Protestants, who have been around awhile, question about the Virgin Mary

[dsully]

This is for the Protestants who never knew much about our faith, and the true teaching’s of what our faith teaches on the Blessed Mother.

Has you changed your opinion any from the first time you started on this site, until now your feeling’s about her.

Is your understanding of what we really teach and what you thought we taught alot different?

Yes, my views on Mary have changed. The position she has in Catholic theology and devotion how seems much more reasonable and/or justified than it previously did.

First, I see that there is a lot we can learn about the importance of Mary from Scripture. She really is quite prominent in the early chapters of Luke and in some of John, isn’t she? Plus, I can see the connections between Mary and the Old Testament types of both the Ark of the Covenant and Eve.

Second, I see that it is important to characterize her as the Mother of God, given the necessity of Christ being both fully human and fully divine. Mary truly is the Mother of God.

Third, I have heard that devotion to Mary was common in the practice of the early church, though I myself have not read much primary source material on this issue yet.

I guess that the controversial items to me seem to be the perpetual virginity and the immaculate conception, but I am open to learning more about these issues if and when the time arises.

Lastly, isn’t there a document attributed to James that records a tradition that Mary was a consecrated virgin before being betrothed to Joseph, allegedly quite an older man, and that Mary continued in her virginity throughout the marriage? How does this square with Matthew 1:24-25, which could imply that Joseph did have sexual relations with Mary?

<<When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus (Matthew 1:24-25 ESV)>>

Dan

 

[Reuben_J]

You will find that there is not that much about Mary in the scriptures considering her importance to our spirituality. Certain Marian doctrine cannot be argued entirely from the Bible and it is a mistake in trying to do so. What we have about Mary from the Bible can be quite controversial which could be easily exploited by Bible only Christians who do not subscribe to Marian spirituality.

God bless.

 

[david_ruiz]

This is for David…
OK, first things first…you did kind of imply that the IC was not an accepted concept for 1800 years but, I will accept your response. Second, yes, it is rather disappointing that after much debate and the strong, historically sound facts presented is not enough to sway you to even the possibility if the IC or the PV of the VBM. You do also make a strong case, but to not even admit the possibility is being somewhat stubborn, in my opinion. I do respect your position though. It’s funny, I get the same feeling with you as I get when listening to debates with Muslims. They go round and round but it always comes back to the core beliefs. You get a Muslim to believe in the Trinity, you’ve truly accomplished something. They simply refuse to believe. And the Trinity is a much harder to prove than the IC, also in my opinion. (pls tell me u believe inthe Trinity!!). At least Muslims can unite together in their faith. We are of the same beliefs yet cannot unite. I also find it funny you find Luther to be in such error yet he, a Protestant, is most famed for splitting up the unity of the Church. Do you not also consider that to be one of his many errors? Movin on…now, to answer your questions…YES! I do believe all those things, but I do not believe you must be Catholic or your doomed, I do believe you can be saved without a priest nearby, I do know the differences in baptism with water and by the Holy Spirit (I won’t go there right now), I do believe we are cleansed of our sins at baptism, that the Holy Spirit dwells in us, we are a temple of God. Now, will “they” ever sin again? Well I suppose that is up to the individual. It is called Free Will, no disrespect. That is what gives us our humanity, not sin! That is the difference, God gave Mary free will (as with Eve) Mary obeyed, she did not sin! I think I’ve covered everything, now I will await the big “Gotcha” moment from you. Sorry for any typo’s, I’m on my iPod and am running out of juice. Have a blessed day!

Did you really work on a post then lose it ? Been there ,done that. Frustrating. Sorry.When I,ve done it I think funny things like maybe the Lord is telling me I am are getting to anxious in answering, or maybe it was the devil wiping out any annointed answer. Peculiar, aren’t we, at least me…As far as strong evidence etc that I am "stubborn "with ,one must ask if it is so strong , why did it take so long to declare the IC and Assumption ? When fundamentals were questioned in early church ,they usually responded within the century,at least on some issues.and that was with slower means. But yes ,I am fully persuadedly stubborn.
Yes,Ii believe in the trinity . As far as Luther, remember a protestant will say he follows Christ first and foremost (the foremost means we can also follow -parents,teachers ,pastors elders etc.) and is not dependent on one “leader”. We give honor when due .Luther did something monumental ,yet he rode the swell that was occurring in Christendom .There was Waldo in France-1100’s. Wycliffe in England-1300’s. Huss in Bohemia-late 1300’s. Savanrola -Italy 1400’s plus anabaptists ,not too mention renaisance,and Erasmus early 1500’s and finally Luther, and Calvin and Zwigli. Yes, Luther was the biggy.His break and translating the bible took most of his energy .Others that followed had more time, and stability to continue with reforming perceived errors ,if I may as kindly as possible say.They really tried to look at scripture and the earliest church and fathers to see indeed what was proper .But I get your point. One could ask though , maybe he did have one critical thing right ,thereby opening up pandoras box .If the Catholic church could make a mistake , either in practice or it’s underlying doctrine (take indulgences, which most of us ,Catholics included, would agree to it’s abuse ,epsecially. in Germany by Tetzel), then maybe she could be wrong in other ways .So I guess the argument could go both ways. If I admit Luther did not get it all perfect, I am also saying the CC did not back then either. Glad to see your yes to beliefs as stated.I would agree Eve sinned big time , put us in trouble, but she then obeyed thereafter ,enough to pass on the “torch of hope” all the way down to Mary ,who obeyed big time ,to finally get us out of jam, as promised to Eve and Abraham,and David etc etc… I look at Eve and Mary and Luther (and the lineage of torch bearers - Abraham David etc) alike in this fashion: they obeyed at the proper time, and were “fallen” human beings.That is they were not perfect, were prone to sin from time to time such as is common to man , but not deterring them from their calling /mission, by the grace of God. Blessings also.

 

[Ubenedictus]

Now i think you are way off

Well, in discussions of the sacrament ,and the need for a priest ,I have heard it mentioned by Catholics that it is also found in the OT,in forshadow ,but certainly there was a method ,rite ,a sacrifice for sin cleansing,covering in the old…Remember ,they taught that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins.Were they wrong ?

 

[Ubenedictus]

Jesus was not part of the Promise ? Was he not prophesied about ? Did not some know foreshadow of things (Him) to come ? Even David said of the promise of one of his descendnts, "how can this be, for these are not the ways of man "(someone fullfilling all). Hebrews tells how the old were justifed, saved, made righteous, even perfect.

no no no not perfect, the saints of old couldnt be made perfect without us. If you need bible verse ask

 

[Ubenedictus]

What I said does not contradict John .This enmity thing ,who says if you sin once ,you are not at emnity with the Devil ? Eve and all ot saints/believers were at enmity with the children of darkness,yet Eve and all her children were not perfect ,except for their justifying faith. Mary was also ,in line with the children Eve, of the light ,believers in the promise was also at emnity with the devil ,perfect or imperfect. Perhaps we differ with regeneration,the old man vs the new man ,whether there is imputed righteousness or not ,or whether we must be righteous acting always ,of course with God’s help, and when we sin who is really sinning ? St. Paul explains it all in his epistles. …Just reread ,but where is the prophecy that the virgin must also be immaculate ? Is that in Rev clothed -covered in the “Son” ?

i have a little problem i cant find a ‘woman clothed in the ‘son’’ in rev. I can only find a woman clothed with the sun.
Ubenedictus

 

[Ubenedictus]

From thread # 240:
Of course there is a cleansing .There has always been a way for “cleansing” since day 1 after the fall.

tell me about this cleansing that can make one full of grace before d advent of christ.

I don’t mind calling Mary “immaculate” -cleansed,

actually immaculate means pure, no stain.

for apparently so was Enoch and Abraham and perfect Job etc.

really?

As A catholic pointed out , so are we, for we are cleansed,made new and indwelt by God. What I mind is saying the way of cleansing for those above was ditched for something better for Mary.

what way of cleansing did adam have, a cleansing that drop them in hades? Yeah that system has been ditch a long time ago. Someone just happened to get an upgraded new system because God saw it fitting. Beside incase you dont know that system was ditch for all in d new covenant, that is the point of a new dispensation.

As if Judaism, the old testament counterpart for what you say is the One,Holy, Apostolic Catholic Church, that brought all light to the world, and kept up and carried out the steps necessary to fulfill the original garden Promise-no longer could cleanse, but needed a “special dispensation” of grace.

No, it isnt about the old needing more grace, that old system was overhauled.

It is like you are rewriting history, forgetting we are of Jewish descent. .

actually im not fogetting her jewish descent, the jews had the same problem others had only that they had hope.

Of course Mary was cleansed, had a regenerated, faithful, knowledgeable, believing spirit.

isnt regeneration a distinct characteristic of the new dispensation?

No one is saying she was spiritually reprobate, an unbeliever etc .Perhaps that is why it did not matter to declare this special grace for milennia ,for she was always regarded properly and highly. Mary was justified by faith, put in right relationship with God, saved a relationship that was broken otherwise due to original sin of Eve. That aspect of original sin was cleansed and she became a “seed” of Eve in spirit , not just in flesh because of her Jewishness and was at enmity with satan’s seed. Was she perfect,did she sin ? Her old nature sinned, was imperfect. Her new nature was perfect in faith.

wow correct me if im wrong, this is the reformed doctrine of two natures, so when i sin it doesnt count because i actually didnt sin the other dark guy did.

I do not believe this ocurred at birth, but for sure fully at the age of reasoning , when she wilfully believed, by the grace of God.I can only infer this by what St.Paul says about OT believers and what it is /was to be Jewish. For sure ,at the “announcement” she had found favor with God , understood the “promise” of Messiah, and obeyed.Certainly none of this would have happened with prior cleansing/regeneration/justification .

so here we go, someone is full of grace under the old dispensation and according to you same happened before with other old testament saints, if this was posible in the old dispensation why did we need a saviour? People could achieve fullness of grace without christ then why did he come? The old testament guy were not just justified but also regenerated and perfect because the shadow was effective in cleansing then why did christ come? I think you just succeeded in watering down the importance of christs’ coming.
Ubenedictus

 

[Ubenedictus]

?Job,1:8 "Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is non like him on the earth, a perfect and upright man, one that feareth God and eschewith evil ? " Enoch and Elijah were both translated to heaven.Well at least they went “up”,did not see death.

let the new over shadow the old, heb 11:13-16, heb 11:39-40 ‘all these though tested by faith did not recieve what was promised since God had better for us that apart from us they should not be made perfect’’ please note that this verse makes it clear that all the old guys didnt recieve their promise, even elija and enoch and mose etc. In the old dispensation they were perfect in the new one perfection has been upgraded and they dont have that perfection, so until we in the person of christ came they werent perfect. What they had needed to be completed, it wasnt full grace.

Remember for 1800 years you did not have to believe in the IC. You were a Catholic in very good standing , even Apostolic ,to say the things I am saying about Mary. And the same could be said for most of your arguments also.

and before a heresy is decleared the heretic was ok. The very first divide in d church was over the nature of christ, the breakaway guys were considered have the catholic faith, they were considered orthodox before the doctrine was define, after it was define they were regarded as breakaway. So the fact that it wasnt required of those guys to believe that doctrine before to it definition doesnt really absolve them from believing after definition, they were tagged heretic and im sure anathemas were used. A doctrine can be traced from scripture and tradition today and made a dogma tomorow, it doesnt matter if in the past people werent required to believe.
Ubenedictus

 

[Ubenedictus]

rinnie;9424766:

They were righteous by the faith they had in god and his promises,of a Savior.They looked forward in faith to Calvary,while we look backward to it

if they were already perfect they didnt need a saviour, they wouldnt be in hades.

Faith in what ? What does scripture mean justified by faith ? In the Atonement of course.God has always provided a Promise to believe in, light to travel by, and we shall be judged by what we do with that light. Nothing new here.[/quoute] according to you they were justified, regenerated and perfect, i really find it hard to believe that because with all that possible they couldnt have seen hades, i remember calvin thought it was gehena christ went to.

Quite OT.
Understand .She was justified by the faith she would have ,in the future. She did not have faith in the womb. One must qualify Mary being justified by faith with IC. But for the rest of us ,scripture is clear ,we are justified when we first believe.

oh i just remember that the lutherians said a baby can get save because God provide faith.

When did I say job did not need a savior .I only quoted scripture where God calls him “perfect and upright”’. I believe you know how Job got that way.

the guy was according to you was perfect, regenerated what did he need with a savior? Unless you are admitting that what you call perfection needed completion.
Ubenedictus

 

[Ubenedictus]

Did you really work on a post then lose it ? Been there ,done that. Frustrating. Sorry.When I,ve done it I think funny things like maybe the Lord is telling me I am are getting to anxious in answering, or maybe it was the devil wiping out any annointed answer. Peculiar, aren’t we, at least me…As far as strong evidence etc that I am "stubborn "with ,one must ask if it is so strong , why did it take so long to declare the IC and Assumption ?

it is like asking why it took so long to compile the bible or to dogmatise the trinity, the list goes on and on. Marys’ sinlessness it a believe that is as old as the nature of christ, the easiest dogma way to get a dogma proclaimed is a get a heretic. If there is no opposition it will take long before it is proclaimed that is what happened.

When fundamentals were questioned in early church ,they usually responded within the century,at least on some issues.and that was with slower means. But yes ,I am fully persuadedly stubborn.
Yes,Ii believe in the trinity . As far as Luther, remember a protestant will say he follows Christ first and foremost (the foremost means we can also follow -parents,teachers ,pastors elders etc.) and is not dependent on one “leader”.

hmm i feel like coughing this statement may explode, because every protestant will claim to follow christ yet the different sects in protestanism tell me that it is a cause of my pastor and i, the last guy who chose what is right and good doctrine is me. So we have a whole range of conflicting doctrines.

We give honor when due .Luther did something monumental ,yet he rode the swell that was occurring in Christendom.

really?!!

There was Waldo in France-1100’s. Wycliffe in England-1300’s. Huss in Bohemia-late 1300’s. Savanrola -Italy 1400’s plus anabaptists ,not too mention renaisance,and Erasmus early 1500’s and finally Luther, and Calvin and Zwigli. Yes, Luther was the biggy.His break and translating the bible took most of his energy .Others that followed had more time, and stability to continue with reforming perceived errors ,if I may as kindly as possible say.

and every day i come across teachings foreign to christainity, the guy inventing them simply call themselves reformer. A reformation that has produced more errors than truth.

They really tried to look at scripture and the earliest church and fathers to see indeed what was proper.

presently i the reformers i see would convict most of the fathers of heresy.

But I get your point. One could ask though , maybe he did have one critical thing right ,thereby opening up pandoras box .If the Catholic church could make a mistake , either in practice or it’s underlying doctrine (take indulgences, which most of us ,Catholics included, would agree to it’s abuse ,epsecially. in Germany by Tetzel), then maybe she could be wrong in other ways.

in practice yes, in doctrine no. An abuse doesnt equal wrong doctrine.

So I guess the argument could go both ways. If I admit Luther did not get it all perfect, I am also saying the CC did not back then either.

not really a both ways thing because luther may not have got a doctrine right but the same doesnt go for the church, the doctrines are intact.

Glad to see your yes to beliefs as stated.I would agree Eve sinned big time , put us in trouble, but she then obeyed thereafter ,enough to pass on the “torch of hope” all the way down to Mary ,who obeyed big time ,to finally get us out of jam, as promised to Eve and Abraham,and David etc etc… I look at Eve and Mary and Luther (and the lineage of torch bearers - Abraham David etc) alike in this fashion: they obeyed at the proper time, and were “fallen” human beings.That is they were not perfect, were prone to sin from time to time such as is common to man , but not deterring them from their calling /mission, by the grace of God. Blessings also.

you said earlier that job was perfect now you are saying they arent perfect, whew how can those two ideas be correct?
I just thought about the list of light bearers, no offense but if i had one i dont think luther will be on it.
Ubenedictus

 

[Ubenedictus]

Yes, my views on Mary have changed. The position she has in Catholic theology and devotion how seems much more reasonable and/or justified than it previously did.

First, I see that there is a lot we can learn about the importance of Mary from Scripture. She really is quite prominent in the early chapters of Luke and in some of John, isn’t she? Plus, I can see the connections between Mary and the Old Testament types of both the Ark of the Covenant and Eve.

Second, I see that it is important to characterize her as the Mother of God, given the necessity of Christ being both fully human and fully divine. Mary truly is the Mother of God.

Third, I have heard that devotion to Mary was common in the practice of the early church, though I myself have not read much primary source material on this issue yet.

I guess that the controversial items to me seem to be the perpetual virginity and the immaculate conception, but I am open to learning more about these issues if and when the time arises.

Lastly, isn’t there a document attributed to James that records a tradition that Mary was a consecrated virgin before being betrothed to Joseph, allegedly quite an older man, and that Mary continued in her virginity throughout the marriage? How does this square with Matthew 1:24-25, which could imply that Joseph did have sexual relations with Mary?
<<When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus (Matthew 1:24-25 ESV)>>
Dan

personally i consider the james document as religious tale, i way of passing information to the next generation, the message of this document on mary is clear it agrees that mary is a virgin and goes to great lengths to prove it. I may be wrong and the document may truly contain historic and precise facts, but if you need an explanation on that verse then you must met this guy ww.newadvent.org/fathers/3007.htm thats st jerome. I would advise you to read carefully, he was responding to a heresy and he seem to take the matter as though it was personal.
Ubenedictus

 

[Ubenedictus]

rinnie;9424719:

.Eve did not have seed ? How did we get here ? What does it mean for the serpent to have seed ? How was the promise of the Messiah carried from the Garden all the way to Mary? Was it the serpents seed that carried forth the prophecy and promise ? Was the serpent stupid and totally taken by surprise at the Lord’s coming ? Was the serpent friends with Abel .Enoch , Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and Moses and Joshua and all the prophets.Was the serpent especially cozy with them as they prophesied of the Messiah ?

so you are saying abel is the guy is the seed of eve, the enemy of satan. The reason the church fathers called that passage the protoevangelium was because abel nor eve was involved in crushing the serpents’ head, or do you think they did?

Were they perfect ? Did they commit sins ? Do you think this enmity only began with Mary ? No, Jesus said , " Salvation is of the Jews". They were at enmity with the serpent as sure as the Church is today . Eve’s seed gave us Mary which gave us the Messiah. Are we not also sons of Abraham ? There has been good seed(Eve’s) and bad seed(serpents) since day 1 of the fall, per the Lord’s mercy ,grace and Genesis prophecy.

actually it was a bit simple enemity between the serpent and ‘the woman’. i just got the feeling like the chuch fathers that this ‘the woman’ is actual the ‘woman’ on calvary looking at her son.
Ubenedictus

 

[Ubenedictus]

When was it prophesied by the Lord Himself of this emnity ? Wast not after the sin ? Can’t explain it but there it is. Furthermore, do we have any evidence that she sinned after the prophecy ? Don’t think so.

now here we go eve didnt sin after the prophesy and yet we under the new dispenstation sin, atleast you will agree that the dark guy sins. Now if eve was sinless after the original sin then the old time was even better than the new.congrates i think you just made a new doctrine ‘‘After the original sin Eve never sinned’’ that is a beautiful line.
Ubenedictus

 

[dsully]

if you need an explanation on that verse then you must met this guy ww.newadvent.org/fathers/3007.htm thats st jerome.

Thank you very much, sir. I appreciate you taking the time to feed me a link to this document. I will definitely take a look at it soon. Praise God for this forum where it is easy to get good information from sincere, helpful people.

Dan

 

[kellerk]

Did you really work on a post then lose it ? Been there ,done that. Frustrating. Sorry.When I,ve done it I think funny things like maybe the Lord is telling me I am are getting to anxious in answering, or maybe it was the devil wiping out any annointed answer. Peculiar, aren’t we, at least me.

** OK, get ready, b/c this is going to be a long one. Perhaps not as long as Patavium’s, but long Yes, I did lose my post and yes, I do also look for those “anointed signs” to guide my actions and yes, I do sometimes get overly anxious to repy to comments on here although, I think I’m just trying to keep up. In this instance, I believe it’s just my ipod which has a few kinks I would not have problems with when using my PC. In any case, today I will be taking my time and using my PC to be sure I get out what I would like to say and without as many typos to boot. **

…As far as strong evidence etc that I am "stubborn "with ,one must ask if it is so strong , why did it take so long to declare the IC and Assumption ? When fundamentals were questioned in early church ,they usually responded within the century,at least on some issues.and that was with slower means. But yes ,I am fully persuadedly stubborn.

I hope I did not offend you in any way, just lack for a better word I suppose (and let me apologize in advance, for I may get a little zealous in this post as well.) I do believe stubbornness can be a good thing in certain instances. I look at it as you standing firm in your beliefs and I respect that. Though I must ask, why do you refuse to admit these evidences presented to you are stong (whether or not the CC agrees)? I can only assume stubbornness, because they do not agree with your beliefs.

Yes,I believe in the trinity .

What a relief!!!

We give honor when due .

Hmm…I’m not sure about all the names you gave…Waldo, Wycliffe, Huss, ect…I will have to research some, but I do know Luther, Calvin, and Zwigli all gave Mary her proper honor due and would probably consider your comments on her heretical. And I’m sure the early Christians would consider comments like “Mary had relations after the birth of Christ” as totally unacceptable. I also find some of your comments about Luther very concerning:

maybe he did have one critical thing right ,thereby opening up pandoras box

Another Hmmm…How can opening pandoras box be the one thing you think he did right? I’m at a loss for words with that statement.

Luther did something monumental ,yet he rode the swell that was occurring in Christendom .

As if it was just the popular thing to do at the time. I don’t see how that is a good enough reason to break from the centuries old traditions.

Yes, Luther was the biggy.His break and translating the bible took most of his energy .Others that followed had more time, and stability to continue with reforming perceived errors, if I may as kindly as possible say. They really tried to look at scripture and the earliest church and fathers to see indeed what was proper .

THE KEY WORD HERE …“TRIED”…My question would be, who gave them the authority to deem what was and what was not “proper”, or to reform what they perceived as errors? Aren’t we to look to the early church and fathers as “THE” authorities established by Christ Himself? I understand there may be disagreements and even mistakes made, but to go so far as to break of relations with the Church, give yourself authority to interpret scripture how you want, translate scripture how you want, disregard entire books of the bible, and deem who does and does not have authority to do so, not cool. That right there goes against scripture, period! I would never dream of saying I know better than the early church fathers. This conversation boils down to authority. That is what opened pandoras box! That is what Luther’s monumental achievment was…to take authority from the church and give it to himself. Nowadays, any person can be their own authority and don’t even have to agree with Luther and the others if they choose not to. Very dangerous in my opinion. Leaves MUCH room for error, does it not? I’m sure you’ve heard the argument, 30,000 different denominations can’t all be right…there can only be one Truth!

If the Catholic church could make a mistake , either in practice or it’s underlying doctrine (take indulgences, which most of us ,Catholics included, would agree to it’s abuse ,epsecially. in Germany by Tetzel), then maybe she could be wrong in other ways .

Really?? Did I miss something? I don’t recall the CC claiming to never make a mistake…that’s laughable. So you take the instance of "indulgences and run with it, huh? At least the Church was humble enough to admit when it was wrong. You know this stuff, come on. Do you realize how misleading some of your statements can be?

So I guess the argument could go both ways. If I admit Luther did not get it all perfect, I am also saying the CC did not back then either.

Yes, but can you admit the historical accounts by early Christians pesented to you are strong evidences regarding the IC and the PV of our Blessed Virgin Mary, whether or not the CC agreed???

Glad to see your yes to beliefs as stated.I would agree Eve sinned big time , put us in trouble, but she then obeyed thereafter ,enough to pass on the “torch of hope” all the way down to Mary ,who obeyed big time ,to finally get us out of jam, as promised to Eve and Abraham,and David etc etc… I look at Eve and Mary and Luther (and the lineage of torch bearers - Abraham David etc) alike in this fashion: they obeyed at the proper time, and were “fallen” human beings.That is they were not perfect, were prone to sin from time to time such as is common to man , but not deterring them from their calling /mission, by the grace of God. Blessings also.

**HMMM… I must say, the way you express your views are most interesting. To group Luther with the characters of the bible “in a like fashion” seems so strange to me. But, I do get your point, you consider them all “fallen” yet fufilled their mission at “their time”. Now, my views on Luther are quite different. Personally, I view him more grouped with the “fallen” angels who rejected God and his plan and went on to lead generations of God’s children astray. But, that’s just me As far as the Eve/Mary discussion, I see no need to continue arguing the points with you. You have your opinion, which I have no problem accepting, but must respectfully disagree with. The only thing left for me to do, is pray. “If” the Church is correct, and “if” the early church fathers were correct, I pray the Holy Spirit will give you one of those little “anointed signs” we spoke of earlier and, at the very least, pierce your heart to the possibility of these things we hold true. At the most, lead you to a full conversion back home to the Church Hey if you’re gonna pray, Pray Big!, right?

I just ask that you consider the possibilities. Consider that there is more to it than historical accounts and what is only found in scripture. I will leave it here for now, there is more personal comments if you were interested, I can PM you…Again, I thank you for your patience and respect for me and my heart reaches out to you with love and respect for my fellow brother in Christ. I pray we may one day be able to move past these issues and once again come together as one united force against our True Enemy!**

 

[pablope]

Yes, my views on Mary have changed. The position she has in Catholic theology and devotion how seems much more reasonable and/or justified than it previously did.

Third, I have heard that devotion to Mary was common in the practice of the early church, though I myself have not read much primary source material on this issue yet.

 

[Patavium]

Pablope,

Very good argument. I continue to ask David Ruiz to tell me more about the history of those that oppose the IC, because you have to think about it from the historical and theological point of view. Are you telling us that we had to wait until recently to have someone appear, and say that Mary Perpetual Virginity, and Immaculate Conception are wrong? and that all the founders of the Early Church who gave their life to keep the teachings of the apostles (who also gave their life) were wrong?. It doesn’t make sense.

 

[brumano]

Ok thanks .Perhaps you would know , what is being proposed for further honoring Mary ,that is requests being made to the Vatican for further declarations. .Heard something about it on Catholic Radio.

Now we’re finally getting into a question of great interest and I’m sure there’s others who can give you better updating on what is being taken under more focused contemplation by the hierarchical church, concerning Mary, and what should be indoctrinated into existing church teaching about her. In one of your earlier posts you noted that there were disagreements about Marian Doctrines between Catholics, this question you’ve now posted really explains why your first question does not really disclaim any of Mary’s honors already well established. For Roman Catholics the existing doctrines are the starting place for discussion and deeper understanding not controversies to be constantly re opened.
We can as Catholics have some difference of opinion about how the doctrines took place and what they portend, not what they are; one of these differences in opinioniated belief that you may know is a long standing question about the Assumption, and how it actually took place; was Mary taken up by God after a time of dormition (not death) or in the awake state of full active personal communion with the Trinity. Another one is very current, we all believe in the Immaculate Conception of Mary, but was she made immaculate in herself or was she made immaculate by the pre extention of salvivic grace meritted by her Son. Do we pray to Mary or do we pray only for her intercession…I think you get the picture, and you can see from that picture that none of these doctrines can or should be grafted into church teaching without the fullness of definition being made, or revealed even if they do not reach that fullness in hundreds or even thousands of years. However, when they are full they must be defined at their time. Now to get to the direct answer of your question I do know that the church’s examen of Mary as Mediatrix of All Graces has developed to a stage of fullness that was recognized by the Pope as requiring his public statement at this time, he said the dogma should not be defined at this time because it presents a difficulty in it’s language disparity with the language of the Scriptures, and I’m sure he also in the same vein anticipates that the language of the doctrine would be difficult for some Catholics, and the non Catholic world to digest.

 

[david_ruiz]

Now i think you are way off
david ruiz;9406072:

it was the shadow not the reality, those sacrifice, those could cause emotions were totally ineffective when it comes to cleaning sin.
wow here we go, actually i dont think elija went up to heaven in a chariot, he when to paradise. Dont be surprised i dont believe anyone saw God before the incarnation.
Ubenedictus

I thought paradise was in hades,the lower hell,you descend .Did Jesus descend to hell or ascend during the three days ? I was taught that hades(greek) or sheol(hebrew) was "lower containg both paradise and gehenna-place of torment .Both paradise and gehenna were in hades /hell separated by vast space.

 

[david_ruiz]

now here we go eve didnt sin after the prophesy and yet we under the new dispenstation sin, atleast you will agree that the dark guy sins. Now if eve was sinless after the original sin then the old time was even better than the new.congrates i think you just made a new doctrine ‘‘After the original sin Eve never sinned’’ that is a beautiful line.
Ubenedictus

To go along with the doctrine that Adam and Eve did not repent and went to hell ? A Catholic said that -sorry forgot who on this thread suggested part of that.So I said if there is no proof that they repented ,there is also no proof that they sinned again.We are just discussing ,sometimes tongue in cheek ,sometimes whimsical sometimes inquisitively .No infallible doctrinal stuff,just thoughtful conversation.