The Virgin Mary

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by justasking4
Must a christian believe that Mary was assumed into heaven, queen of heaven, etc to be mature in Christ? Are the marian dogmas necessary for salvation?

I am sure God can save whomever He wishes, however He likes. Our duty is to act within the knowledge that has been revealed to us by the HS. For those of us to whom this revelation has been given, yes. To those who are only in posession of part of the revelation, I entrust their fate to a merciful father and pray for the conversion of their souls.

If your church is teaching this, then its not the gospel that the apostle taught. Since the apostles were totally ignorant of these marian doctrines, they never taught these doctrines nor were they ever necessary for salvation.

 

[Ginger2]

Guonophore, “The Sacred Tradition and the Apostolic Authority”

Then I am going to hell because I don’t follow "Apostolic Tradition?

Gunophore, “why did you ask?”

I want to know why you think we need anything more the the written word of God to guide us in the truth of Jesus Christ according to the plan of salvation.

Guanophore, “Paul used the OT scriptures”

Yes, to show that Jesus is the Christ that was prophesied about in the Torah. The NT Scriptures are the completion of the Prophesy. And the Apostles claimed they were also inspired.

 

[guanophore]

If your church is teaching this, then its not the gospel that the apostle taught. Since the apostles were totally ignorant of these marian doctrines, they never taught these doctrines nor were they ever necessary for salvation.

You can’t prove that, since it is not documented in the limited records we have available. however, since we have the Sacred Tradition from the Apostles, I know they were not ignorant of these matters. I think it is necessary to embrace the whole teaching of God, that which comes in the Scripture, and that which comes in the Sacred Traditions. As a person of free will, you can reject this.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

I have to conclude after all this back and forth,
that anti-Catholics are resisting the Holy Ghost,
whether they realize it or not.

 

[Ginger2]

Quote Guanophore, “Paul used the OT scriptures”



Is that your favorite phrase, or what?

Of course no one can prove that the Apostles taught something they did not teach. It is up to you to prove they did teach it.

So show us where an Apostle said Mary was sinless or immaculately conceived. Show us where a single Apostle said she is co-redeemer or mediatrix.

On the contrary your Church Fathers deny anything that is not spelled out in Scripture.

“I do not admit what you advance of your own apart from Scripture.” (Tertullian, The Flesh of Christ, ch 6; ch 7)

Origen, although he ascribed to Mary high spiritual prerogatives, thought that, at the time of Christ’s passion, the sword of disbelief pierced Mary’s soul; that she was struck by the poniard of doubt; and that for her sins also Christ died (Origen, “In Luc. hom. xvii”).

 

[guanophore]

Guonophore, “The Sacred Tradition and the Apostolic Authority”

Then I am going to hell because I don’t follow "Apostolic Tradition?

The fate of your soul is up to God. I am telling you that you are lacking in part of Gods revelation to us as far as salvation is concerned.

Gunophore, “why did you ask?”

I want to know why you think we need anything more the the written word of God to guide us in the truth of Jesus Christ according to the plan of salvation.

I think not. You asked, then you gave your answer that you believe already, which is that you think you have all that you need.

Guanophore, “Paul used the OT scriptures”

Yes, to show that Jesus is the Christ that was prophesied about in the Torah. The NT Scriptures are the completion of the Prophesy. And the Apostles claimed they were also inspired.

Yes, and Jesus, Paul, and the other Apostles created the NT out of Sacred Tradition and the Teaching Authority appointed by Christ. Sacred Tradition and revelation were the sources of their preaching. That is why Jews still read the OT today, and don’t recognize Jesus within it as the Apostles did.

And that is why you, reading the NT now, don’t recognize the Sacred Tradition and the Apostolic Authority.

 

[justasking4]

You can’t prove that, since it is not documented in the limited records we have available. however, since we have the Sacred Tradition from the Apostles, I know they were not ignorant of these matters. I think it is necessary to embrace the whole teaching of God, that which comes in the Scripture, and that which comes in the Sacred Traditions. As a person of free will, you can reject this.

Can you briefly in a couple of sentences define what the gospel is?

 

[guanophore]

Quote Guanophore, “Paul used the OT scriptures”



Is that your favorite phrase, or what?

No, my favorite phrase is in my signature.

Of course no one can prove that the Apostles taught something they did not teach. It is up to you to prove they did teach it.

It is not necessary for me to “prove” this to myself, because I have chosen to accept my inheritance, of which it is a part. I can accept it fully because I accept the Scripture. It is the same source that gives me both.

So show us where an Apostle said Mary was sinless or immaculately conceived. Show us where a single Apostle said she is co-redeemer or mediatrix.

I believe you have been shown where we see this, and you disagree. Additionally, I don’t think that co-redeemer or mediatrix are part of the defined doctrines of the church, though I don’t dispute them. Mary is the model of what we are all to become, and I think these words should apply to each.

On the contrary your Church Fathers deny anything that is not spelled out in Scripture.

Looks like you need to spend a lot more time in your ECF’s!

“I do not admit what you advance of your own apart from Scripture.” (Tertullian, The Flesh of Christ, ch 6; ch 7)

Origen, although he ascribed to Mary high spiritual prerogatives, thought that, at the time of Christ’s passion, the sword of disbelief pierced Mary’s soul; that she was struck by the poniard of doubt; and that for her sins also Christ died (Origen, “In Luc. hom. xvii”).

We find the Marian doctrines in scripture, just like we find the hypostatic union and the Trinity. We don’t find the words, just the concepts. The words came later.

Of course Christ died for Mary’s sins. Did you think the Catholics believed otherwise?

 

[apophasis]

Good Fella:

Fundamentalists claim that Mary is the mother of only the human Jesus. Logic dictates that these Christians are denying the divinity of Jesus.

Totally false logic based on an erroneous Christology. The mystery of hypostatic union defines Jesus to be at once fully God and fully man. Two separate natures in one Person. But what it does not say is that His humanity became divine and His divinity became human. For then He would be neither “fully” God or “fully” man, but instead some kind of a human hybrid.

The Son took on humanity through the virgin birth. Mary is biologically connected to His humanity only, not His divinity. The 5th century term “theotokos” is a VERY unfortunate and is the reason for many false assertions and assumptions (by men) regarding Mary. Divinity does not owe its existence to conception (Motherhood). The eternal Son, through the virgin birth, took on humanity for the purpose of doing what divinity cannot do: shed His blood and die a sacrificial death. He took on humanity to become our “kinsman Redeemer.”

It is in His humanity, not His divinity, that Jesus said of the Father that He is greater than He:John 14:28 "You heard that I said to you, ‘I go away, and I will come to you.’ If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced because I go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.And in His humanity that He said of the Father that He knew things Jesus did not:Matt 24:36 "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.These verses do not deny the divine nature of Jesus, but testify to the fact that He was born fully human with human limitations. For instance, bodily He can be in only ONE place at one time. Humanly He cannot be in heaven and on earth at the same time (a “transubstantiation” challenge). When He took on humanity He subjected Himself to human limitations.

Actually, “Theotokos” states that the Son Mary bore took on divinity. Not true. But God, the eternal Son, took on humanity - with all its limitations, yet did not surrender His divinity. He is both “fully” man and “fully” God. Not a blend of the two, but in Him they are in union. A mystery.

In the N.T. Mary is often referred to as “mother of Jesus” (Jn. 2:1, 3; 6:42; 19:25; Acts 1:14).Matt 1:18 "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: when His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit.Notice it says the “birth of Jesus” and not the birth of the Son. Humanity is conceived, born and subject to death - not divinity. Mary is biologically connected to His humanity, not His divinity. Certainly she was given special “grace” by God to perform a service to Him that was unique. And in this regard she stands alone amongst human kind. But Scripture is deafening silent when it comes to any special standing of Mary herself. Historically, it is men (not God) who have attributed to her the extraordinary, consequently robbing from the Incarnation itself its extraordinariness.

 

[guanophore]

Can you briefly in a couple of sentences define what the gospel is?

Probably not, but Paul can!

1 Cor 15:3-4

3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures"

 

[justasking4]

Probably not, but Paul can!

1 Cor 15:3-4

3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures"

I agree with this as a concise definition of the gospel. Now, would you agree that if a person believed this he would be saved?

 

[justasking4]

I have to conclude after all this back and forth,
that anti-Catholics are resisting the Holy Ghost,
whether they realize it or not.

Either that or were exposing false teachings.

 

[guanophore]

The 5th century term “theotokos” is a VERY unfortunate and is the reason for many false assertions and assumptions (by men) regarding Mary. Divinity does not owe its existence to conception (Motherhood). The eternal Son, through the virgin birth, took on humanity for the purpose of doing what divinity cannot do: die. He took on humanity to become our “kinsman Redeemer.”

It only leads to false assertions by those who don’t understand the Apostolic Traditions from which the term emerged.

For instance, bodily He can be in only ONE place at one time. Humanly He cannot be in heaven and on earth at the same time (a “transubstantiation” challenge). When He took on humanity He subjected Himself to human limitations.

How is it that you find yourself qualified to determine what God can and cannot do?! I am sure this is a subject for another thread. After His resurrection, he did all kinds of things humans don’t routinely do.

Actually, “Theotokos” states that the Son Mary bore took on divinity. Not true. But God, the eternal Son, took on humanity - with all its limitations, yet did not surrender His divinity. He is both “fully” man and “fully” God. Not a blend of the two, but in Him they are in union. A mystery.

This is a misunderstanding of the term Theotokos.

she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit.

Notice it says the “birth of Jesus” and not the birth of the Son. Humanity is conceived, born and subject to death - not divinity. Mary is biologically connected to His humanity, not His divinity. Certainly she was given special “grace” by God to perform a service to Him that was unique. And in this regard she stands alone amongst human kind. But Scripture is deafening silent when it comes to any special standing of Mary herself. Historically, it is men (not God) who have attributed to her the extraordinary, consequently robbing from the Incarnation itself its extraordinariness.

Yes, all generations call her Blessed. But Mary does not have that special standing “herself”. She was chosen by God for that role,and it is by his favor and grace that she is honored. She has her special honor BECAUSE of her Son. Christ is in no way robbed, but pleased to honor his Mother.

 

[guanophore]

I agree with this as a concise definition of the gospel. Now, would you agree that if a person believed this he would be saved?

We have some different understandings of what is meant by “believe” and “saved”, so even though I will say “yes” that does not necessarily equate our understandings.

 

[justasking4]

We have some different understandings of what is meant by “believe” and “saved”, so even though I will say “yes” that does not necessarily equate our understandings.

Do you think the Corinthians understood what he was writing here?

 

[Ginger2]

Guanophore, First I meant to ask if “You can’t prove that” was your favorite phrase. Now the post probably makes more sense.

Second, this was my original question,

Catholics teach that Mary, mother of Jesus, was born without original sin.

What does the Catholic church say about whether or not The Virgin Mary ever sinned during her lifetime?

which, after being answered, was followed by “what difference does it make?”

Quote, “Mary is the model of what we are all to become” And all this time I thought Christ Jesus was our model:

1Pe 2:21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:

 

[apophasis]

quanophore:

Not at all, although, that may be true. I am saying that there are mentions in the ECF’s to inspired teachings that were later proclaimed dogma,

What proof do you have they were “inspired (Holy Spirit) teachings” and not just the sentimental opinions of those men (not even the writers themselves claim any Apostolic origin or divine inspiration)? That’s the challenge, G. Are you up for it?

 

[Ginger2]

Guonophore,

You say that “The Sacred Tradition and the Apostolic Authority.” is essential for salvation. Can you please be specific.

What doctrine from Tradition that is not found in the Bible, , will keep me or anyonme else out of heaven if we do not hear about it?

 

[apophasis]

guanophore:

This is the Nestorian heresy all over again!

Go back and read my post again. You’ll find nothing “Nestorian” in it.

 

[LilyM]

Do you think the Corinthians understood what he was writing here?

They sure didn’t understand that this one phrase and the bare-bones beliefs contained in it, were alone totally sufficient in every way for their salvation.

Nor indeed did they claim this for the one letter that verse is in, nor any amount of other letters.

They didn’t toss out his other writings, or the Gospels or OT, or ignore Paul himself or his helpers when they visited and say ‘hey, we’ve got enough already thanks, don’t need any more’.