Marian Doctrine by Sola scriptura

[traillius]

1. Mary is the mother of Jesus ( " and she gave birth to a son… )
2. Jesus is God. ( " I and the Father are one ")
3. Jesus obeyed every commandment ( " A man like us in all things but sin " )
4. Jesus obeyed the fourth commandment so Jesus honored his mother ( " you shall honor your father and your mother. " )]
5. We should do as Jesus did. Jesus honored Mary, thus we honor Mary ( " Be imitators of Christ )
6. Mary is called blessed ( " All generations shall call me Blessed " )
   Using any version of the bible you want, every quoted passage in the parentheses is a direct reference to the associated, and immediately preceding, Doctrine.
   All these together provide a Sola Scriptura defense of Marian Doctrine.

 

[Cachonga]

The Scriptures given could be used to show that Mary is the “Mother of God” (although it’s not a doctrine, but a dogma, and was made to counter a heresy that denied Jesus was fully God, not to honor Mary), but I see nothing to support the claims of perpetual virginity, immaculate conception, bodily assumption, or co-mediator (the last is not yet a dogma). Furthermore, your own Catholic scholar, Ludwig Ott, in his book Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, admits there is no Scriptural support for the immaculate conception, but that it is derived solely from tradition, and that based on apochryphal writings from the 4th or 5th century (I don’t have the book at hand, but I believe it can be found around pages 125-129).

 

[traillius]

The Scriptures given could be used to show that Mary is the “Mother of God” (although it’s not a doctrine, but a dogma, and was made to counter a heresy that denied Jesus was fully God, not to honor Mary), but I see nothing to support the claims of perpetual virginity, immaculate conception, bodily assumption, or co-mediator (the last is not yet a dogma). Furthermore, your own Catholic scholar, Ludwig Ott, in his book Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, admits there is no Scriptural support for the immaculate conception, but that it is derived solely from tradition, and that based on apochryphal writings from the 4th or 5th century (I don’t have the book at hand, but I believe it can be found around pages 125-129).

Straw man, since you didn’t respond directly to any of the points I actually made, except to say that one you agreed with had nothing to do with Mary. But thanks for agreeing with me, at least implicitly, that mary is to be honored. Since I only used sola scriptura for your clarification, using it back against me isn’t effective, since Catholics aren’t afraid to use other things besides only the written text of the bible ( which version by the way? The one approved by the Church, or the watered down version re-arranged and shortened by martin luther.)

 

[Cachonga]

traillius:

Straw man, since you didn’t respond directly to any of the points I actually made, except to say that one you agreed with had nothing to do with Mary. But thanks for agreeing with me, at least implicitly, that mary is to be honored.

There is no question that Mary is most blessed among women, and is a model of faith and virtue for all of us to follow. However, I do not beleive she was sinless, ever-virgin, or even bodily assumed (and certainly not a co-mediator with Christ).

Since I only used sola scriptura for your clarification, using it back against me isn’t effective, since Catholics aren’t afraid to use other things besides only the written text of the bible

Since you believe in things other than Scripture, why even bother quoting Scripture? Why not just quote the dogmas as defined by the “infallible” magisterium (which is obviously the ultimate authority for Roman Catholics)? However, since the topic of the thread is “Marian Doctrine by Sola scriptura”, it certainly sounds like you want to make your points from Scripture. Also, as pointed out already, the Roman Catholic scholar, Ludwig Ott, has pointed out that there is NO scriptural evidence for the immaculate conception, so which of your “points” is supposed to support that specific dogma?

( which version by the way? The one approved by the Church, or the watered down version re-arranged and shortened by martin luther.)

As traillius said in the initial post

traillius:

Using any version of the bible you want, every quoted passage in the parentheses is a direct reference to the associated, and immediately preceding, Doctrine.

To respond specifically to your “points” -

1. Mary is the mother of Jesus ( " and she gave birth to a son… )

Luke 1:35 - Mary is the mother of the Son of God.

1. Jesus is God. ( " I and the Father are one ")

No arguement.

1. Jesus obeyed every commandment ( " A man like us in all things but sin " )

No arguement, but what Marian dogma does this support (and how)?

1. Jesus obeyed the fourth commandment so Jesus honored his mother ( " you shall honor your father and your mother. " )]

No arguement. How does this relate to any of the Marian dogmas? Bear in mind Matt 12:46-50 (Who is my mother? All who do the will of my Father…).

1. We should do as Jesus did. Jesus honored Mary, thus we honor Mary ( " Be imitators of Christ )

No arguement, but how does this relate to immaculate conception, perpetual virginity, bodily assumption, co-mediator, or even “mother of God”?

1. Mary is called blessed ( " All generations shall call me Blessed " )

No arguement, but how does it relate to any of the Marian dogmas?

All these together provide a Sola Scriptura defense of Marian Doctrine.

How?

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

The Scriptures given could be used to show that Mary is the “Mother of God” (although it’s not a doctrine, but a dogma, and was made to counter a heresy that denied Jesus was fully God, not to honor Mary), but I see nothing to support the claims of perpetual virginity, immaculate conception, bodily assumption, or co-mediator (the last is not yet a dogma). Furthermore, your own Catholic scholar, Ludwig Ott, in his book Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, admits there is no Scriptural support for the immaculate conception, but that it is derived solely from tradition, and that based on apochryphal writings from the 4th or 5th century (I don’t have the book at hand, but I believe it can be found around pages 125-129).

Oh, you again. You are quite the frenetic poster on this topic arent you?

Why is it that you have something against the Marian Dogmas? What is the purpose of fighting them? And what are your proofs that they are false? Could God not have allowed Mary to be immaculately conceived based upon the Glory that she was bringing into the world and in order that Mary would be a fitting mother for Jesus? Could the blessed virgin Mary not have remained a virgin until death (and please dont tell me that childbirth would have destroyed her virginity, I dealt with that on another thread you where you posted)? Could our Blessed Mother not have been assumed into heaven as was Elijah?

Remember what St. Maximillian Kolbe said “It is not possible to love the Virgin Mary more than Jesus. Whoever does not want Mary for their Mother does not want Christ for their brother.” I may have mangled that quote, but thats the gist of it.

Straw man, since you didn’t respond directly to any of the points I actually made, except to say that one you agreed with had nothing to do with Mary. But thanks for agreeing with me, at least implicitly, that mary is to be honored. Since I only used sola scriptura for your clarification, using it back against me isn’t effective, since Catholics aren’t afraid to use other things besides only the written text of the bible ( which version by the way? The one approved by the Church, or the watered down version re-arranged and shortened by martin luther.)

If I could find the clapping emoticon I would have put it down here.

 

[traillius]

for the record, not believing in Sola Scriptura does not exclude the scriptures. Interesting employment of the false dichotomy fallacy. Scriptures and Church Teaching are both equally valid.

 

[James224]

The Scriptures given could be used to show that Mary is the “Mother of God” (although it’s not a doctrine, but a dogma, and was made to counter a heresy that denied Jesus was fully God, not to honor Mary), but I see nothing to support the claims of perpetual virginity, immaculate conception, bodily assumption, or co-mediator (the last is not yet a dogma). Furthermore, your own Catholic scholar, Ludwig Ott, in his book Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, admits there is no Scriptural support for the immaculate conception, but that it is derived solely from tradition, and that based on apochryphal writings from the 4th or 5th century (I don’t have the book at hand, but I believe it can be found around pages 125-129).

Ludwig Ott’s book is very good. I’ve had it for years and referred to it many times. It is in Denziger’s #251 and prounounced in the Council of Ephesus. A Dogma must be believed by the faithful and Doctrine means something that must be taught so Mary, the Mother of God, is both. I’ll briefly touch on Mary’s Perpetual Virginity since I only have a few minutes. Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant. If you apply what you know about the Ark, it’s easy to see Mary’s Perpetual Virginity in it. I’ll explain more later.

 

[colmcille1]

for the record, not believing in Sola Scriptura does not exclude the scriptures. Interesting employment of the false dichotomy fallacy. Scriptures and Church Teaching are both equally valid.

Hi traillus,
This is true. Both Scripture and Tradition inform the teaching of the Magisterium via the power of the Holy Spirit.
God Bless,
Colmcille.

 

[kepha1]

The Scriptures given could be used to show that Mary is the “Mother of God” (although it’s not a doctrine, but a dogma, and was made to counter a heresy that denied Jesus was fully God, not to honor Mary), but I see nothing to support the claims of perpetual virginity, immaculate conception, bodily assumption, or co-mediator (the last is not yet a dogma). Furthermore, your own Catholic scholar, Ludwig Ott, in his book Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, admits there is no Scriptural support for the immaculate conception, but that it is derived solely from tradition, and that based on apochryphal writings from the 4th or 5th century (I don’t have the book at hand, but I believe it can be found around pages 125-129).

This Bible based video will address most of what you are missing:
youtube.com/watch?v=0aU18v-tl8I

 

[rcjones]

Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant. If you apply what you know about the Ark, it’s easy to see Mary’s Perpetual Virginity in it. I’ll explain more later.

In typology, if A and B speak of C, but A, B and C speak of D, then the ante-type is D.

If Moses’s basket, Noah’s Ark, and the Ark of the Covenant all speak of Mary, but Mary is herself a type of Christ, then isn’t Christ the real ante-type?

I know the answer. The magesterium has spoken. But this is the essence of the Protestant objection to Marion dogmas. The flesh of Christ is the reed of Moses’s basket carrying the eternal son of God, His flesh is the tree of Noah’s Ark carrying all mankind through the flood as we are 'in Christ. His flesh is the tree of the ark of the covenant, covered with Gold, as he is Glorified carrying within him the reconciliation of law and grace.

I do not say these things to offend, just to show that such differences are not resolved by things that are ‘easy to see’. If the ark’s are Christ, then the extrapolations of Marion doctrines from them are due to the erroneous application of types and ante-types. If the Magesterium is the authority, then no reason can be applied to the pronouncement. It is a choice of whom you believe. Just like faith. Christian doctrine follows faith, it does not proceed it in either Catholic, Protestant or other expressions.