Marian Doubts & Questions: Why I might leave Catholicism!

[itsjustdave1988]

cont…

Let’s look at No. 2 above more closely…

According to Fr. John Hardon’s Pocket Catholic Dictionary…

Mary co-operates by her maternal intercession [ie. prayer as our Blessed Mother in heaven] in applying Christ’s redemptive grace to human beings, called the subjective redemption. This does not imply that the faithful must pray for all graces through Mary, nor that her intercession is inherently necessary for the distribution of divine blessing, but that, according to God’s special ordinance,*** the graces merited by Christ are conferred through the actual intercessory mediation of his mother***. Recent popes and the Second Vatican Council have spoken in favor of this type of mediation, which finds support in patristic tradition.

**
Pope John Paul II:**

“Mary goes before us and accompanies us. The silent journey that begins with her Immaculate Conception and passes through the ‘yes’ of Nazareth, which makes her the Mother of God, finds on Calvary a particularly important moment. There also, accepting and assisting at the sacrifice of her son, Mary is the dawn of Redemption; …Crucified spiritually with her crucified son (cf. Gal. 2:20), she contemplated with heroic love the death of her God, she “lovingly consented to the immolation of this Victim which she herself had brought forth” (Lumen Gentium, 58)…In fact, at Calvary she united herself with the sacrifice of her Son that led to the foundation of the Church; her maternal heart shared to the very depths the will of Christ ‘to gather into one all the dispersed children of God’ (Jn. 11:52). Having suffered for the Church, Mary deserved to become the Mother of all the disciples of her Son, the Mother of their unity…In fact, Mary’s role as Coredemptrix did not cease with the glorification of her Son” (1985 Papal Address of Pope John Paul II in Guayaquil, Ecuador)

Thus, by her intercessory prayers, Mary continues to co-operated in the grace poured out upon all the faithful.

From the early Church…

St. Ephrem (d. 373) said of Mary, in a prayer ascribed to him: “After the Mediator thou art the mediatrix of the whole world” (Oratio IV ad Deiparam. 4th Lesson of the Office of the Feast).

St. Germanus of Constantinople (d. 733) stated: “Nobody can achieve salvation except through thee … O Most Holy One … nobody can receive a gift of grace except through thee … O Most Chast One” (Or. 9,5. Lesson of the Office of the Feast, cite by Ott, ibid., p. 214)

 

[Image_of_God]

---

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.

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.
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

After all, it is the Church that assemble the Books into one book called the Bible.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

---

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?

Hello and thank you. I just believe that Scripture was complete before Mary died. All the books contained in Scripture were already written I believe.

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.

I understand that. 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.

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.
Does Jesus living a sinless life contradict Romans? It says “all” doesn’t it?

Jesus isn’t part of the “all” though. He is fully human but He is also God. To tell you the truth I expected you to say that but it is really just a red herring I think. You know that Jesus isn’t included in that “all”. The context of the whole of Scripture teaches that all (apart from Jesus), even Mary, are/were sinners.

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.

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. 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.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

After all, it is the Church that assemble the Books into one book called the Bible.

Then how come they didn’t stop at 66 of them?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Then how come they didn’t stop at 66 of them?

Because we like the whole truth, not an abbreviation of it.

 

[scylla]

The ultimate Authority is God not Scripture. Or else we would be able to get an interpretation and place ourselves above God.

So ultimately it would be placing ourselves above God if we relied soley on Scripture. So Scripture must be respected and treated as it is God’s Holy Word and not mis-interpreted.

To not be 100% sure and make a personal interpretation of Scripture would be actually attributing a lie to God if you are wrong and that is blasphemy. That is evil and why there must be an Authority to authoratatively decide whether the understanding of Scripture is in line with the faith coming from Jesus or contrary to it.

After all we must put God first and respect His Holy Scriptures to put God’s Holy Scripture as an Authority would be misrepresenting the reason why Jesus came. Or else then which Bible would be the Authority? Which translation? Which interpretation? It all becomes subject to personal preference, which places man above God.

In Christ
Scylla

 

[hoosierdaddy]

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.

Yes it seems strange and I will have to contemplate that. Thank you.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Because we like the whole truth, not an abbreviation of it.

LOL ok.

Could you please tell me what on what basis those other books can be trusted to be part of Scripture? They don’t quite meet the standard for canonicity, do they?

 

[Redbandito]

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.

 

[Redbandito]

LOL ok.

Could you please tell me what on what basis those other books can be trusted to be part of Scripture? They don’t quite meet the standard for canonicity, do they?

That’s fairly simple. The infallibly guided Church, by the power of the HS, and in light of the Apostolic Tradition handed down to them, declared them to be so. Thank you Jesus for the gift of the Church!

God bless!

 

[hoosierdaddy]

The ultimate Authority is God not Scripture. Or else we would be able to get an interpretation and place ourselves above God.

Well, I thought that was assumed. The ultimate authority is God but He left us Scripture as the ultimate authority of all faith and practice. So you never read your Bible? You don’t study to learn the truth (as it commands you to do)?

So ultimately it would be placing ourselves above God if we relied soley on Scripture. So Scripture must be respected and treated as it is God’s Holy Word and not mis-interpreted.

**How would it be placing ourselves above God if we relied solely on Scripture but not if we relied on other men? Doesn’t the Holy Spirit lead us into all truth, that we would have no need of a teacher?

You’re right, Scripture must be respected and we should strive to interpret it properly. The Bible itself tells us that we can do that, and do it by being lead by the Holy Spirit.**

To not be 100% sure and make a personal interpretation of Scripture would be actually attributing a lie to God if you are wrong and that is blasphemy. That is evil and why there must be an Authority to authoratatively decide whether the understanding of Scripture is in line with the faith coming from Jesus or contrary to it.

**No it wouldn’t. It would be making a decision based on faith. If one is wrong, further study and being lead by the Holy Spirit would eventually bring the person to change what they believe. It’s not evil to be wrong; it’s evil to cling to falsehood when you know you are wrong. The Holy Spirit will bring you in line with the faith that comes from Jesus. **

After all we must put God first and respect His Holy Scriptures to put God’s Holy Scripture as an Authority would be misrepresenting the reason why Jesus came. Or else then which Bible would be the Authority? Which translation? Which interpretation? It all becomes subject to personal preference, which places man above God.

God put His own Word above His own Name. His Word is the ultimate authority in faith and practice. For it not to be opens the door to tyrannical dictators and other manner of evil in the church. If I were to believe as you, then who could I trust? I sure couldn’t trust the Pope or any Priest as they are no better than you or I. Thank you and have a great night.

In Christ
Scylla

 

[Mannyfit75]

Then how come they didn’t stop at 66 of them?

Because the 72 Books of the OT was used by early Christians in their liturgy.

Jews who do not believe in Jesus, did not think the deutorcanonical books were inspired. Protestants remove the deurocanonical books during the reformation in 1517. The Catholics only added 27 Books of the NT.

The canon of Scripture was finally listed in 382 A.D in the Synod of Rome (Council of Rome), then Council of Hippo in 393 AD, and finally in Council of Carthage in 397 A.D.

It was not until the Protestant Reformation again that the Catholic Church authority was challenge, so in 1546, the CC finalized and closed the canon of Scripture in the Council of Trent.
(source: davidmacd.com/catholic/timeline_of_how_the_bible_where.htm )

 

[hoosierdaddy]

That’s fairly simple. The infallibly guided Church, by the power of the HS, and in light of the Apostolic Tradition handed down to them, declared them to be so. Thank you Jesus for the gift of the Church!

God bless!

This doesn’t cut it though. With your reasoning the church could include a book on mating between humans and insects and declare it to be Scripture.

There are standards that had to be met for a book to be included in the canon of Scripture which is why Protestants reject a few of the books that you accept. God bless you too. And thank Jesus for the gift of Scripture too. A church not submitted to Scripture is not a church and is able to do whatever it wants.

Also if you believe the church to be infallibly guided, why can’t each individual? The Bible does say the Holy Spirit will lead us into all truth.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Because the 72 Books of the OT was used by early Christians in their liturgy.

Jews who do not believe in Jesus, did not think the deutorcanonical books were inspired. Protestants remove the deurocanonical books during the reformation in 1517. The Catholics only added 27 Books of the NT.

The canon of Scripture was finally listed in 382 A.D in the Synod of Rome (Council of Rome), then Council of Hippo in 393 AD, and finally in Council of Carthage in 397 A.D.

It was not until the Protestant Reformation again that the Catholic Church authority was challenge, so in 1546, the CC finalized and closed the canon of Scripture in the Council of Trent.
(source: davidmacd.com/catholic/timeline_of_how_the_bible_where.htm )

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

 

[itsjustdave1988]

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?

Again, there was more dispute over the Divinity of Christ and the books of Sacred Scripture than the sinlessness of Mary. So, using your reasoning are we to discount the Divinity of Christ as divine tradition since some, in fact many objected? The early fathers were not infallible and disagreed on a great many number of things. That does not discount the truth of paradosis, despite the existence of various disputes.

 

[Image_of_God]

Yes it seems strange and I will have to contemplate that. Thank you.

I think it is strange, but it does make sense, doesn’t it?

 

[hoosierdaddy]

I think it is strange, but it does make sense, doesn’t it?

It does in a way but it is all new to me.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

LOL ok.

Could you please tell me what on what basis those other books can be trusted to be part of Scripture? They don’t quite meet the standard for canonicity, do they?

This is a broad question…perhaps we should take one example to exemplify my point…

The book of Daniel. EVERY Christian Church prior to Protestantism…EVERY ONE OF THEM held to a larger version of Daniel. Why did Protestants truncate it?

After 1500 years of Christianity, with thousands upon thousands of ancient manuscript evidence, there has not been ONE Christian manuscript that testifies to the abbreviated Protestant version of Daniel. Not one.

Theodotian, a 2nd century Hebrew who translated his version of Daniel into Greek, also testifies to a larger Daniel as do the Old Latin manuscripts, the Syriac, and the Coptic. It is this anscient larger recension which Christians unanimously accepted as inspired Scripture.

Protestants typically reply, “We hold to the scholarship of Origen and of Jerome.” Yet, Origen defended the larger recension of Daniel, as did Jerome. So that answer doesn’t fly.

It seems to me that with all the manuscript evidence before us, Protestants should AT LEAST agree with the other 64% of Catholic and Orthodox Christians on what the Book of Daniel consists of. All of Christianity before Protestant were in complete agreement. They departed from the ancient Christian faith on the matter. The historical evidence is overwhelming.

PS. You also notice that the Protestant Book of Esther NEVER mentions God? The Catholic and Orthodox Esther does.

From my perspective, I have difficulty trusting the teachings of those who cannot even recognize what the Holy Bible consists of. Ya have to know what IS the Bible before you can say you properly interpret it, no?

 

[Image_of_God]

It does in a way but it is all new to me.

To be honest, I never thought of it that way until you brought it up.

 

[Image_of_God]

This is a broad question…perhaps we should take one example to exemplify my point…

The book of Daniel. EVERY Christian Church prior to Protestant…EVERY ONE OF THEM held to a larger version of Daniel. Why did Protestants truncate it? After 1500 years of Christianity, with thousands upon thousands of ancient manuscript evidence, there has not been ONE Christian manuscript that testifies to the abbreviated Protestant version of Daneil. Theodotian, a 2nd century Hebrew who translated his version of Daniel into Greek also testifies to a larger Daniel as do the Old Latin manuscripts, the Syriac, and the Coptic.

Protestants typically reply, “We hold to the scholarship of Origen, of Jerome.” Yet, Origen defended the larger recension of Daniel, as did Jerome. So that answer doesn’t fly.

It seems to me that with all the manuscript evidence before us, Protestants should AT LEAST agree with the other 64% of Catholic and Orthodox Christians on what the Book of Daniel consists of. The historical evidence is overwhelming.

PS. You also notice that the Protestant Book of Esther NEVER mentions God? The Catholic and Orthodox Esther does.

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