Marian Doubts & Questions: Why I might leave Catholicism!

[levi86]

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?

Some say they are cousins, some say they are step brothers, but where are those people that say they were blood brothers??? If there is no clear tradition regarding Mary’s perpetual virginity why does EVERY Church that has existed since Christ hold to this doctrine?

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?

Not quite

Pseudo – Melito
If therefore it might come to pass by the power of your grace, it has appeared right to us your servants that, as you, having overcome death, do reign in glory, so you should raise up the body of your Mother and take her with you, rejoicing, into heaven. Then said the Savior [Jesus]: “Be it done according to your will” (The Passing of the Virgin 16:2-17 [A.D. 300**])**.

That’s only 250 years after Christ

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 agree with you 100%, it is pure speculation. Just like Limbo this “fifth dogma” may one day fall out of favor. As Catholics we are not bound to believe in Mary as “mediatrix of All Graces”**

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Does the Church still use Jerome’s Vulgate? And why is it called that?

Yes. “Vulgate” means “vulgar” or vernacular language. It was called that because Latin was the vernacular language of the western Church in the 4th century when Jerome translated the Bible from the ancient manuscripts.

See here:

John Paul II, Scripturarum Thesaurus, (1979)

Nova Vulgata - Bibliorum Sacrorum Editio which is based upon Jerome’s translation

 

[Image_of_God]

Yes. “Vulgate” means “vulgar” or vernacular language. It was called that because Latin was the vernacular language of the western Church in the 4th century when Jerome translated the Bible from the ancient manuscripts.

See here:

John Paul II, Scripturarum Thesaurus, (1979)

Nova Vulgata - Bibliorum Sacrorum Editio which is based upon Jerome’s translation

I couldn’t read the second, because I don’t know Latin, but why is the Latin language not used in the Church as commonly as it was before?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

…As Catholics we are not bound to believe in Mary as “mediatrix of All Graces”

I absolutely disagree. It is the authentic teaching of the Catholic magisterium, called sententia certa (certain teaching) by Dr. Ludwig Ott dogmatic theology text I cited above.

Don’t take my word for it, Pius XII affims:

Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: “He who heareth you, heareth me”;[3] and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine.

According to the Encyclical Ad diem by St. Pius X…

“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.”

It’s not speculative, its doctrine.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Thanks for posting this. Did the other books meet the standards for being included in the canon though?

Which other books? If you are referring to the Agnostic Gospels, they weren’t added because they didn’t meet the requirements to be added in the canon.

The early Church needed to make sure the Gospels were written by the apostles or their companions, used in the liturgy, and that none contradict Jesus’ teachings.

The Apostles used the Septuagint (Greek Translation of the Old Testament).

If you doubt me check this link out:

DEUTEROCANONICAL BOOKS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT - scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html

SEPTUAGINT IN THE NEW TESTAMENT- scripturecatholic.com/septuagint.html

 

[PhilVaz]

Need << Hello everyone! I’ve been plagued with doubts. Most of them center on Mary. Here are my questions… >>

Looks like you are gonna have to leave the Church then, because you forgot one…

(5) If the New Testament is composed of 27 books, why did it take the Church over three centuries to figure this out?

The books that were doubted: James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Hebrews and Revelation. The 27-book NT canon became explicit with St. Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria (Festal Letter 39, c. 367 AD), the local or regional Councils of Rome (under Pope Damasus, c. 380 AD), the Councils of Hippo (393 AD), and Carthage (397 / 419 AD), and Popes Boniface I, Innocent I, and Gelasius confirmed this same canon (see F.F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture, page 232-235).

When you do leave the Church, you can’t leave for a Protestant or Orthodox Church until you get your question (5) answered. And when you do get your question (5) answered, the Marian doctrines are a piece of cake.

Phil P

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I couldn’t read the second, because I don’t know Latin, but why is the Latin language not used in the Church as commonly as it was before?

Latin is the official language of the Roman Catholic Church, and Vatican II declared that it should have pride of place in the Church. However, most of the laity (and probably a lot of the clergy) don’t know Latin, as it is no longer a vernacular language in any country. So, while the Latin text is typically the official edition, the vernacular translation from the Latin are that which is relied upon by the faithful.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Latin is the official language of the Roman Catholic Church, and Vatican II declared that it should have pride of place in the Church. However, most of the laity (and probably a lot of the clergy) don’t know Latin, as it is no longer a vernacular language in any country. So, while the Latin text is typically the official edition, the vernacular translation from the Latin are that which is relied upon by the faithful.

I don;t know Latin that much but I do love beauty of Latin hymns played at the Tridentine Mass.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

**Why would Mary need a Saviour though, if she was sinless? I believe we should honour Mary but she was no more perfect than you or I.
**

Sinless means that there was always enmity between herself and Satan (cf. Gen 3:15), so that she never freely consented to disobey the will of God. I’m pretty sure Mary made a mistake or two, afterall, I don’t think she meant to forget her 12-yr old son in Jerusalem.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I can honestly say that reading ANY post by itsjustdave1988 makes me proud to be a Catholic. I salute you and your work Dave. Keep studying and sharing the fruit with us.

Thank you…and Merry Christmas and a joyful New Year to you.

 

[Image_of_God]

Latin is the official language of the Roman Catholic Church, and Vatican II declared that it should have pride of place in the Church. However, most of the laity (and probably a lot of the clergy) don’t know Latin, as it is no longer a vernacular language in any country. So, while the Latin text is typically the official edition, the vernacular translation from the Latin are that which is relied upon by the faithful.

Thank goodness! One day, I hope that the Roman Catholic Church will include Latin as necessary in Catholic Schools, so everyone can learn Latin, and it can be used in the liturgies again!

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I don;t know Latin that much but I do love beauty of Latin hymns played at the Tridentine Mass.

I don’t know Latin either, but I’m trying to learn at least the traditonal prayers and hymns…heck, I barely know English…I are an engineer.

 

[gardenswithkids]

**

hoosierdaddy:

…But I believe that the Church should be subordinate to Scripture. Scripture is the highest authority I believe. If one finds a church teaching contrary to Scripture, then one should leave that church rather than just accept what the church says.

I realize you believe that the Church is subordinate to scripture, but Catholics believe that scripture is a document of the Church. I will say that I agree with you that provided one correctly understands the scriptures, if their church’s official teaching contradict it, then they should leave their church. The op asked about leaving the Catholic Church over questions of Mary; I hope that the other posts here have helped clarify how these teachings don’t contradict scripture when scripture is understood properly. I view all the Church teachings about Mary as ways in which Jesus honors His mother; that’s very scriptural to my way of thinking.

hoosierdaddy:

Why would Mary need a Saviour though, if she was sinless? I believe we should honour Mary but she was no more perfect than you or I. We all have the effects of sin within us until we die and when we are raised to eternal glory with the Lord then we will be perfect.

**Mary needed a Savior in the same way that she needed a Creator. She couldn’t create herself, nor could she save herself. None of us can either create or save ourselves. When God created Mary, He formed the womb in which The Word took flesh. You wrote that we will be perfect when we are raised to eternal glory with the Lord; I agree and look forward to that day with joyful hope. I believe that our God (Who is outside of time), already did that for His mother. I am a sinner, and I know that if I could have saved my own mom from sin and death, I would have. **

hoosierdaddy:

It seems to me, though I may be wrong, that many Catholics place more value on Mary birthing Jesus instead of on the Father of Jesus and the Holy Spirit who placed Him in her womb.

**I think you may be encountering some “cultural barriers” when you see Catholics honoring Mary. A few Catholics may wrongly place more value on Mary than on God, but I would say they are few and far between. Maybe you may want to consider if we give that much honor to a mere human creature, how much more honor we must have for God.

 

[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.”

Tertullian claims that Mary did not belive in her son in his explanation of “Who are my mother and brothers?” Saint Basil said the sword predicted by Simeon was the doubt Mary experienced at the Cross. This is reaffirmed by Hesychius of Jerusalem. If there was a clear tradition on Mary’s sinlessnes, why did respected and leaarned eary Christian and Church Fathers doubt it or were unaware of it?

Thanks

 

[Needanswers]

I absolutely disagree. It is the authentic teaching of the Catholic magisterium, called sententia certa (certain teaching) by Dr. Ludwig Ott dogmatic theology text I cited above.

Don’t take my word for it, Pius XII affims:
According to the Encyclical Ad diem by St. Pius X…
It’s not speculative, its doctrine.

It’s a doctrine that seems to be based on very speculative grounds. You don’t have any mention of it in Scripture or among the Church Fathers. I read the whole passage from Saint Ephrem and its authenticity seems somewhat doubtful. Was it really written by Ephrem?

Thanks

 

[Needanswers]

Need << Hello everyone! I’ve been plagued with doubts. Most of them center on Mary. Here are my questions… >>

Looks like you are gonna have to leave the Church then, because you forgot one…

(5) If the New Testament is composed of 27 books, why did it take the Church over three centuries to figure this out?

The books that were doubted: James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Hebrews and Revelation. The 27-book NT canon became explicit with St. Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria (Festal Letter 39, c. 367 AD), the local or regional Councils of Rome (under Pope Damasus, c. 380 AD), the Councils of Hippo (393 AD), and Carthage (397 / 419 AD), and Popes Boniface I, Innocent I, and Gelasius confirmed this same canon (see F.F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture, page 232-235).

When you do leave the Church, you can’t leave for a Protestant or Orthodox Church until you get your question (5) answered. And when you do get your question (5) answered, the Marian doctrines are a piece of cake.

Phil P

Did the Church that determined the Canon believe Mary was the Queen of Heaven, Meditrix of all graces, and coredemptrix. Did they invoke her intercession and carry images of her in processions?

Thanks

 

[hoosierdaddy]

"I absolutely disagree. It is the authentic teaching of the Catholic magisterium,…"

This statement above leads me to believe that the Catholic magisterium is another word for the Church leaders. But someone laughed at me on another thread for thinking that. They proceeded to say it was some mystical force as far as I can tell. It reminded me of the force in Star Wars. I am looking for that post now.

So is the magisterium the church leaders or a mystical force that teaches you guys (in which case it would be highly subjective)?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

"I absolutely disagree. It is the authentic teaching of the Catholic magisterium,…"

This statement above leads me to believe that the Catholic magisterium is another word for the Church leaders. But someone laughed at me on another thread for thinking that. They proceeded to say it was some mystical force as far as I can tell. It reminded me of the force in Star Wars. I am looking for that post now.

So is the magisterium the church leaders or a mystical force that teaches you guys (in which case it would be highly subjective)?

The Force?

Magisterium is Latin for “teaching authority.”

The glossary of the Catechism of the Catholic Chuch defines magisterium as:

*The living taching office of th eChurch, whose task it is to give as authentic interpretation of the word of God, whether in its written form (Sacred Scripture), or in the form of Tradition. The Magisterium ensures the Church’s fidelity to the teaching of the Apostles in matters of fatih and morals.

*The Magisterium (teaching authority of the Church) is vested in the Roman Pontiff and the bishops in communion with him.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

LOL thanks Dave. I thought I was right. It’s the offices which people hold then? It’s the people and not a force. I just couldn’t believe I got laughed at. Unless I still ain’t getting it.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

… If there was a clear tradition on Mary’s sinlessnes, why did respected and leaarned eary Christian and Church Fathers doubt it or were unaware of it?

It seems your reasoning is that since there was dispute regarding tradition X, then we ought to doubt that tradition X is apostolic tradition. Yet, the reasoning is absurd.

To illustrate, let tradition X = the canon of the Bible

How many books are in the Bible? For example, do you include the Shepherd of Hermas? If not why not? Origen called it “inspired.” At least two heads of the catechetical school of Alexandria listed it among the sacred books. It was included as among the 4th century Codex Sinaiticus, one of the oldest manuscripts of sacred scripture extant.

Why did respected and learned early Christian and Church fathers “doubt” or were “unaware” of the canon of Sacred Scripture?

By your reasoning, we should all doubt the very inspired nature of Scripture, since respected and learned men of the early Church had doubts about the inspired nature of the Gospel of Matthew, the epistle of James, the Epistle of Jude, the Book of Revelation, while others included the Shepherd of Hermas, the Letter of Clement to the Corinthians, 3 & 4 Maccabees, Psalm 151, etc.

Do you have such doubts regarding the inspird nature of the Bible??