Marian dogmas, crucial for salvation?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jmgi1957
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
If Paul is telling his audience of first century Christians to not accept a different gospel than the one they have been given, then when did his message become obsolete?
Was the teaching of the Council of Jerusalem “different” or “accursed”? After all, it was a new teaching on dietary law, wasn’t it? And it wasn’t “Scriptural” when it happened, now, was it? So, it really was a later “Catholic reasoning and tradition”!

And, if the Council of Jerusalem wasn’t “accursed”, then how can you claim that later councils were…?
 
You are assuming things that you cannot prove to be true. Its an argument from silence.
Nope. Yours is an argument from silence. You are arguing that Jesus and Mary would not have taught revealed these things to the Apostles and Disciples. Since you do not see these things in writing, you jump to the conclusion that these words were never spoken. Therefore, you are arguing from silence.

Have you ever heard the saying, “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”
 
You are assuming things that you cannot prove to be true. Its an argument from silence.
I don’t live my life by “Proof” but by “Faith”. Ask yourself this, how did the book of Genesis come about? How do you “Proof” the book of Genesis, the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve, the Original Sin? There was a flood that destroyed everything after all. How do you “Proof” Enoch? We accept the word of mouth was passed down and eventually scribe. Now you need “Proof” that Mother Mary “IS” a Virgin?

If I were you I would go back and reexamine my “Faith”.
 
Last edited:
Of course we don’t know when Mary died, but she very well could have been deceased by the time the NT was completed, not to say that any author would have needed to mention it anyway, unless they considered her assumption to be worth documenting. 🤔
 
Last edited:
quote; The people closest to her certainly knew that she was without sin, was a perpetual virgin and was assumed into Heaven.

How would they know she was without sin?
It was revealed in Scripture when the angel called her “kecharitomene”, ever full of grace.
or that she was a perpetual virgin, seriously?
This is subtly revealed by Scripture by the fact that St. Joseph was informed by an Angel that Jesus was God’s Son. Thus, being a righteous and God fearing man, St. Joseph would not have ever touched Mary in that way. Knowing that she is the Spouse of the Holy Spirit. Yes, that is another title of Our Lady.
You think those people knew her thoughts?
What they didn’t know, she or Jesus would have revealed.
How did those people know whether she had a sex life or not?
You’re really hung up on this sexual thing because you’re a child of the sexual revolution. Remember that these things occurred 2000 years before the sexual
revolution happened.
 
Of course we don’t know when Mary died, but she very well could have been deceased by the time the NT was completed, not to say that any author would have needed to mention it anyway, unless they considered the her assumption to be worth documenting. 🤔
Her Assumption is documented in Rev 12:1. She is the Woman seen in heaven with
a Crown of 12 Stars.
 
It was revealed in Scripture when the angel called her “kecharitomene”, ever full of grace.
I agree, the use of the Greek here is noteworthy, as it is not used of anyone else in Scripture. Acts 6:8 speaks of Stephen being “filled with grace” but a different Greek word was used there with a different meaning.
 
Mary was with people in person during much of the first century.
Obviously we couldn’t have dogmas dealing with her assumption when she was still alive.
She was providing all sorts of encouragement and help to early Christians on earth, I am sure.
 
This is subtly revealed by Scripture by the fact that St. Joseph was informed by an Angel that Jesus was God’s Son. Thus, being a righteous and God fearing man, St. Joseph would not have ever touched Mary in that way. Knowing that she is the Spouse of the Holy Spirit. Yes, that is another title of Our Lady.
I’m with you on this, but again, its human reasoning telling us that Joseph would not have “touched her.”
 
I’m a bit perplexed from this thread. You seem to be quite opposed to the Marian doctrines on the basis of their being the fruits of human reason, rather than direct statement in Scripture. And yet you haven’t mustered a single actual argument against them. Your argument is based entirely on ignorance. Is the issue that you simply think that we should not use reason when it comes to religion, instead relying only on what is explicitly and irrefutably stated?
 
Either the gates of hell shall prevail against the Church, or they shall not. If one must rely on scripture alone, it is clear that Christ declared His Church to be indefectible. Forever. The seed of doubt regarding one aspect of the Church, once planted, can blossom into doubts regarding other aspects of the Church. There is one, in the spiritual realm, who sows these seeds. In His parable of the wheat and the tares, Christ portrayed this individual as “an enemy.”

You might consider: How come the scriptures do not explicitly state that the Godhead is three eternal and divine Persons? That is the very basis, the foundation of our beliefs. Isn’t that a rather glaring error? Oh, you can argue the Trinity from scripture, but it’s simply not explicit in there. We have to trust extra-biblical revelation and the leading of the Holy Spirit on that, and many, many other doctrines.

One must consider doctrinal development, in which revelation refines, completes, fulfills what has gone before. Many, including myself, have had difficulties with Marian doctrine. No more! Time spent before our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament revealed the truth to me on a personal level.

And there will be found at least a major part of your solution. Go to Christ and ask Him about His mother. Read Revelation 12. Understand that Christ created His own mother and that she, bearing the only Son in her womb, is at enmity with the evil one. Enmity: having zero, nothing, to do with the other. As the devil emptied himself of all goodness that he was created with, so also Mary retained all of the goodness that she was created with, by her simple and unquestioning “Fiat” to Gabriel, who spoke directly for God.

As evil and detestable as the devil sounds (and is), the exact converse is attributed to Christ’s self-chosen mother. The devil has been described as “the nothing” and to properly understand the mother of our Lord, it is fitting and correct to assign to her each and every title in the Litany of the Blessed Mother.

Church teaching on Mary may strike us as hyperbole, even fantasy, but what we are actually considering here is not ink on paper, or the decision of gray-haired men in council, but the incomprehensible work of God as revealed to mankind through Christ’s indefectible Church. Mary is the most perfect human being ever created, because she was created (with all foreknowledge) specifically by Christ give her flesh to Him.

You might be experiencing a crisis of faith. That is extremely common, as we are relentlessly attacked in the spiritual realm. To counter that, we must employ the three theological virtues of faith, hope and love. All three are supplied, in overflowing excess, before our Lord Jesus Christ hanging on the cross, but on a perhaps more personal level, at adoration of the Most Blessed Sacrament.

Go there and express your doubts. Then, be as patient with our Lord as He has been with you. When you receive your consolation via the Holy Spirit, you will be changed.
 
Last edited:
quote; The people closest to her certainly knew that she was without sin, was a perpetual virgin and was assumed into Heaven.

How would they know she was without sin or that she was a perpetual virgin, seriously? You think those people knew her thoughts? How did those people know whether she had a sex life or not?
Because they knew her.
 
I don’t want to shut down discussion, but speculating on Mary having a sex life or impure thought is bordering on blasphemy here.
Only God, and not Mary, can be the object of blasphemy. And there’s nothing wrong with exploring the logical implications of Mary having committed a sin.
 
[Tis_Bearself] I don’t want to shut down discussion, but speculating on Mary having a sex life or impure thought is bordering on blasphemy here.
In my mind, further evidence that the idea was planted by “an enemy.” The “handmaid/servant/bond slave” of the Lord could not and did not seek her own carnal pleasure. Is there any pleasure which exceeds being chosen by God to bear His only Son? Nursing God in the flesh? Spending every one of His 33 years with Him - from virgin womb to virgin tomb?

The primary reformers all believed in Marian doctrine, cautioning against “impious speculation” about her. As the reformation disintegrated, the master of division planted seeds.

This smells of the enemy.
 
Last edited:
not to say that any author would have needed to mention it anyway, unless they considered her assumption to be worth documenting.
Right. So, if the story of the Bible is about Jesus and God’s plan of salvation for us… then why would the lack of narrative about the Assumption be something that causes heartburn?
Mary would have told someone that she had an impure thought?
Well… she did know the first confessors – the Apostles – kinda well… 😉
I don’t want to shut down discussion, but speculating on Mary having a sex life or impure thought is bordering on blasphemy here.
I think the word you’re looking for here is ‘heresy’, not ‘blasphemy’, and no – talking about coming to an understanding a dogma of the Church (even when one is struggling with it) isn’t the definition of ‘heresy’. 😉
 
Only God, and not Mary, can be the object of blasphemy. And there’s nothing wrong with exploring the logical implications of Mary having committed a sin.
Discussion of Mary’s sex life or sexual thoughts touches on Jesus’ conception and on Mary as the new Ark bearing God. So blasphemy applies because God is directly concerned, not because Mary is a deity.

I could also bring up St. Maximilian’s writings on Mary as spouse of the Holy Spirit, but I won’t open that door here, we’re deep enough in the weeds.
 
Last edited:
40.png
neophyte:
Only God, and not Mary, can be the object of blasphemy. And there’s nothing wrong with exploring the logical implications of Mary having committed a sin.
Discussion of Mary’s sex life or sexual thoughts touches on Jesus’ conception and on Mary as the new Ark bearing God. So blasphemy applies because God is directly concerned, not because Mary is a deity.
So should Catholics never try to convince others of the Marian dogmas, as doing so will force them to discuss Mary’s sex life or sexual thoughts?
 
I said I don’t want to shut down discussion. There’s a point beyond which it gets disrespectful, however. I am not saying where that point might be, nor did I flag anyone, but the point is that it is at least bordering on an insult to God.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top