Marian Doubts & Questions: Why I might leave Catholicism!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Needanswers
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

Needanswers

Guest
Hello everyone! I’ve been plagued with doubts. Most of them center on Mary. Here are my questions…
  1. If Mary is a perpetual virgin, why is there no clear tradition on the relationship of the “brothers” to Jesus Christ? Some say they are cousins while others say they are step-brothers?
  2. If the Assumption is part of Tradition, why is it not mentioned during the first 500 years of the Christianity? Why is it that Saint Epiphanius, writing towards the end of the fourth century, says no one know what happened to Mary if the Assumption came to us through tradition? Wouldn’t he know this divinely revealed tradition?
  3. I’ve been reading the Glories of Mary by Liguori. How can Mary be the mediatrix of all graces? How is it possible that all graces must pass through her hands and that the prayers of Mary are necessary for our salvation? This all seems to be based on pure speculation and go beyond what is found in the Bible and the early church fathers.
4)If Mary’s sinlessness came down to us through tradition, then why are there several early Christian writers and Church fathers who say Mary had minor sins (Irenaeus, Origen, John Chrysostom, Basil, Hilary)? If they were aware of such a divinely revealed tradition, then why would they say this?

Thanks,
Needanswers
 
Four questions are too many for one thread. It will quickly descend into confusion if we try to address all these at once. Here are several articles from the online Catholic Encyclopedia about the Virgin Mary. Also, go to the library on this site and enter Virgin Mary and you’ll have enough reading to keep you busy for some time! 🙂
 
Hello everyone! I’ve been plagued with doubts. Most of them center on Mary. Here are my questions…
  1. If Mary is a perpetual virgin, why is there no clear tradition on the relationship of the “brothers” to Jesus Christ? Some say they are cousins while others say they are step-brothers?
  2. If the Assumption is part of Tradition, why is it not mentioned during the first 500 years of the Christianity? Why is it that Saint Epiphanius, writing towards the end of the fourth century, says no one know what happened to Mary if the Assumption came to us through tradition? Wouldn’t he know this divinely revealed tradition?
  3. I’ve been reading the Glories of Mary by Liguori. How can Mary be the mediatrix of all graces? How is it possible that all graces must pass through her hands and that the prayers of Mary are necessary for our salvation? This all seems to be based on pure speculation and go beyond what is found in the Bible and the early church fathers.
4)If Mary’s sinlessness came down to us through tradition, then why are there several early Christian writers and Church fathers who say Mary had minor sins (Irenaeus, Origen, John Chrysostom, Basil, Hilary)? If they were aware of such a divinely revealed tradition, then why would they say this?

Thanks,
Needanswers
Go to

scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html#the_bvm-VI

This site covers both Scriptural Proof about the Catholic Belief of Mary.

I also recommend Bible Christian Society: biblechristiansociety.com

They have free downloads of MP3 which defend the Catholic Church based on Scripture.
 
All of the teachings on Mary that I listed are increasingly becoming hard pills to swallow, but the hardest pill to swallow for me is the mediatrix of all graces. How is that we need Mary’s prayers for our salvation? How is it that all graces must pass through Mary’s hands. I’ve heard the arguments, but they all seem to be based on pure speculation. There is no clear support for this in the Bible or the Church fathers.

Thanks,
needanswers
 
All of the teachings on Mary that I listed are increasingly becoming hard pills to swallow, but the hardest pill to swallow for me is the mediatrix of all graces. How is that we need Mary’s prayers for our salvation? How is it that all graces must pass through Mary’s hands. I’ve heard the arguments, but they all seem to be based on pure speculation. There is no clear support for this in the Bible or the Church fathers.

Thanks,
needanswers
Read this article from EWTN

ewtn.com/faith/teachings/marya4.htm

According to The Second Vatican Council (Lumen gentium ## 61-62), said:
Code:
... in suffering with Him as He died on the cross, she cooperated in the work of the Savior, in an altogether singular way, by obedience, faith, hope, and burning love, to restore supernatural life to souls. As a result she is our Mother in the order of grace.

This motherhood of Mary in the economy of grace lasts without interruption, from the consent which she gave in faith at the annunciation, and which she unhesitatingly bore with under the cross, even to the perpetual consummation of all the elect. For after being assumed into heaven, she has not put aside this saving function, but by her manifold intercession, she continues to win the gifts of eternal salvation for us. By her motherly love, she takes care of the brothers of her Son who are still in pilgrimage and in dangers and difficulties, until they be led through to the happy fatherland. For this reason, the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adiutrix, and Mediatrix. This however it to be so ***understood that it takes nothing away, or adds nothing to the dignity and efficacy of Christ the one Mediator. For no creature can ever be put on the same level with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer...."***
 
Hello everyone! I’ve been plagued with doubts. Most of them center on Mary. Here are my questions…
Doubt is not the enemy of faith…fear is. 🙂
  1. If Mary is a perpetual virgin, why is there no clear tradition on the relationship of the “brothers” to Jesus Christ? Some say they are cousins while others say they are step-brothers?
Stop and think about that for a second. The issue is if there were blood siblings of Jesus. Is there evidence of this? No there is not. Is there misinterpretations of the Word of God that say there were? Yes. Bear in mind that even Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin all believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity. PM me if you need more citations…I’ve got 'em. 👍
  1. If the Assumption is part of Tradition, why is it not mentioned during the first 500 years of the Christianity? Why is it that Saint Epiphanius, writing towards the end of the fourth century, says no one know what happened to Mary if the Assumption came to us through tradition? Wouldn’t he know this divinely revealed tradition?
Why would this bother you? God has assumed many people in the context of thw Bible has He not?

Consider: If He assumed Moses and Enoch and some of the prophets of the OT, why would He not do it for the second most unique person in all of history aside from Christ Himself? Mary’s holiness and relationship with God are well known. As for Traditional documentation, have you seen this.
  1. I’ve been reading the Glories of Mary by Liguori. How can Mary be the mediatrix of all graces? How is it possible that all graces must pass through her hands and that the prayers of Mary are necessary for our salvation
? This all seems to be based on pure speculation and go beyond what is found in the Bible and the early church fathers.That is not a defined dogma of the faith, so blow it off. However, since Mary is the mother of Jesus and all grace does come through Him, then, in an indirect sort of way one can say that graces did indeed come through her. I do not believe that Mary’s prayers are necessary for our salvation and the church has never taught that to my knowledge.

Ligouri can be wrong…that is not infallible.
4)If Mary’s sinlessness came down to us through tradition, then why are there several early Christian writers and Church fathers who say Mary had minor sins (Irenaeus, Origen, John Chrysostom, Basil, Hilary)? If they were aware of such a divinely revealed tradition, then why would they say this?
I know of no Biblical source that indicates that Mary sinned, do you?

Those ECF may have been conjecturing, since they did not know the Blessed Virgin first hand, did they?

I have no problem with the idea that the Blessed Virgin may have led a sinless life. The fullness of grace in her life and the fact that she lived every day of the life of Our Lord with Him, having been the very first believer by virtue of her fiat all indicate to me that possiblilty.

Considering that actually living with and raising Our Lord from birth consititutes the most intense example of a “personal relationship with Jesus” (to use the n-C term) that I can imagine, I find it not incredible at all.

Don’t be leaving the faith my brother. PM me if you need to talk more seriously and personally. 🙂
Pax tecum,
 
Hmm, have you been reading a little James White?

I would respond to all this by pointing out that most objections to this is based on sin. An anti-catholic who proposes such rejection of Marian belief usually can’t conceive of not sinning, which would be totally against the belief that sin is unavoidable.

Catholic belief in the Marian dogmas is essentially dependant upon our belief that Jesus is God. This is a huge difference from other belief systems that almost lower Jesus from being God to just a vague belief that is accepted and makes you go to Heaven.

Since Jesus is God this changes His whole relationship with the human race which demands that His Mother be believed as the Mother of God and even more necesitates a special status to her. It does not matter to Catholics whether people referred to as brothers of Jesus are cousins or half-brothers as much as defending the divinity of Jesus.

Here is a quick response to several of those questions.
ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ105.HTM

A personal objection to that such as James White is based upon a modern rejection of Jesus’s Church and personal pride which elevates personal opinion above the truth which has been believed by Christians through history.
This includes searching for any evidence to support personal theologies.

In Christ
Scylla
 
Why would this bother you? God has assumed many people in the context of thw Bible has He not?

Consider: If He assumed Moses and Enoch and some of the prophets of the OT, why would He not do it for the second most unique person in all of history aside from Christ Himself?
God also assumed Elijah. Elisha witnessed it. (2 Kings 2:11)
 
All of the teachings on Mary that I listed are increasingly becoming hard pills to swallow, but the hardest pill to swallow for me is the mediatrix of all graces. How is that we need Mary’s prayers for our salvation? How is it that all graces must pass through Mary’s hands. I’ve heard the arguments, but they all seem to be based on pure speculation. There is no clear support for this in the Bible or the Church fathers.

Thanks,
needanswers
Actually the belief in the divinity of Jesus is dependant upon Mary as she is the one witness to Jesus being concieved of the Holy Spirit and born of a virgin.
Our whole faith is dependant upon Mary and her witness.
(unless believing in Jesus as God is not necessary for our salvation)
And in addition to that God chose to give us salvation by having God born through her. So she was the method by which God delivered Jesus and salvation to us.

Mediatrix is also not a defined belief, and still is up for debate in the Church, some promote it some reject it.
I personally don’t care as I realize how special she is because she was chosen by Jesus so I honor her. Titles don’t matter much to me, unless it becomes something required to be believed as a Catholic.

In Christ
Scylla
 
  1. If Mary is a perpetual virgin, why is there no clear tradition on the relationship of the “brothers” to Jesus Christ? Some say they are cousins while others say they are step-brothers?
This is a nonsequitur, isn’t it? Whether they were cousins or step-brothers has nothing to do with Mary and her perpetual virginity, right? Thus, it is not clearly related to anything about Mary.

What is clear in tradition is the perpetual virginity of Mary…

See here: Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary

Moreover, there is no clear tradition on many things Protestants assert about Christianity (eg. abbreviated 66-book bible, Bible alone epistemology, Faith alone soteriology, etc.). So I would hope you would doubt the very tenants of Protetantism ever more so.

One thing is clear in the history of Christianity, there was more dispute about such dogmas as the Divinity of Christ and the contents of Sacred Scritpure than the perpetual virginity of Mary.

Some things to consider…

The “brothers” of Jesus are never called “sons of Mary.” Jesus is often called THE son of Mary, but never A son of Mary.

When Jesus was 12-years old, no other son is mentioned as traveling with Jesus, Mary, and Joseph to Jerusalem. Where are these other supposedly younger brothers of Mary?

Jesus gave his mother to the care of a disciple at his death. Why? He was the only son of Mary.

St. Athanasius–an orthodox father of the early Church according to Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants–refers to Mary as “ever-Virgin” Discourse Against the Arians, 2, 70; Jurgens, Vol. 1, n. 767a].

The Protestant Reformers themselves affirmed the belief in the perpetual viginity of Mary…

**Luther: ** “It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of th eLord and still a virgin…Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact.” Works of Luther, Vol. 11, pp. 319-320, Vol. 6, p. 510]

Calvin: "There have been certain folks who wish to suggest from this passage (Matt 1:25) that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph had dwelt with her later; but what folly is this!” “Sermon on Matthew” (1562)]

**Zwingli: ** “I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel, as a pure Virign brough forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intanct Virgin.” [Zwingli Opera, Vol. 1, p. 424]

See also: Brethren of the Lord
 
Doubt is not the enemy of faith…fear is. 🙂 Stop and think about that for a second. The issue is if there were blood siblings of Jesus. Is there evidence of this? No there is not. Is there misinterpretations of the Word of God that say there were? Yes. Bear in mind that even Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin all believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity. PM me if you need more citations…I’ve got 'em. 👍

This is my first post on this site; I’m not trying to start a fight. But appealing to famous people doesn’t make something true right?

Why would this bother you? God has assumed many people in the context of thw Bible has He not?

Yes, He has done that. But Scripture was complete before Mary died (or was assumed) I believe. In matters of faith shouldn’t Scripture be the ultimate authority? And if Scripture doesn’t say that Mary was assumed, how can we believe that she was?

Consider: If He assumed Moses and Enoch and some of the prophets of the OT, why would He not do it for the second most unique person in all of history aside from Christ Himself?

Good question, but then, why would He?

Mary’s holiness and relationship with God are well known. As for Traditional documentation, have you seen this.That is not a defined dogma of the faith, so blow it off. However, since Mary is the mother of Jesus and all grace does come through Him, then, in an indirect sort of way one can say that graces did indeed come through her. I do not believe that Mary’s prayers are necessary for our salvation and the church has never taught that to my knowledge.

I wouldn’t agree that graces came through her indirectly. They came through Jesus and Jesus came through Mary. I’m glad the church has never taught that Mary’s prayers are necessary for our salvation or I would cease my quest to learn more about Catholicism right now.

Ligouri can be wrong…that is not infallible.I know of no Biblical source that indicates that Mary sinned, do you?

Romans 3:23 to name one.

Those ECF may have been conjecturing, since they did not know the Blessed Virgin first hand, did they?

I have no problem with the idea that the Blessed Virgin may have led a sinless life. The fullness of grace in her life and the fact that she lived every day of the life of Our Lord with Him, having been the very first believer by virtue of her fiat all indicate to me that possiblilty.

Mary living a sinless life would cast doubt upon Romans 3:23 wouldn’t it? How was Mary the very first believer? In reality, wasn’t Abraham the very first believer?

Considering that actually living with and raising Our Lord from birth consititutes the most intense example of a “personal relationship with Jesus” (to use the n-C term) that I can imagine, I find it not incredible at all.

But the personal relationship with Jesus comes through confessing you are a sinner and believing in Jesus for your salvation. Mary needed that just as much as you or I. She didn’t totally understand that until Jesus’ death and maybe His resurrection I believe.

Don’t be leaving the faith my brother. PM me if you need to talk more seriously and personally. 🙂
Pax tecum,
 
  1. If the Assumption is part of Tradition, why is it not mentioned during the first 500 years of the Christianity? Why is it that Saint Epiphanius, writing towards the end of the fourth century, says no one know what happened to Mary if the Assumption came to us through tradition? Wouldn’t he know this divinely revealed tradition?
It is mentioned.

Furthermore, Epiphanius states that it is unknown whether or not she died before her bodily assumption. Yet, Epiphanius very much takes for granted that she was indeed assumed into heaven. She may have first died, or perhaps she didn’t die. It is her death which is unknown to him, NOT the assumption of her body to eternal glory.

St. Epiphanius of Salamis (writing in his “Panarion” about 370-390 AD) refers to the assumption:
“Say she died a natural death. In that case she fell asleep in glory, and departed in purity and received the crown of her virginity. Or say she was slain with the sword according to Simeon’s prophecy. There her glory is with the martyrs, and she through whom the divine light shone upon the world is in the place of bliss with her sacred body. Or say she left this world without dying for God can do what He wills. Then she was simply transferred to eternal glory.” (Haer. 79, 11).

Thus, the assumption of Mary is a belief never questioned by St. Epiphanius in the 4th century. In fact, it was so universally believed in the early Church there was a feast day celebrating the Assumption of Mary which dates at least to the 5th century.

** Protestant** author Rev. Charles Dickson states …
Code:
  	 				The Assumption.  This is the last of the Marian feasts and **dates from the fourth century.** It is a celebration of the death and taking into heaven of our Lady. St. Germanus of Constantinople, an eighth-century Church Father, wrote, "Her virginal body is entirely holy, entirely chaste, entirely the house of God." Interestingly, **Martin Luther**, during the reformation period of the sixteenth century, **included the feast of the Assumption** on a list of liturgical celebrations that should "be observed among Evangelical Catholics as a sign of continutity and order." (*A Protestant Pastor Looks At Mary*, p. 69)
Rev. Dickson also states…
… it is evident from the history of the Church’s celebration of the above seven Marian feasts that they have a bibilical basis, are ancient in origin, point us to Christ, and glorify the Holy Trinity. (ibid)
Catholics, Orthodox, and it seems some Protestants agree that Mary was bodily assumed into heaven. Opposition to this belief seems to be another thing some Protestant adopted later, contrary to other Protestants.
 
4)If Mary’s sinlessness came down to us through tradition, then why are there several early Christian writers and Church fathers who say Mary had minor sins (Irenaeus, Origen, John Chrysostom, Basil, Hilary)? If they were aware of such a divinely revealed tradition, then why would they say this?

Thanks,
Needanswers
I thought only Origin and John Chrysostom believed Mary to have sinned? Where do the others quote such things?

Also, it’s important to keep in mind that these Fathers personally believed those things, and that these were never official teachings of the Church. Origin for one, must have been confused. Elsewhere, he called Mary “immaculate of the immaculate.”
 
**
40.png
hoosierdaddy:
This is my first post on this site; I’m not trying to start a fight. …
**

hoosierdaddy said:
**But Scripture was complete before Mary died (or was assumed) I believe. In matters of faith shouldn’t Scripture be the ultimate authority? **

Hi hoosierdaddy and welcome. :tiphat: Glad you came to learn about Catholicism from Catholics. Do you realize that you express belief in things about Mary that aren’t in scripture also? How do you know scripture was complete before she died? Does scripture tell us that?

We Catholics place a great value on the scriptures, but Catholics don’t depend on scripture as the ultimate authority. Catholics believe, (as scripture tells us) that Jesus Christ established a Church. We believe the Church He established is the Catholic Church–and the Church holds that authority that Jesus gave it. That doesn’t mean we don’t value scripture, but we don’t depend on scripture as our sole source of information in matters of faith. Yet, we don’t believe our faith contradicts anything in scripture either. There is nothing in scripture that contradicts the possibility of Mary’s Assumption.
Consider: If He assumed Moses and Enoch and some of the prophets of the OT, why would He not do it for the second most unique person in all of history aside from Christ Himself?
40.png
hoosierdaddy:
Good question, but then, why would He?
Because she was His mommy, and He honors His mother as the commandment says. Jesus fulfilled the law perfectly and honoring His mother is part of the law.

hoosierdaddy said:
Mary living a sinless life would cast doubt upon Romans 3:23 wouldn’t it? How was Mary the very first believer? In reality, wasn’t Abraham the very first believer?

But the personal relationship with Jesus comes through confessing you are a sinner and believing in Jesus for your salvation. Mary needed that just as much as you or I. She didn’t totally understand that until Jesus’ death and maybe His resurrection I believe. Does Jesus living a sinless life contradict Romans? It says “all” doesn’t it?

Yes, Mary needed a savior, and we believe that God applied those graces of the Savior Jesus to Mary from her immaculate conception. God made her perfect because He had the power to make her perfect–and He did so because Jesus honored His mother. We understand Mary’s perfection relative to Her Son’s perfection. Luke tells us she said her soul magnified the Lord. Everything we Catholic believe about Mary reflects back on her role as the one who brings us Jesus. He has done great things for her.

*And Mary said, "My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord; my spirit rejoices in God my savior. For he has looked upon his handmaid’s lowliness; behold, from now on will all ages call me blessed. The mighty one has done great thinkgs for me, and holy is his name. * Luke 1: 46-49
 
In a way, she is the one who brought all graces into the world, with the help of the Holy Spirit. Jesus is all the graces bundled into one baby. If that is true, then she is the mediator of all graces.

Now that will seems strange, but even I am a little freak out over that! Can anyone explain if my analogy is correct or not.
 
  1. I’ve been reading the Glories of Mary by Liguori. How can Mary be the mediatrix of all graces? How is it possible that all graces must pass through her hands and that the prayers of Mary are necessary for our salvation? This all seems to be based on pure speculation and go beyond what is found in the Bible and the early church fathers.
I disagree with Church Militant’s advice to simply “blow it off”. It is official doctrine of the Catholic Church to which all Catholics owe their religious assent of intellect and will, even if not definitively promulgated. I suggest instead that you attempt to understand what the Church herself authentically teaches about this doctrine.

It seems to me you have totally misunderstood the doctrine. There have been many threads which discuss this doctrine in more detail, but here I will just touch upon some source information…

According to Dr. Ludwig Ott’s *Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma,
*
Mary is designated meditarix of all graces in a double sense:

1. Mary gave the Redeemer, the Source of all graces, to the world, and in this way she is the channel of all graces. (sent. certa)

**2. Since Mary’s Assumption into Heaven no grace is conferred on man without her actual intercessory co-operation. (Sent. pia et probabilis).
**
No. 1 above should be easy to assent to, as “mediatrix of all graces” merely connotes Mary gave birth to the source of all grace–Jesus Christ, and co-operated with the work of Christ’s redemption.

All of the just are “co-workers with God” (1 Cor 3:9). Mary’s role was unique, however, as it was her fiat, not any other’s, that untied the knot of Eve’s disobedience.

** St. Justin Martyr**, in his *Dialogue with Trypho, *said that Christ “was made man of the Virgin, so that the disobedience brought on by the Serpent might be cancelled out in the same manner in which it had begun.”

St. Irenaeus in AD 189, concerning Mary’s role as mediatrix: “Mary … by her obedience became a cause of her own salvation and the salvation of the whole human race” (Adv. haer. III 22,4).

St. Thomas Aquinas: “At the Annunciation the concurrence of the maiden was awaited as a representative of all human nature” (S. th. III 30, 1)

** Pope Leo XIII:** “To a certain extent she (Mary) represented the whole human race” (Denzinger 1940 a)

Pope St. Pius X in the Encyclical Ad diem(1904) states: “Since she excels all in sanctity, and by her union with Christ and by her adoption by Christ for the work of man’s salvation, she merited for us *de conguo, *as they say, what Christ merited *de condigno, *and is the first minister of the graces to be bestowed.”

**Pope Benedict XV, Litterae Apostolicae, Inter Sodalicia, March 22, 1918, AAS 10, 1918, 182: **
“… the fact that she was with Him crucified and dying, was in accord with the divine plan. For with her suffering and dying Son, Mary endured suffering and almost death. She gave up her Mother’s rights over her Son to procure the salvation of mankind, and to appease the divine justice, she, as much as she could, immolated her Son, so that one can truly affirm that together with Christ she has redeemed the human race. … for this reason, every kind of grace we receive from the treasury of the redemption is ministered as it were through the hands of the same Sorrowful Virgin”

** Pope Pius XII:** “[Mary] offered Him on Golgotha to the Eternal Father together with the holocaust of her maternal rights and her motherly love like a new Eve for all children of Adam” (Denzinger 2291)

cont…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top