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

[The_Scott]

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

 

[The_Scott]

Oh, and Sola Scriptura didn’t come from Scripture, but a heretical monk called Martin Luther. There’s no indication in Scripture that says Scripture is the only inspired authority. In fact,Scripture says the exact opposite:

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

Sola Scriptura is un-Scriptural, ironically.

 

[DCNBILL]

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.

Based on your premis please refute each title attached to Mary and then quote each bible reference which would refute this title. This would be a good start to your conviction.

 

[The_Scott]

Regarding the Title ‘Mother of God’ (Latin: Mater Dei; Greek: Theotokos (meaning “God-bearing”)

Behold, the virgin shall be with child and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel," which means “God is with us.” - Matthew 1:23; cf. Isaiah 7:14

And the angel said to her in reply, "The holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.” – Luke 1:35

[Elizabeth says,] “And how does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” – Luke 1:43

“But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law…” – Galatians 4:4

(there’s more, but I haven’t sorted all passages out yet)

 

[SteveVH]

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.

 

[Nicea325]

pritchard85;8256512:

You are speaking from a position of ignorance and preconceived notions. I don’t mean this in a derogatory way at all, but you obviously came here with an axe to grind. I would suggest approaching it from the standpoint of asking us to explain our position on Mary, as you obviously have no idea how the Church arrived at Marian dogma.

You will also have to step away from the false idea that everything that is to be believed is contained in the Bible. It is a Catholic document, after all. The New Testament is only that portion of Sacred Tradition committed to writing. If everything we needed was contained in the Bible there would have been no reason for starting a Church. But is it reasonable to assume that since Christ did start a Church then it was necessary. The truth is contained in the life of the Church, which chose to canonize certain of its writings as the inspired word of God. You now hold that document up as proof against certain beliefs that came from the very Church that gave you the Bible to begin with.

So, instead of shooting from the hip here, if you are really interested in how we arrived at certain dogmas and doctrines, maybe you should do a little research first and then enter into a conversation.

Funny thing is that when many say the Bible says anything about Mary’s perpetual virginity,assumption,etc,etc, those same people can never show me from scripture where it mentions a 27 NT book canon? ::ehh:

 

[jmj1984]

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.

The bible implies Mariology, the Fathers of the Early Church explicitly teach it, where you got the idea from that they don’t i have no idea

 

[The_Scott]

Jim Dandy
Ex-Southern Baptist, ex-agnostic, ex-atheist, ecstatic to be Catholic!

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

God bless.

Scott

 

[SteveVH]

Anyone seen the OP?

 

[RyanK]

Anyone seen the OP?

hahaha, I was thinking the same thing.

 

[Dorothy]

Me too. Maybe he/she is busy reading and studying all the responses.

 

[JonNC]

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 issues.

1. Does marialogy do damage to the Gospel? It seems to me if the practice is maintained that the Blessed Virgin is pointing to her Son, then no.
2. Is scripture clear enough (or is the belief necessary for salvation) to bind the conscience of the believer? The answer is, it depends on the doctrine.
   Virgin birth? Absolutely.
   Holy Theotokos? Yes, because it is so closely linked to the Incarnation
   sempre virgo? Maybe, for the same reason.

Jon

 

[Saint_Anonymous]

Me too. Maybe he/she is busy reading and studying all the responses.

I’m praying that this is the case and not vice versa.

To add to what others have already posted, I think the OP should also visit this link for ECF references.

staycatholic.com/ecf_immaculate_conception.htm

[BIBLEDRB]Genesis 3:15[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[pritchard85]

That doesn’t refute it. Who do you think preserved Mary from original sin? God did. Therefore God is her savior.

Wow! Where do you pull that from Scripture??

There is a difference between something being taught and something being declared dogma. Being declared dogma doesn’t mean that it was just thought up or is a completely new concept. I will have to dig up my early church father’s book when I get home for example of what early Christians believed about Mary.

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.

 

[Saint_Anonymous]

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.

Actually that’s not really historically accurate since history shows that the Catholic Church declares something doctrine when a common belief held by the Church and its faithful is being attacked either buy its own members or those outside of the Church.

So in reality when you see the Church declare something as doctrine later down the road it’s because they haven’t had to defend it from a large group of people who opposed it. Take the Trinity for example: it wasn’t declared doctrine for a while but that didn’t mean the Church didn’t believe in it or view it as a fundamental truth of the Christian faith.

 

[Jmd96]

Wow! Where do you pull that from Scripture??

Where from scripture do you pull the idea that scripture is the final authority??

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.

Beliefs aren’t invented when declared as dogma. Often it’s when a belief that has been held and simply taken for granted is called into question-- take for example the Trinity, which you certainly believe in.

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. In the same way, just because the Immaculate Conception was formally defined in 1854, in no way suggests that it was not believed by Christians for 1800 years.

I’m hoping others in this thread can give me some of the background on the circumstances that led to the declaration of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Whatever the case, however, you desperately need to reconsider your understanding of the definition of a dogma, sibling in Christ.

God bless,

 

[SteveVH]

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.

In addition to the comments made by Saint Anonymous, which are accurate, by the way, the Church always moves very slowly. It is not as important to proclaim a truth, especially one already believed and practiced, as it is to protect the Church from error. If it is proclaimed doctrine, it hasn’t been done on a whim. To put that doctrine down in writing is a painstaking process that is given the most serious consideration possible.

 

[regression]

Wow! Where do you pull that from Scripture??

You said:

Mary being unblemished by sin is refuted by Scripture where she herself declared God as her Savior.

I responded by saying:

That doesn’t refute it. Who do you think preserved Mary from original sin? God did. Therefore God is her savior.

Aren’t there two points here? 1) Someone can be saved by God and not born with original sin and 2) Was Mary born without original sin.

What I was pointing out is for number 1 above, the answer is yes. God can save someone from original sin. Therefore your claim that “Mary being unblemished by sin is refuted by Scripture where she herself declared God as her Savior” is incorrect. God is still Mary’s savior. I liked the quicksand analogy someone else wrote.

Can we at least agree to that before moving on to the second point, which is was Mary free from original sin?

 

[ConstantineTG]

One thing I love about the Eastern praxis is that there is only one title attached to Mary, Theotokos. Everything else comes from that title. It pretty much says everything about her.

And it did come from the Early Church.

 

[ConstantineTG]

You said:

I responded by saying:

Aren’t there two points here? 1) Someone can be saved by God and not born with original sin and 2) Was Mary born without original sin.

What I was pointing out is for number 1 above, the answer is yes. God can save someone from original sin. Therefore your claim that “Mary being unblemished by sin is refuted by Scripture where she herself declared God as her Savior” is incorrect. God is still Mary’s savior. I liked the quicksand analogy someone else wrote.

Can we at least agree to that before moving on to the second point, which is was Mary free from original sin?

Let me add to this by saying that even one who is without sin could not have entered heaven until Christ died on the cross. So indeed Mary would have remained at Abraham’s Bossom had Christ not died on the cross to save us all.