O
Orleans_Attny
Guest
That would be a bit like calling Queen Elizabeth “Liz” or “Mrs. Elizabeth.”
Pax,
OA
- Status
Pax,
OA
O
Orleans_Attny
Guest
Well, you’re correct that the Immaculate Conception isn’t explicitly in the Bible, but it’s there implicitly. We’re not called upon to divorce the tales of the Bible from logic (or history for that matter).
Pax,
OA
M
Marc_Anthony
Guest
Ah, I get it…as Queen of Saints, obviously she would be using a title showing her superiority…thanks.
The assumption is not in the Bible at all as far as I know. It is part of Tradition and was declared infallible by one of the Popes.
The assumption is not in the Bible at all as far as I know. It is part of Tradition and was declared infallible by one of the Popes.
J
jtodisco
Guest
As for the Blessed Virgin Mary being referred to as “Saint Mary”, I agree that you do not see or hear that very often. However, it does happen. The most famous example of this that I know of is the Saint Mary Major Basilica in Rome (which is also the site of a Marian apparition from 352 AD, if I remember correctly). So it can’t be totally inappropriate to call her Saint Mary since one of the largest Marian basilicas calls her such. However, I would agree that by calling her “Saint Mary” you run the serious risk of not showing the Blessed Virgin the proper respect. Mary is wholly unique from all the other saints because she is the Mother of God, Queen of Heaven and Earth, and is Immaculate. Calling her simply “Saint Mary” could lead one to thinking she is on the same level as say, Saint Clare or Saint Padre Pio, etc.
As for things related to Mary that are not explicitly in the Bible, such as the Assumption and the Coronation, these are not some random concoctions from the Middle Ages (as many Protestants I’ve met are mistaken in thinking). They were part of the core beliefs of all Christians for the first 1,500 years of Christiantiy. It has only been in the last approximately 500 years that some Christians have abandoned these beliefs. And even Martin Luther who was so adamant in his belief in “sola scriptura” was still very devoted to Mary and held many (I want to say all, but I’m not 100% sure on that) of the views Catholics and Orthodox Christians have always held regarding Mary.
As I mentioned in an earlier post of this thread you can see proof of the belief in Mary’s Immaculate Conception as early as ~150 A.D. in the apocryphal gospel called the Protoevangelium of James. Also since the 2nd or 3rd Century the Church Fathers and Councils have agreed on many things related to Mary that are not explicitly in the Bible (such as her Immaculate Conception, etc.).
Were you to reject any belief simply because it it not explicitly found in the Bible then you would also have to reject basic and fundamental Christian beliefs such as the Holy Trinity (which was clarified by the same Councils that clarified the basic beliefs concerning Mary as well). Anyway, sorry for the length of this post
, but I hope that this helps clear things up a bit for people concerning this topic.
As for things related to Mary that are not explicitly in the Bible, such as the Assumption and the Coronation, these are not some random concoctions from the Middle Ages (as many Protestants I’ve met are mistaken in thinking). They were part of the core beliefs of all Christians for the first 1,500 years of Christiantiy. It has only been in the last approximately 500 years that some Christians have abandoned these beliefs. And even Martin Luther who was so adamant in his belief in “sola scriptura” was still very devoted to Mary and held many (I want to say all, but I’m not 100% sure on that) of the views Catholics and Orthodox Christians have always held regarding Mary.
As I mentioned in an earlier post of this thread you can see proof of the belief in Mary’s Immaculate Conception as early as ~150 A.D. in the apocryphal gospel called the Protoevangelium of James. Also since the 2nd or 3rd Century the Church Fathers and Councils have agreed on many things related to Mary that are not explicitly in the Bible (such as her Immaculate Conception, etc.).
Were you to reject any belief simply because it it not explicitly found in the Bible then you would also have to reject basic and fundamental Christian beliefs such as the Holy Trinity (which was clarified by the same Councils that clarified the basic beliefs concerning Mary as well). Anyway, sorry for the length of this post
, but I hope that this helps clear things up a bit for people concerning this topic.
M
mark_a
Guest
Who is the Woman in the book of Revelation then?
S
Stephentlig
Guest
Gen. 5:24, Heb. 11:5 - Enoch was bodily assumed into heaven without dying. Would God do any less for Mary the Ark of the New Covenant?
2 Kings 2:11-12; 1 Mac 2:58 - Elijah was assumed into heaven in fiery chariot. Jesus would not do any less for His Blessed Mother.
Psalm 132:8 - Arise, O Lord, and go to thy resting place, thou and the Ark (Mary) of thy might. Both Jesus and Mary were taken up to their eternal resting place in heaven.
2 Cor. 12:2 - Paul speaks of a man in Christ who was caught up to the third heaven. Mary was also brought up into heaven by God.
Matt. 27:52-53 - when Jesus died and rose, the bodies of the saints were raised. Nothing in Scripture precludes Mary’s assumption into heaven.
1 Thess. 4:17 - we shall be caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air and so we shall always be with the Lord.
Rev. 12:1 - we see Mary, the “woman,” clothed with the sun. While in Rev. 6:9 we only see the souls of the martyrs in heaven, in Rev. 12:1 we see Mary, both body and soul.
2 Thess. 2:15 - Paul instructs us to hold fast to oral (not just written) tradition. Apostolic tradition says Mary was assumed into heaven. While claiming the bones of the saints was a common practice during these times (and would have been especially important to obtain Mary’s bones as she was the Mother of God), Mary’s bones were never claimed. This is because they were not available. Mary was taken up body and soul into heaven.
scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html
2 Kings 2:11-12; 1 Mac 2:58 - Elijah was assumed into heaven in fiery chariot. Jesus would not do any less for His Blessed Mother.
Psalm 132:8 - Arise, O Lord, and go to thy resting place, thou and the Ark (Mary) of thy might. Both Jesus and Mary were taken up to their eternal resting place in heaven.
2 Cor. 12:2 - Paul speaks of a man in Christ who was caught up to the third heaven. Mary was also brought up into heaven by God.
Matt. 27:52-53 - when Jesus died and rose, the bodies of the saints were raised. Nothing in Scripture precludes Mary’s assumption into heaven.
1 Thess. 4:17 - we shall be caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air and so we shall always be with the Lord.
Rev. 12:1 - we see Mary, the “woman,” clothed with the sun. While in Rev. 6:9 we only see the souls of the martyrs in heaven, in Rev. 12:1 we see Mary, both body and soul.
2 Thess. 2:15 - Paul instructs us to hold fast to oral (not just written) tradition. Apostolic tradition says Mary was assumed into heaven. While claiming the bones of the saints was a common practice during these times (and would have been especially important to obtain Mary’s bones as she was the Mother of God), Mary’s bones were never claimed. This is because they were not available. Mary was taken up body and soul into heaven.
scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html
A
AliciaCL
Guest
Another factoid worth mentioning: The Blessed Mother called herself *The Immaculate Conception *when appearing to Bernadette at Lourdes, France 150 years ago. The many doumented miracles (medically unexplained healings) continue today.
Not everything is in the Bible, of course. It tells us that Jesus explained the meaning of the scriptures to his disciples after the resurrection on the Road to Emmaus but the details are not in the Bible. At Penacost, He tells his disciples that the Holy Spirit will come to them with more knowledge and wisdom later. What was imparted to the apostles is not recorded in the bible. Christianity was taught for hundreds of years by word of mouth (i.e. “Tradition”). And supplemented by theology, from man’s reasoning on the scriptures, through the Church, long after Christ’s death, developed the such extra-biblical concepts as Christ’s nature (fullly human and fully divine) and the Trinity (God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit).
These points are what we might call Big Deals in Christianity which virtually all Christians accept as true. (Ironically, Protestant churches did and do accept the core of the Catholic teachings). So, why is it so hard to understand that God’s church formulated the correct teaching of Mary full of Grace, the Immacualte Conception and the Assumption?
Not everything is in the Bible, of course. It tells us that Jesus explained the meaning of the scriptures to his disciples after the resurrection on the Road to Emmaus but the details are not in the Bible. At Penacost, He tells his disciples that the Holy Spirit will come to them with more knowledge and wisdom later. What was imparted to the apostles is not recorded in the bible. Christianity was taught for hundreds of years by word of mouth (i.e. “Tradition”). And supplemented by theology, from man’s reasoning on the scriptures, through the Church, long after Christ’s death, developed the such extra-biblical concepts as Christ’s nature (fullly human and fully divine) and the Trinity (God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit).
These points are what we might call Big Deals in Christianity which virtually all Christians accept as true. (Ironically, Protestant churches did and do accept the core of the Catholic teachings). So, why is it so hard to understand that God’s church formulated the correct teaching of Mary full of Grace, the Immacualte Conception and the Assumption?
M
Marc_Anthony
Guest
The one who was crowned by stars? That would be Mary. What does this have to do with the Assumption, unless there’s a part of Revelation you’re referring to that I don’t know about?
EDIT: It seems like you all asume I’m rejecting the dogma (dogma, right?) of the Assumption. I’m not. I"m merelyt saying that the source of the dogma is not biblical. As for the woman in Revelation, I guess you could see that as proof of a bodily Assumption in the Bible, though considering the symbolic nature of Revelation that’s stretching it a bit.
But I believe what the Church teaches since she was given her authority from Christ himself and therefore can make infallible rulings on faith and morals.
M
Marc_Anthony
Guest
Well, yeah, we do SOMETIMES. But not that often. I’ve never called her that in casual conversation.
J
jtodisco
Guest
I don’t think it’s a stretch at all to say that Mary is the woman mentioned in Revelation 12. At least, not if you believe the Child mentioned who will rule with an iron rod is Christ. If that Child in Revelation is Christ, and the woman in Revelation birthed Him, then she is clearly Mary. I have heard some argue that the woman is Israel or the Church, but that doesn’t make sense. First, it doesn’t follow that the Child would be literal (as in He is literally Christ) but HIs Mother would be symbolic. Even if we were to imagine the Mother in Revelation being symbolic, the two main theories regarding this don’t hold up. The Mother can’t be Israel because Israel rejected Christ and so that doesn’t make sense at all. And the Mother cannot be the Church because the Church comes from Christ, not the other way around.
And in Revelation Mary is said to be crowned with 12 stars and arrayed in glory. This would indicate that the belief in the Coronation is correct, and so if that is the case it is not a large leap to believe that the Assumption is also true. And like someone else said on this thread Mary makes her roles known in her various apparitions throughout history. She lets us know in no uncertain terms that she is the Immaculate Conception, that she is the Ever-Virgin Mother of God, that she is the Queen and Mother of us all, etc. Really, all the evidence you could ever hope for is out there, one only needs to seek it out.
M
Marc_Anthony
Guest
I accept the woman as Mary, but the significance of Mary being shown in Revelation to have a body can be questioned. I suppose you could take it as evidence for the Assumption, but it does seem like a stretch.
At any rate, I believe in a good amount of the Marian apparitions (not all, but many) and I believe in the Assumption. But nowhere is that or the Immaculate Conception directly stated in the Bible you can argue that it’s implied, but I have no problem simply accepting it as part of Church tradition.
At any rate, I believe in a good amount of the Marian apparitions (not all, but many) and I believe in the Assumption. But nowhere is that or the Immaculate Conception directly stated in the Bible you can argue that it’s implied, but I have no problem simply accepting it as part of Church tradition.
C
Chatter163
Guest
I see you have changed from “never” to “sometimes.” She is usually called the BVM, Our Lady or the Blessed Mother, to show greater respect for her than the other saints (hyperdulia). However, there are plenty of parishes named for St. Mary; just google and see. Remember that in Latin, Sancta Maria means Holy Mary or Saint Mary; it is in English that we tend to use the former. But every time we pray the Hail Mary, we call her Sancta Maria.
M
Matthew_P_Muehl
Guest
Can anyone on this thread tell me where the church got ‘‘Full of Grace’’ out of Luke 1:28.
Thanks,
Matthew
M
Marc_Anthony
Guest
I’ve changed from “never” to “sometimes” because in my original question I was being hyperbolic. I had to. I’m not making a theological arguement here to be debated, just asking a question. Yeesh.
J
Jane11
Guest
Thank you for all the time you took to write the verses down along with your comments. It is appreciated. Doubt concerning the Blessed Mother may come from the fact that some protestants teach that the Blessed Mother is the “whore of Babylon” (really
) It filters out in many forms of doubt from the “father of lies” and we all know who that is!
C
Chatter163
Guest
“Ave Maria, gratia plena, Dominus tecum…”
M
Matthew_P_Muehl
Guest
Hey thanks chatter… My southern baptist girl friend believes she was born with original sin.
I’m trying to show her scripture that supports the catholic view on this. If you or anyone else on this thread can give an explanation that she can think about would be great.
Thanks again,
Matthew
M
mark_a
Guest
Do you mean that you accept the teaching on faith alone?
A
AliciaCL
Guest
I don’t have the exact location. But it arises from the story line of the Angel Gabriel visiting Mary. He greets her by calling her full of grace and telling her that God sees her in great favor. (the Lord is with Thee more or less) Perhaps you are not able to find it because of a particular bible in a translation that uses other words?? Later when Mary visits Elizabeth, who is pregnant with John the Baptist, the baby in Elizabeth’s womb jumps with glee. Elizabeth then calls Mary the mother of my Lord. Mary responds that she knows that her name will always be called blessed.
- Status