Marian dogmas’ belief

[jmgi1957]

If the first century Christians were able to be saved without having to believe in Marian dogma’s, how is it that Catholics today need to accept all four of them them in order to be saved according to the Church? Why the double standard? Why would the following passages of Scripture not apply to the Marian Dogma’s which were NEVER implied or taught by the Apostles?

3 But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ. 4 For if some one comes and preaches another Jesus than the one we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you submit to it readily enough.(2 Cor. 11:3-4))

6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel— 7 not that there is another gospel, but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed.(Gal. 1:6-9)

Were these verses not meant for the first century audience of Paul, as well as us?

 

[stpurl]

Why do you claim the dogmas were not known by the apostles? Could it be that you are confused into thinking that until a dogma was defined by a particular council that it had not ‘existed’ until then? If so, the nature of the trinity was not defined until the 4th century. Did the apostles not believe in the Trinity? Do YOU not believe in the Trinity?

Furthermore, the canon of Scripture was not codified until the late 4th century. The apostles did not all have well-thumbed copies of the KJV, in English, to refer to. Were all Christians prior to the canon of Scripture ‘lost’?

Not only that, most people were not literate or able to read Scripture (which was not limited to Latin) until the 19th century. Were all those people lost?

The double standard here is yours.

 

[Justin_Mary]

If the first century Christians were able to be saved without having to believe in Marian dogma’s, how is it that Catholics today need to accept all four of them them in order to be saved according to the Church? Why the double standard?

The understanding is the Dogmas were always believed & understood. It’s only when the belief is challenged that the defender of the faith must, “strengthen his brothers” & “feed the Lord’s lambs” & “tend His sheep”

Why would the following passages of Scripture not apply to the Marian Dogma’s which were NEVER implied or taught by the Apostles?

There’s no new Gospels. Marian dogmas are not contrary to the Gospel Paul teaches.

It will help if you look at the Dogmas for what they say about Christ. They are Christocentric teaching.

 

[jmgi1957]

Why do you claim the dogmas were not known by the apostles?

I think the simple answer to that is, I don’t see any evidence of them being aware of any of the Marian dogma’s, let alone teaching them. Please point it out to me if you see something in the NT? There is one solitary verse, Luke 1:48, that say’s that Mary will be called “blessed for all generations”. Of course I agree with that, her being the mother of the Messiah, however, lets not read more into that verse than what is really there. Surely, there were many other Bible figures who were called “blessed” also. Additionally, if Mary was destined to become so important in Christians salvation going forward, why is it that the NT does not mention her name again after Acts 1:14?

 

[jmgi1957]

The understanding is the Dogmas were always believed & understood. It’s only when the belief is challenged that the defender of the faith must, “strengthen his brothers” & “feed the Lord’s lambs” & “tend His sheep”

But if they were always believed, then why didn’t the NT have at least some minimal evidence of them being known and taught to the new Christians?

There’s no new Gospels. Marian dogmas are not contrary to the Gospel Paul teaches.

When Paul spoke of “another Gospel” he was speaking of any teaching not received from himself or the other Apostles.

It will help if you look at the Dogmas for what they say about Christ. They are Christocentric teaching.

Honestly, I don’t see where any of them are Christocentric.

Mother of God - Mary
Perpetual Virginity - Mary
Immaculate Conception - Mary
Assumption - Mary

I don’t see where we NEED any of these additional dogma’s to center us on Christ. The Bible in its fullness is all about Christ and leading us to Him.

 

[stpurl]

And where in the Bible does it say that all that is needed for coming to Christ is in the Bible? Why, for the first 300 plus years of Christianity was there in fact no Bible as we know it at all?

Furthermore, the Bible itself tells us that not everything that Jesus said or did is contained in the Bible.

Also, in the Bible Jesus tells us that He will send the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, to guide us to all truth. If one takes that to indicate that the Spirit leads us to the Bible later, then that also indicates that the Spirit can lead us to things other than the Bible. We know that the Bible contains Truth, but only a Person can contain “All Truth’. Jesus is not The Bible.

Jesus did not Himself give us a Bible. But He did give us something in addition to what became the Bible. What could that be?

Oh yes. Jesus gave us a Church. An established Church. Now what was that Church?

Is there a Church in the world today which can trace itself back to the apostles, unbroken? Yes there is. It is the Catholic Church with its Eastern sister, the Orthodox Church. All other churches have their foundations either in a break from one of the two (“Protesting”) or a break from one of the ‘breaks’ or a complete defiance (Arianism, Albigensians, etc.)

It seems to me that you rely heavily on a ‘doctrine of men’. Where is the authentic Christian teaching from the time of the apostles to now that speaks of ‘Sola Scriptura’? Or of a ‘symbolic Eucharist’ in total contradiction to John 6? Or of an ‘invisible church of believers?” Or “soul sleep’, or any of the other contradictions to the apostolic beliefs?

Did you realize that Mary’s Motherhood and Perpetual Virginity were already spoken of in WRITTEN form (which means that oral forms had been in existence for some time prior) by the 2nd century? Before the Bible canon existed? That prayers to her and to THE SAINTS were found in the catacombs by the earliest Christians? That the very first Protestant reformers such as Martin Luther and John Calvin accepted the Perpetutal Virginity of Mary themselves?

 

[Vico]

If the first century Christians were able to be saved without having to believe in Marian dogma’s, how is it that Catholics today need to accept all four of them them in order to be saved according to the Church? …

This is incorrect for the Catholic Church does not teach what you postulated. A person can attain heaven through infant baptism alone, through baptism of desire (such as a catechumen), or baptism of blood (a martyr), or in another way: “God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.” (Catechism 1257) It is necessary to die in a state of sanctifying grace – friendship with God.

What is important, however, is that those that are baptized assent to the teaching authority of the Church in faith and morals, which truth is guaranteed by the Holy Spirit. Those that willfully commit schism, heresy, or apostacy cut themselves off.

 

[Dan_Defender]

Furthermore, the canon of Scripture was not codified until the late 4th century. The apostles did not all have well-thumbed copies of the KJV, in English, to refer to. Were all Christians prior to the canon of Scripture ‘lost’?

I second this. Also, who is to say that the Apostles did not have a special veneration for the Blessed Virgin Mary while alive? and that they were not present at her death and witnessed the Assumption? only Bible-alone people would look for written accounts for everything and ignore the oral Tradition.

 

[jmgi1957]

And where in the Bible does it say that all that is needed for coming to Christ is in the Bible?

If you are said to be “saved” in Scripture, I would say that this means you have come to Christ, would you agree? In the NT, we see many instances where people are declared to be “saved”. There is no indication in the NT that any of these people had to give assent to one Marian dogma, let alone four of them in order to be saved, they were saved based on accepting the Gospel message as preached to them in the first century.

Why, for the first 300 plus years of Christianity was there in fact no Bible as we know it at all?

The OT was entirely written by the time of Jesus, and the NT Scriptures were all written by 100 AD, when the last Apostle died. Some of Paul’s writings were already stated to be “scripture” by 2 Peter 3:15-16, and Paul quotes Luke 10:7 as “scripture” in 1 Tim. 5:18. We also know that NT writings were already being circulated and read to congregations during the Apostles time, so whether or not these writings were compiled yet in one “book”, the Bible, didn’t change the fact that the early first century church knew which writings were Scripture because of their pedigree.

. We know that the Bible contains Truth, but only a Person can contain “All Truth’. Jesus is not The Bible.

GOD is “All Truth” and the Bible is the Word of GOD, so what does that tell you?

Did you realize that Mary’s Motherhood and Perpetual Virginity were already spoken of in WRITTEN form (which means that oral forms had been in existence for some time prior) by the 2nd century?

Once again, why didn’t any of this appear in the NT writings, but as you say, came along shortly afterwards into the 2nd century? You don’t find it odd at all, that after the four Gospels, Mary’s name is only mentioned ONE single time in Acts 1:14 in all the other NT writings?

That the very first Protestant reformers such as Martin Luther and John Calvin accepted the Perpetutal Virginity of Mary themselves?

Why would you bring up leading Protestant Reformers and what they believed in order to help support your view? I could never understand why Catholic’s like to name Luther and others in support of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity, yet these very same Reformers tossed aside many other Catholic beliefs?

 

[stpurl]

. . . . I see that nearly 2 years ago now you had the very same topic as you do now. Got about 200 responses and the thread was closed.

You were refuted then, you’re refuted now.

Cmon, there aren’t that many days left. Why are you stirring the pot again?

. . .

 

[jmgi1957]

Refuted then? By whose standards?

I guess the rest of your post was just an attempt to get in a few more jabs at me about my grammer, seeing as how I am having a hard time understanding an important Church teaching hook, line, and sinker without questions. Even the Bereans consulted the Scriptures to see if what Paul was teaching was true.

 

[jmgi1957]

I’m sure they did look at Mary as a special person in God’s salvation plan, as I always have. I don’t believe that every last thing needs to be found among the pages of Scripture either or it shouldn’t be believed or practiced. I can pretty much guarantee that even the strict Sola Scriptura adherents cannot point to a verse in Scripture that supports every last thing they believe and do today in their churches.

 

[Gorgias]

If the first century Christians were able to be saved without having to believe in Marian dogma’s, how is it that Catholics today need to accept all four of them them in order to be saved according to the Church? Why the double standard?

No double standard. The Church always stands behind its declared doctrine. Doctrine doesn’t just drop from the skies. So, Catholics are asked to believe doctrine as declared.

I also think that your assertion – that first century Christians didn’t “believe in Marian dogma” – is mistaken. It’s almost like saying “the doctrines of Christ’s divinity and of the Trinity weren’t declared in the first century, and therefore, Christians didn’t believe in them.” That’s just ludicrous.

Did the Church Fathers who later declared doctrines of Christ’s divinity “preach another Jesus”? Did those who declared the doctrine of the Trinity “preach a gospel contrary to that which [was] received” by the Galatians? Certainly not! Likewise, then, with Marian doctrines.

I think the simple answer to that is, I don’t see any evidence of them being aware of any of the Marian dogma’s, let alone teaching them. Please point it out to me if you see something in the NT?

Mary is declared ‘kecharitomene’ in Luke 1 – she had received grace at some point in the past, was in a state of grace, with the expectation to remain in that state of grace. In other words, this Scriptural assertion implies both the Immaculate Conception and Mary’s sinlessness.

Gabriel asserted that Mary would – in the future tense – conceive. Mary’s response was incredulity – “how can this be?”. Not the response of a betrothed woman who expected to have a normal sexual relationship with her husband. Therefore: the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity.

Glad I could help demonstrate to you that Marian dogmas do have Scriptural support.

Even the Bereans consulted the Scriptures to see if what Paul was teaching was true.

They consulted the OT, to see if it contraindicated Paul’s message of the Gospel. How does that help your argument?

 

[Todd_Easton]

Why would the following passages of Scripture not apply to the Marian Dogma’s which were NEVER implied or taught by the Apostles?

If you are interested in where the Marian Dogmas are implied or taught by in the Bible, I suggest you look into something like Tim Staples’ book, Behold, Your Mother: A Biblical and Historical Defense of the Marian Doctrines. It is available at Catholic Answers and elsewhere, like Amazon.

 

[po18guy]

. . . . There are but 5 precepts of the Catholic faith. To wit:

"The Precepts are as follows:

Attendance at Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation
Confession of serious sin at least once a year
Reception of Holy Communion at least once a year during the Easter season
Observance of the days of fast and abstinence
Providing for the needs of the Church"

Do you see idol worship, praying to the dead, Marian worship, mandatory Rosary or any of the other . . . accusations in there? Nope.

So, where did your accusations come from? The burden of proof is on the accuser.

 

[LilyM]

If the first century Christians were able to be saved without having to believe in Marian dogma’s, how is it that Catholics today need to accept all four of them them in order to be saved according to the Church? Why the double standard? Why would the following passages of Scripture not apply to the Marian Dogma’s which were NEVER implied or taught by the Apostles?

3 But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ. 4 For if some one comes and preaches another Jesus than the one we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you submit to it readily enough.(2 Cor. 11:3-4))

6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel— 7 not that there is another gospel, but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed.(Gal. 1:6-9)

Were these verses not meant for the first century audience of Paul, as well as us?

The righteous who lived and died before the time of Christ were able to be saved without explicitly believing in Him at all. Or believing in a Triune God. Does that mean we are not required to believe them?

 

[LilyM]

I’m sure they did look at Mary as a special person in God’s salvation plan, as I always have. I don’t believe that every last thing needs to be found among the pages of Scripture either or it shouldn’t be believed or practiced. I can pretty much guarantee that even the strict Sola Scriptura adherents cannot point to a verse in Scripture that supports every last thing they believe and do today in their churches.

Right from the time Elizabeth called her “blessed among women” and wondered why she should be honoured with a visit from the mother of her Lord …

 

[Justin_Mary]

Surely, there were many other Bible figures who were called “blessed” also. Additionally, if Mary was destined to become so important in Christians salvation going forward, why is it that the NT does not mention her name again after Acts 1:14?

For thousands of years God doesn’t have a name. It’s more about who he is, which transcends a name.

But if they were always believed, then why didn’t the NT have at least some minimal evidence of them being known and taught to the new Christians?

There’s more than “minimal” evidence. You need to understand type-casting which is used throughout the Old & New Testament. She is in the beginning when God tells of the Woman who will be at enmity with the serpent (her children will fight the serpents offspring). Fulfilled when Christ says to John, “behold your mother.”

She is prefigured by Solomon’s mother seated in the throne at his right hand (Assumption)

She is the Woman of the Apocalypse clothed with the Sun.

She is the free woman, the heavenly Jerusalem.

When Paul spoke of “another Gospel” he was speaking of any teaching not received from himself or the other Apostles.

Paul’s Gospel is of Christ crucified. He came down from heaven, took our form, loved us to his death, & rose again. In every Gospel Mary is there, God working through her & with her.

I don’t see where we NEED any of these additional dogma’s to center us on Christ.

They help us understand who he is. Mother of God says Jesus is both human & divine.

The Immaculate Conception tells us Jesus is the new Adam

Her Assumption & coronation shows us he is seated on his throne in heaven as she is the Queen Mother, Jesus is the new Solomon

 

[Aulef]

You will only see the Marian dogmas in Sacred Scriptures once you understand and accept how to interpret them.

Until then, your doubts and confusion will remain for you have limited access to them.

 

[Genesis315]

Faith is the total submission of mind and will to God (cd. CCC 143) believing all that God has revealed (cf. CCC 150).

There is one faith (cf. Eph 4:5) so not everyone who professes the Church’s one faith needs to have knowledge of every article. Being ignorant or even wrong about certain points does not diminish this faith, as long as one intends to profess it and does not deliberately oppose it.

As St. Irenaeus noted, “For the faith being ever one and the same, neither does one who is able at great length to discourse regarding it, make any addition to it, nor does one, who can say but little diminish it.” (Adversus Haereses, I, 10, 2)

Pope Innocent IV explained further (Commentaria in quinque libros decretalia, Ad liber I):

There is a certain measure of faith to which all are obliged, and which is sufficient for the simple (simplicibus) and perhaps for all laymen—that is, every adult must believe that God exists and that He rewards all good people. He must also believe in the other articles of the Creed implicitly (implicite), that is, he must believe that whatever the Catholic Church believes is true…
…
Such is the power of implicit faith that there are those who say that if someone has it—that is, he believes in everything the Church believes—but his natural reason (ratione naturali) makes him hold the erroneous opinion that the Father is greater than the Son or precedes Him in time, or that the three persons are separate beings, he is neither a heretic nor a sinner, so long as he does not defend his error and so long as he believes that this is the faith of the Church. In that case, the faith of the Church replaces his opinion, since, though his opinion is false, it is not his faith, rather his faith is the faith of the Church.

St. Thomas says the same here:
SUMMA THEOLOGIAE: The act of faith (Secunda Secundae Partis, Q. 2)

The problem is when we deliberately oppose an article of faith in the face of the judgment of the Church as to what God has revealed. Then we break the unity of faith with the Church and lose that one faith completely–since it is one, deliberate dissent on one point destroys faith altogether, since we have substituted our judgment for God’s authority.

Pope Leo XIII explains (Satis Cognitum 9):

But he who dissents even in one point from divinely revealed truth absolutely rejects all faith, since he thereby refuses to honour God as the supreme truth and the formal motive of faith. “In many things they are with me, in a few things not with me; but in those few things in which they are not with me the many things in which they are will not profit them” (S. Augustinus in Psal. liv., n. 19). And this indeed most deservedly; for they, who take from Christian doctrine what they please, lean on their own judgments, not on faith; and not “bringing into captivity every understanding unto the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor. x., 5), they more truly obey themselves than God. “You, who believe what you like, believe yourselves rather than the gospel” (S. Augustinus, lib. xvii., Contra Faustum Manichaeum, cap. 3).