The four Marian dogmas

[water]

---

You couldn’t be more wrong.

Sola Scriptura…you betcha.

(Edited by Modferator)

I am separating from the Truth? Who made you the Pope? Who made you God? I am not separating from the Truth. I love the Lord Jesus Christ very much. He’s my “Pope”.

**
I am not Pope? If you asked me who made me God then you don’t know anything. It doesn’t surprise me you misunderstand the Bible.

By the way, God makes Pope a pope in case you keep asking. **

 

[hoosierdaddy]

LSK>>**You may not have been aware of the Truth before visiting this site. However, once you have been told Truth your responsibility will skyrocket.

Ignorance is one thing - defiance and rejection are another.**

I am well aware of the Truth. The Truth is Jesus Christ. Catholics themselves have said that. I have been told truth from the moment of my salvation. These four “Mary dogmas” are not truth. I only accept the first one provided it is worded right as it was noted by someone else. Again, show me those four “dogmas” in Scripture. I’m waiting.

(Edited by Moderator since no offense was intended)

“Who can lay a charge against God’s elect?” and “there is therefore NOW NO condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus” are excellent verses to remember. I am one of God’s elect; I am in Christ Jesus. You’ve been told the truth. Ignorance was one thing, but defiance and rejection are another.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

**
I am not Pope? If you asked me who made me God then you don’t know anything. It doesn’t surprise me you misunderstand the Bible.

By the way, God makes Pope a pope in case you keep asking. **

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You’re not alone though. I have no idea what you are talking about as well.

Anyways, I don’t misunderstand the Bible. I’m sorry you feel that way but I can assure you I do not misunderstand the Bible. But since you say I misunderstand maybe you can help me. Please show me where in Scripture it says that God makes a Pope a Pope? I thought a bunch of men locked themselves in a room and “voted”.

 

[Michael_Francis]

Settle down please. Stop taking offense where none was intended.

From 1st Corinthains 13:
"4: Love is patient and kind; love is not jealous or boastful;
5: it is not arrogant or rude. Love does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful;
6: it does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right.
7: Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
8: Love never ends;…"

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Sorry Michael. I took being called ignorant as meaning offence. I will give the benefit of the doubt.

 

[jmcrae]

Show me in Scripture where it says this. You can’t.

We aren’t talking about whether they are actually true. We are talking about does the Catholic Church call them Dogmas and say that they are de fide.

The answer to that question is “Yes.” And for Catholics, that’s what means that they are true. Scripture is not the be-all and end-all of Christ’s teaching. It even says so in the Bible. (See John 21:25.)

 

[hoosierdaddy]

We aren’t talking about whether they are actually true. We are talking about does the Catholic Church call them Dogmas and say that they are de fide.

The answer to that question is “Yes.” And for Catholics, that’s what means that they are true. Scripture is not the be-all and end-all of Christ’s teaching. It even says so in the Bible. (See John 21:25.)

So the Catholic Church can come up with any “wind of doctrine” and I am obligated to believe it even though it might contradict Scripture? It’s one thing to make a dogma on which Scripture is silent, it’s quite another to make dogmas that contradict Scripture. I don’t understand the lack of respect for Scripture???

 

[water]

So the Catholic Church can come up with any “wind of doctrine” and I am obligated to believe it even though it might contradict Scripture? It’s one thing to make a dogma on which Scripture is silent, it’s quite another to make dogmas that contradict Scripture.

**Only the ignorant people comes up with any wind of doctrine - not the Church. **

I don’t understand the lack of respect for Scripture???

**
You don’t because you don’t even respect the Sacred Tradition.**

 

[Church_Militant]

So the Catholic Church can come up with any “wind of doctrine” and I am obligated to believe it even though it might contradict Scripture?

You have yet to show where any such contradiction exists Brian. I have tried to point out that most of your statements like this are based upon errant teaching by others and misunderstanding or misperception of Catholic teaching.

I’ve pointed out on here before that getting info about Catholicism from n-Cs is like asking a garbage man about rocket science. You’ll get an answer, but would you want to stake your interstellar flight plans on it?

It’s one thing to make a dogma on which Scripture is silent, it’s quite another to make dogmas that contradict Scripture.

Again…show me these alleged contradictions Brian. I haven’t found them and brother lemme tell ya, I looked. (PM me if you want this to be private)

I don’t understand the lack of respect for Scripture???

There is none. It’s a misperception on your part.
Pax tecum,

 

[jmcrae]

Until you change back to truth, we will remain separated.

And which of the 60,000+ “truths” should we “come back” to? The Catholic Church is the original.

 

[Pjs2ejs]

Hoosier, the question was, “Must Catholics believe this?” I answered it truthfully from the Catholic Church’s standpoint. And you started this angry response about proving it and I am my own pope. If you are Catholic, then you are not in union with the church. If you are non-Catholic, I don’t see why my response would conjure up such ire.

You have told us many times here that you only believe in one of the four dogmas. You have reasoned for yourself why you believe that. Because it’s not in the Bible. Neither are a lot of things but that doesn’t mean they are not truth. Frankly, I am tired of the Sola Scriptura argument. I guess we will have to eventually answer to God some day. And I am very comfortable with my belief. The reason? Because the original Christian Church started by the Apostles tells me. I’m not exactly sure how you will answer. Because it is neither in the Bible, Traditional, nor documented.

God Bless

 

[NanaGigi]

Re Perpetual Virginity:

There are a number of Biblical passages that can be used to defend Mary’s perpetual virginity. Keep these two points in mind: (1) the so-called “brothers of Jesus” are never called “sons of Mary” and (2) some of these “brothers” advise and reprimand Jesus. See Jn. 7:3-4 and Mk. 3:21. In Jewish culture, younger brothers never admonished an elder brother. Therefore, they could not have been younger children of Mary.

In Mt. 15:1-6, Jesus vehemently condemns the Pharisees because they had a procedure, the “Korban” rule, that allowed children to avoid taking care of their parents. In the Old Testament, children had a solemn obligation to care for their elderly parents. This is why the Pharisees’ scheme to let people shirk this responsibility made Jesus so angry. With this in mind, look to Jn. 19:26-27 and the scene at the Cross. Jesus is about to die. Apparently, Joseph had already died because he is not mentioned in the Bible after Jesus began His public ministry. Mary is in danger of being left alone, so He entrusts her to John the Apostle, Zebedee’s son, who was NOT a sibling of Jesus. Jesus told John, “Behold your Mother.” If Jesus had had younger siblings, as many Protestants claim, His behavior makes no sense. Jesus had condemned the Pharisees for dispensing people from the responsibility of caring for their parents. Why, if He had them, would He dispense His own siblings from this important obligation? Such inconsistency and hypocrisy on the part of Jesus is inconceivable.

From Acts 1:13-14 we learn that “when they entered the city, they went to the upper room where they were staying, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Phillip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James, the son of Alphaeus, Simon the zealot, and Judas, son of James. All these devoted themselves with one accord to prayer, together with some women, and Mary, the Mother of Jesus, and His brothers.”

After the Ascension the followers of Jesus, including Mary, John the Apostle, with whom Mary now lived, and the brothers of Jesus - gathered in the upper room. If these brothers of Jesus were also the sons of Mary, Mary would be praying together with her sons, who were faithful followers of Jesus and yet, going home with John. In her Jewish culture such a situation simply would not happen.

More to follow . . . stay tuned!

 

[NanaGigi]

Re Assumption:

This doctrine does not say that Mary died. However, the overwhelming Tradition of the Church, including the Fathers, is that she did. St. Paul teaches that the bodies of the just will be glorified at the end of time. Does this teaching allow for exceptions? The Bible states that the prophet Elizah was assumed into heaven with his body. 2 Kgs. 2:11. He didn’t die. Enoch was also taken to heaven without dying. Gn. 5:25, Heb. 11:5.

Mt. at 27:53 tells us that after Jesus died and the gates of Heaven were opened, the bodies of many Old Testament saints were resurrected. The early Church Fathers taught that these saints’ bodies accompanied their souls into heaven. If God assumed the bodies of Enoch, Elizah and the resurrected saints before the end of time, He could certainly grant this privilege to His Mother.

While it is true that no express scriptural proofs for the dogma are available, the possibility of a bodily assumption before the Second Coming is not excluded by 1 Cor. 1:15 and it is suggested by Matthew. We know that after the Crucifixion Mary was cared for by the Apostle John. Early Christian writings tell us that John and Mary went to live at Ephesus. There is some dispute about where she ended her life - perhaps there, perhaps in Jerusalem. But neither of those cities, nor any other, claimed her remains. Why? Apparently because there were no bones to claim and people knew it.

Mary conceived without OS:

According to the Revised Standard Version, Catholic edition, which many consider the best English translation of the Bible, and the New Vulgate, the official translation of the Catholic Church, in Lk. 1:28, the Archangel Gabriel greets Mary by saying, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee.”

Gabriel calls Mary “full of grace” to indicate that she has fullness of grace. This would be impossible if Mary were touched by any sin, because every sin diminishes grace. He calls her “full of grace” instead of “Mary” to indicate how exceptional and unique Mary’s fullness of grace is. The grace Mary enjoyed must not only have been as “full” or strong or complete or possible at any given time, but it must have extended over the whole of her life from conception. That is, she must have been in a state of grace from the first moment of her existence to have been called “full of grace” or to have been filled with Divine favor in a singular way.

Sts. Justin Martyr and Irenaeus implicitly taught Mary’s freedom from original sin when they show her as the new Eve, who reversed the first Eve’s disobedience. When she disobeyed, Eve herself was free from all sin and concupiscence (the inclination to sin). Thus, her “no” to God was a perfect choice of the will. For Mary’s obedience to undo Eve’s disobedience, Mary’s “yes” to God must be as perfect as Eve’s “no.” This could only be true if Mary were free from both sin and the inclination to sin just as Eve was.

Hope this helps. Faith is a gift - but we must work to increase it by constant studying.

 

[noma]

The four Marian dogmas are:

1. Mary conceived by the Holy Ghost without the cooperation of man. (De fide.)
2. Also after the Birth of Jesus Mary remained a Virgin. (De fide.)
3. Mary was assumed body and soul into Heaven. (De fide.)
4. Mary was conceived without stain of original sin. (De fide.)

De fide teachings are formally defined teachings and as such Catholics must believe them both exteriorally and interiorly. Lips and hearts in a manner of speaking.

I contend (possibly) with #4. Would it not be possible for Byzantine Catholics, who reject the Augustinian view of original sin, to state that Mary received the stain of original sin, in that she received the consequences of original sin, and that this is all that the stain could mean?

Or must Byzantine Catholics disagree with Orthodox Christians on this point?

 

[Mannyfit75]

I contend (possibly) with #4. Would it not be possible for Byzantine Catholics, who reject the Augustinian view of original sin, to state that Mary received the stain of original sin, in that she received the consequences of original sin, and that this is all that the stain could mean?

Or must Byzantine Catholics disagree with Orthodox Christians on this point?

You’ll find your answers in the Eastern Christian Forum in CAF. It was put there for a reason.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

I think it is also important to add that, while it is required that these be accepted as Truth, “doubt” is not the same as “disbelief”, and furthermore ONLY the teaching AS INFALLIBLY DEFINED is required to be accepted. A good example is the Assumption of Mary.

These four Marian Dogmas must be accepted and believed with divine and Catholic faith by all Catholics. If a Catholic obstinately does not believe in these dogmas or even obstinately doubts them, then they are a heretic. I am sorry if that sounds harsh, but it is the truth. Look at these two canons which deal with faith.

Can. 750 §1. A person must believe with divine and Catholic faith all those things contained in the word of God, written or handed on, that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium which is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred magisterium; therefore all are bound to avoid any doctrines whatsoever contrary to them.

§2. Each and every thing which is proposed definitively by the magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of faith and morals, that is, each and every thing which is required to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the same deposit of faith, is also to be firm-ly embraced and retained; therefore, one who rejects those propositions which are to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

Can. 751 **Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt **after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

 

[noma]

You’ll find your answers in the Eastern Christian Forum in CAF. It was put there for a reason.

I think you miss the point. There is a debate in the Eastern Christian Forum about this very thing, meaning that many Eastern Catholics likely would, using an Eastern theological framework, reject #4.

Is #4 then only dogmatic given an Augustinian framework? Or is it dogmatic in general? In other words, is this Eastern theology mistaken about original sin?

 

[Mannyfit75]

I think you miss the point. There is a debate in the Eastern Christian Forum about this very thing, meaning that many Eastern Catholics likely would, using an Eastern theological framework, reject #4.

Is #4 then only dogmatic given an Augustinian framework? Or is it dogmatic in general? In other words, is this Eastern theology mistaken about original sin?

That is why I am suggesting that any topic concerning # 4 should be in Eastern Christianity Forum, and not on this Forum; especially if it deals with Eastern Christianity on the issues stated above.

 

[noma]

That is why I am suggesting that any topic concerning # 4 should be in Eastern Christianity Forum, and not on this Forum; especially if it deals with Eastern Christianity on the issues stated above.

As this thread was created for dialogue, and as I would contend that #4 is not required to be believed by all Catholics (unless given some qualifiers), I feel it my responsibility to post here.

I would suggest revising the list of dogmas to #1, #2, #3, and maybe #4.

That’s what I think; take it or leave it.

 

[jmcrae]

As this thread was created for dialogue, and as I would contend that #4 is not required to be believed by all Catholics (unless given some qualifiers), I feel it my responsibility to post here.

I would suggest revising the list of dogmas to #1, #2, #3, and maybe #4.

That’s what I think; take it or leave it.

Mary herself identified herself to St. Bernadette as “the Immaculate Conception” meaning that #4 is, in fact, true - we have Mary’s own word on that. The others, we can prove from Scripture and from the Holy Tradition.