing to say “Believe what you want, to each his own.” To me, this is a worse thing even then to give a faulty defense of a falsehood.

I would agree with this to a point, and that point being articles of faith or doctrine. As a Lutheran, for example, the virgin birth and Holy Theotokos are doctrine, mentioned in the confessions, and strongly linked to the Incarnation. The Assumption is not an article of faith, not doctrine, but adiaphoron.

And consider this, a Catholic is free to believe that the Blessed Virgin was either assumed after or before she died. Frankly, I wouldn’t consider that relativism, but it certainly could be construed as falling into the category of, “believe what you want, to each his own.”

Jon

 

[JonNC]

It is a just question, and goes back to your purpose in coming here. What might that be?

No, actually, which was the substance of my excitement. I am not aware of any polemics against the Mother of Our Lord until the Reformation.

guan,
And if you narrow it to the Reformation churches proper - Luther, Zwingli, Calvin - probably long after the Reformation, unless one considers concerns regarding invocation as “polemics”.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Tell me, why would I bother? You know they exist. You are not a stupid person. You know that the majority of your church has been questioned for centuries. Nobody needs to tell you that. **I would love to discuss these things with honesty but yet you are the one that won’t. ** It’s just one Protestant insult after another unfounded and ignorant Protestant insult. Why waste my time being subjected to more?

There are many Catholics here that will discuss honestly and with charitry, and guanophore is at the very top of that list.

Jon

 

[De_Maria]

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.

We read Scripture differently. Here’s how we understand Mariology in Scripture:

Scripture says that God’s will should be done on earth as it is in heaven.

And God wills that the Angels praise Mary:
Luke 1:
26And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, 27To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. 28And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

Let’s break this down:
ANGEL GABRIEL

1. an angel is a messenger of God. That is what the word, angel, means.
2. this angel, Gabriel, is one of the four angels that stands before the throne of God.

WAS SENT FROM GOD

1. God sent this angel to Mary.
2. Since this angel is a messenger of God’s, God sent Him to deliver a message.
3. Therefore, the angel was not speaking on his own, but was communicating God’s message to Mary.
4. If we skip down to verse 28, we see that this was a message of praise (i.e. blessed art thou).
5. Therefore God praised Mary through His Angel.

That is great praise indeed. Do you know of any man whose praise is worth more than God’s? In other words, what do you value more highly, the praise of man or the praise of God?

But, there’s more. God sent the Angel to do His Will. What is His Will. Obviously, God sent the Angel to deliver a message of praise. Therefore it is God’s will that the Angels praise Mary.

And there’s yet more. Because the Holy Spirit inspired a holy woman to exclaim, ""Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! "

still in Luke chapter 1:
41And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: 42And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. 43And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy. 45And blessed is she that believed: for there shall be a performance of those things which were told her from the Lord.

Should we break this down?

1. The Holy Spirit is God the Third Person of the Holy Trinity.
2. Therefore, God inspired Elisabeth to praise Mary.
3. This praise is inscribed in the Word of God for all generations.
4. Since Elisabeth is a member of the human race, then it is safe to conclude that God wills that men praise Mary.
5. And we find, again, that God praised Mary through His Saint. Saint Elisabeth praised Mary when she was inspired by the Holy Spirit to do so. That means that it is the Holy Spirit’s praise which she passed on. That is why Scripture is called the Word of God. Because it is inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Need we say more? Let’s do it anyway.
Scripture says: Matthew 6:10 Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.

Thus, God wills that mankind PRAISE Mary. This is confirmed by Mary herself when she says, “From now on all generations will call me blessed (Luke 1:48).”

So, when do you praise Mary?

SHALL WE CONTINUE?

Scripture says: Titus 1:15 Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.
Being you are a Protestant, I assume you believe that you are the Church. And I assume you also believe that the Church is the Bride of Christ.

These are Spiritual truths perceived with the eyes of the Spirit. Does that make us all polygamists. After all, aren’t you married?

But even if you aren’t, many Protestants are, so are they married to God and to their spouse? And are they then polygamists?

So, sure, Mary is married to St. Joseph and she is also the Spouse of the Holy Spirit who engendered Jesus Christ in her womb and she is also the Bride of Christ and the daughter of Zion. That makes her the holy mother of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is God. These are all Spiritual truths.

Mary was overshadowed (i.e. covered) by the Holy Spirit.
In Scripture, the spouse of a man is his cover: Genesis 9:21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.

Leviticus 20:11 And the man that lieth with his father’s wife hath uncovered his father’s nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Ruth 3:9 And he said, Who art thou? And she answered, I am Ruth thine handmaid: spread therefore thy skirt over thine handmaid; for thou art a near kinsman.

Therefore, Scripture says that Mary is the Spouse of the Holy Spirit.

THERE IS MUCH MORE. But I don’t think you expected this much.

May God bless you.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[CompSciGuy]

I would agree with this to a point, and that point being articles of faith or doctrine. As a Lutheran, for example, the virgin birth and Holy Theotokos are doctrine, mentioned in the confessions, and strongly linked to the Incarnation. The Assumption is not an article of faith, not doctrine, but adiaphoron.

And consider this, a Catholic is free to believe that the Blessed Virgin was either assumed after or before she died. Frankly, I wouldn’t consider that relativism, but it certainly could be construed as falling into the category of, “believe what you want, to each his own.”

Jon

Right but the post seemed to be discouraging any kind of persuasion for/against mariology on the basis that “we can believe whatever we want.” This defeats the purpose of apologetics. The Catholic Church believes in the dogmas related to Mary, that they are true, and as such ought to defend them when they are challenged. If they are not true, as prichards suggests, then we ought not to believe in them and prichards is thus justified in speaking against them. To simply say “to each his own” is silly, this is a forum for discussing Catholic and non-Catholic beliefs; such a statement doesn’t really have any place in the discussion. The goal is to reach the truth, not to feel good about what we already believe.

 

[CopticChristian]

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.

This will probably fall on deaf ears.

christendom-awake.org/pages/marian/newman1.html

Mary as the New Eve
EXTRACTS FOR THE TIMES
MARY - THE SECOND EVE

FROM FROM THE WRITINGS OF JOHN HENRY NEWMAN
amazon.com/Mary-Second-Henry-Cardinal-Newman/dp/0895551810

socrates58.blogspot.com/2010/01/perpetual-virginity-of-mary-acceptance.html

François Turretin (1632-1687) was a major figure in Reformed Protestant (Calvinist) theology.

zenit.org/article-31711?l=english

Bishop Stack underlined the need to use “the tools of biblical language, theological methods and even devotional life to seek to understand how the living faith of the Church is molded by our understanding of the place of Mary in the mystery of faith, the saving action of Jesus her Son.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumenical_meetings_and_documents_on_Mary#Lutheran_Catholic_dialogue

The One Mediator, the Saints, and Mary: Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue VIII is the result of a 7-year dialogue surrounding the issues of Christ as the one mediator, the Saints, and Mary. The Common statement on Mary has an “Introduction” and two major sections: “Part One: Issues and Perspectives” and “Part Two: Biblical and Historical Foundations.”

amazon.com/One-Mediator-Saints-Mary-Lutherans/dp/0800697626
The One Mediator, the Saints, and Mary: Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue VIII

The Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC) claims to have illuminated in a new way the place of Mary. The joint study led to the conclusion that it is impossible to be faithful to Scripture without giving due attention to the person of Mary

Pritchard has been banned. I was hoping to show that he is one person. The world at large is looking at what he protests. While Scripture is valuable an Anglican proposes the following.

"the tools of biblical language, theological methods and even devotional life

Pritchard forgot that the book absent devotion and theology is just a book.:sad_bye:

 

[CopticChristian]

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 an awesome video. The link to their www.whatever is broken and does not show up. Do they have one on the Eucharist?

 

[Rocky]

Then why would something take 1900 years to be declared dogma if it always was believed by the church? It lends itself to dogma not being very imparitive.

In the mid 1800’s is when Darwin’s book came out with the theory of evolution. Everyone was abuzz—man has descended from apes! The faithful through the bishops petition the Pope to declare formally as dogma what has been believed from the earliest times— Mary’s Immaculate Conception. Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit the Church strengthens the faithful by emphasizing what has always been believed— man is made in the image of God (not apes), and Mary most fully exemplifies this through the Will of God.

In 1950 the world has gone through a most horrendous period. Millions of people have been gassed to death in Nazi death camps. Communist regimes are arising and millions more are meeting their deaths through their Godless ideology. Materialism is beginning to run rampant and respect for the human person sinks lower and lower. What is the true end of man—just an oven and no more? Again the faithful through their bishops petition the Pope to declare as dogma what has been believed from the earliest times —Mary’s Assumption into Heaven. Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit the Church strengthens the faithful by emphasizing what has always been believed— man is meant to be happy in Heaven with God at the end of this life, and Mary most fully exemplifies this through the Will of God by fully enjoying the promise that Christ has made to all those who believe and follow him. At the end of time we will all be like Mary, united body and soul in Heaven with our Lord.

This explanation is not original with me, but something I read in Mary, Mother of the Son written by Mark Shea.

 

[Zooey]

There are many Catholics here that will discuss honestly and with charitry, and guanophore is at the very top of that list.

Jon

---

And Pritchard, really, calling Mary the Queen of Heaven is really just simple logic:

1. 
   *]The King of Heaven is Jesus Christ our Lord & Saviour.
   *]In ancient Israel, the queen was always the mother of the king.
   *]Mary is the mother of the King; ergo:
   *]Mary is the Queen of Heaven.
   
   

 

[Zooey]

In the mid 1800’s is when Darwin’s book came out with the theory of evolution. Everyone was abuzz—man has descended from apes! The faithful through the bishops petition the Pope to declare formally as dogma what has been believed from the earliest times— Mary’s Immaculate Conception. Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit the Church strengthens the faithful by emphasizing what has always been believed— man is made in the image of God (not apes), and Mary most fully exemplifies this through the Will of God.

In 1950 the world has gone through a most horrendous period. Millions of people have been gassed to death in Nazi death camps. Communist regimes are arising and millions more are meeting their deaths through their Godless ideology. Materialism is beginning to run rampant and respect for the human person sinks lower and lower. What is the true end of man—just an oven and no more? Again the faithful through their bishops petition the Pope to declare as dogma what has been believed from the earliest times —Mary’s Assumption into Heaven. Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit the Church strengthens the faithful by emphasizing what has always been believed— man is meant to be happy in Heaven with God at the end of this life, and Mary most fully exemplifies this through the Will of God by fully enjoying the promise that Christ has made to all those who believe and follow him. At the end of time we will all be like Mary, united body and soul in Heaven with our Lord.

This explanation is not original with me, but something I read in Mary, Mother of the Son written by Mark Shea.

 

[Zooey]

Tell me, why would I bother? You know they exist. You are not a stupid person. You know that the majority of your church has been questioned for centuries. Nobody needs to tell you that. I would love to discuss these things with honesty but yet you are the one that won’t. It’s just one Protestant insult after another unfounded and ignorant Protestant insult. Why waste my time being subjected to more?

:newidea:Maybe he means this?:

With all due respect…if folks around here handed you any more Scripture, you’d collapse all of a heap with a herniated disk.

You know, as in “one Protestant[AKA:wave: Lady Zooey of the Trog Guard] after another [snip] Protestant”.:coffeeread:
I didn’t think it was** that** snarky. Poor Pritch never saw me on a :slapfight:**really:nunchuk: **snarky day…:dts:

 

[guanophore]

guan,
And if you narrow it to the Reformation churches proper - Luther, Zwingli, Calvin - probably long after the Reformation, unless one considers concerns regarding invocation as “polemics”.

Jon

True that, Jon.

 

[guanophore]

This will probably fall on deaf ears…
Pritchard forgot that the book absent devotion and theology is just a book.:sad_bye:

Pritchard’s ears might be deaf, Coptic, but your post will benefit all the lurkers reading. I just checked the stats to encourage you . There are 22 times as many persons reading as there are posting on this thread. Some of those really are seeking the Truth, and will make use of your resources, so be encouraged!

 

[OHCAC]

Tell me, why would I bother? You know they exist. You are not a stupid person. You know that the majority of your church has been questioned for centuries. Nobody needs to tell you that. I would love to discuss these things with honesty but yet you are the one that won’t. It’s just one Protestant insult after another unfounded and ignorant Protestant insult. Why waste my time being subjected to more?

I converted to Catholicism from being a Baptist and Mary was a real stumbling block for me too - so I understand your issues with Marion doctrine. Can’t say I understand your attitude but that’s your choice - although several of these posters are correct - you see what you see because in large part it’s what you’ve been taught to see - and continue to choose to see. I certainly found that’s what I was doing. I’m not brainwashed (how would I know anyway - kidding!!!) after much study, prayer and searching I found Marion doctrine to certainly have truth to it. And like most things I learned about Catholicism to go much deeper and broader in it’s revelation and meaning than I’d ever realized before.

If you really want to know more, or just look for ways to justify your beliefs, either way will work, I’d suggest a book to you by Dr. Kenneth Howell called Mary of Nazarteh. Dr. Howell was a Presbyterian pastor for many years and then converted to Catholicism. His book on Mary is in large part written to explain Marion doctrine and Catholic beliefs about Mary to Protestants - you can find it on Amazon here: Mary of Nazareth

Good luck!

 

[guanophore]

I'm not brainwashed (how would I know anyway  :confused: - kidding!!!) after much study, prayer and searching I found Marion doctrine to certainly have truth to it.

I have never met anyone that couldn’t use a little brainwashing. What you are describing is being transformed by the renewal of your mind.