So the topic is Marian dogmas in the Bible. Protestants, please show where the dogmas contradict Scripture - not where they are not found but where they contradict Scripture.
LOL; you will wait a long time from some people on that one. Not all of us dote on the cliches of apologetics; but when it comes to Marian dogmas being Tradition, (according to Catholics); it has already been stated that the Catholic dogmas on Mary “are not found explicitly in the Bible.” This was my original statement that brought about this topic.I’m waiting for the first “thou shall not worship an idol” and the like.
I’d rather say that most Catholics are going by Protestants’ presentation about what Sola Scriptura is, and how it is used in Protestant arguments.
Are you asking for contradictions between the Scripture and the Tradition in this matter? I think it is what JMJ_Coder was asking to Protestants, so you could probably answer it better.
Hmm, where is that claim in the Bible?
You’re looking at the Tradition from a non-Biblical “Sola Scriptura” view which denies Tradition, but even then I don’t quite understand your argument. The Church believes that the Scripture and the Tradition are in harmony, don’t contradict, but support each other. So, (even ignoring all the references to Jesus giving authority to St. Peter and the Apostles, and to follow the Tradition, etc.) how Tradition and Magisterium aren’t Biblical?
This is a falsehood. Many Traditions you are speaking of are not only not parallel with Scripture, but they contradict it.
Tradition may contradict Scripture in our view, or not be found in Scripture, but Catholics do not believe that it does contradict Scripture. I just think that they should realize that when they say this they are in effect applying their own interpretation to what the Church says. It is individual interpretation once removed.
as i said in the other thread, they don’t NECESSARILY contradict scripture, but they cannot be easily deduced from scripture and therefore should not be binding doctrines. Mary as the “Queen of Heaven” is one that i don’t find in scripture. now she may very well be fulfilling that role in heaven (and that wouldn’t shake my faith in the least) but it’s not able to be deduced scripturally and therefore shouldn’t be a BINDING doctrine (IMO). the assumption is one. Mary’s sinlessness can be brought into question when the NT makes clear that the only exeption to the “all have sinned” passages is Jesus… not Mary. now, the statement “full of grace” is used as well as Mary being an archetype of the ark, but this are pretty speculative. Mary might have been saved from sin befor sinning (like the rest of us have been saved from sin after sinning), she might have been granted that gift from God and it wouldn’t shake my faith, but it shouldn’t be binding doctrine. Prime Scriptura… scripture first. the argument made that the doctrine of the trinity falls into this category is pretty preposterous since the trinity can be easily deduced from scripture.
I thank God for the Church and that through the Church this is binding doctrine. Through the dogmas of the Blessed Mother we have a solid and permanent rail gaurding the dvinity of Christ from the Gnostics, the Pagans and the New Agers who try to claim that Christ is symbollic or indicative of the “true Self”.
Many/most of the Marian Dogmas are not contradicted by Sacred Scripture. But in order to discuss (not argue) this subject with Protestants, you have to overcome their clinging to Sola Scriptura, and present evidence for the strength of Sacred Tradition and logic.
, and it took me a long time to get to this point. I now embrace 90% of Catholic teachings because logic and my own studies won out (hence my username).
and this brings me back to scripture. we don’t need the Marian doctrines because we have scripture that tells us and shows us Christ’s humanity AND divinity existing fully and at the same time. so the Marian doctrines don’t need to be binding because this theme is all through scripture about Jesus.
the problem is, if Mary was sinless, then she isn’t an example of how we can be because God has not dealt with us in that way. the example are the apostle’s, not Mary. Jesus (God in flesh as the scriptures clearly state) takes a group of unremarkable, uneducated, unrefined sinners and transforms them into men who have literally shaped the world forever. there is our example. sinners being saved from their sin by God and being used in spite of their sin.
are you suggesting that protestants aren’t logical? not a good way to start of a “loving explanation”.
as i’ve said before, the Trinity is a poor example of a doctrine not “explicitly stated in scripture”. the word “trinity” isn’t used, but the idea is so overwhelming that it is undeniable. the same cannot be said for many of the Marian doctrines.
unless, Jesus’ brothers and sisters had abandoned Him and their mother out of fear just like Jesus’ closest friends had EXCEPT for John. then it doesn’t seem so far fetched for Jesus to leave His mother in the care of the one person at the moment He seems to be able to trust. i can see the logic in this though, don’t get me wrong. my point is just that this shouldn’t be a binding doctrine because it is not easily drawn from scripture or history. the trinity is very easily drawn from scripture.*Mary was a virgin at conception and at the birth of Christ? * : Scriptural! Check! Next!!!
Mary - Ever Virgin? : Scripture doesn’t say one way or the other. But Scripture is oddly silent about Joseph after Christ is found in the temple at age 12. The oldest artwork depicting Mary and Joseph depicts her as very young, and he as rather old; so it’s likely the silence is due to his death. But the real kicker for me was when Christ gives his mother to John from the cross. It would have been unthinkable in that culture for Christ to give Mary to John’s care, if he had any siblings! Those facts taken together were enough to convince me.,
Of course the Apostles are also our example, the whole Communion of Saints are a shinning example for the Christian community! However,** none of the Apostles bring to light the still yet unfulfilled promises of scripture**; complete liberation from Original Sin (as in a perpetual state of sinlessness), the divine preservation of our unique personhood past death (including a physical body unstained by mortality). And a human person who has entered into the Beatific Vision in its entierty.
] denote catechism of RCC
the problem is that what i have bolded is not included in the doctrines of the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption. you are free to believe that Mary actually died a physical death and then was assumed into heaven (bodily of course, but a dead body). the belief that Mary didn’t die (not unbiblical as it seems there are others who were just assumed into heaven) is not a binding belief.
i’ve seen it and personally dealt with it. the problem is that the doctrines of the church don’t preserve us from it when the RCC has many priests and “theologians” teaching at their universities who are not orthodox to say the least. there is also a movement within protestantism called the emergent church (or emergent village or emerging church) that has some of this unrestrained mysticism at it’s core (i actually get a lot out of mysticism, but i agree about the dangers of unrestrained). the point is that it occurs with and without the Marian doctrines.
I am suggesting no such thing. Quite the opposite!
not exactly, they are based upon achetypes interpreted by some as having to do with Mary.
already read it a number of times. again, he uses archetypes and his interpretation of them. i am not saying i disagree with the interpretations, i am saying that i don’t think they should be binding doctrines. let them be regulated devotions, thoughts, ideas, even disciplines but not doctrines that, if denied, leads to excommunication. i don’t think Jesus would want His mother to be a stumbling block to any.
And here, Bengal_Fan, you and I come into agreement. I have an issue with the Assumption of Mary being defined as dogma. Of course it’s possible. God can do all things. But going back to my previous post, I cannot puzzle it out from Scripture nor Tradition of the Early Church. So it bugs me.