Why do non catholics dislike Mother Mary?

[Randy_Carson]

The question is not about the Trinity (which was by the way mentioned in the Bible). It is about all dogmas supposedly dating to back then and I wondered how this could be concerning the last dogma ever defined.

God bless you.

In Him,
Janet

Janet-

Please show the scripture which contains the word “trinity”.

In the absence of that, can you tell us when the Church hammered out all of the ideas contained within the doctrine of the Trinity? Specifically, when was the Holy Spirit understood to be a separate person consubstantial and co-equal with the Father and the Son? Finally, when was the Holy Spirit determined to proceed from both the Father and the Son?

Is that in the NT? Or were some doctrines ironed out loooooooong after the close of the Apostolic era?

And if that is true of a doctrine that you do accept, why can it not be true of a doctrine that you do not accept like the Assumption of Mary?

 

[Dokimas]

Of course.

Matthew 28:18-20
Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. **Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. **And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

All authority was given to Jesus, right? :yup:

John 20:21-23
Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”​

I have no problem with what Jesus said to Peter and the first disciples/apostiles. I have a problem when someone claims they are the rightful heirs of the authority Jesus gave Peter and apostles and that everyone else must fall in line.

How was Jesus sent by the Father? With all authority, right? :yup:

How did Jesus send the Apostles? In the same manner in which the Father sent Him, right? :yup:

The Apostles were sent with the authority of Jesus Christ. That’s the magisterium or teaching authority of the Church. :yup:

 

[Dokimas]

Janet-

Please show the scripture which contains the word “trinity”. This question; see below.

In the absence of that, can you tell us when the Church hammered out all of the ideas contained within the doctrine of the Trinity? Specifically, when was the Holy Spirit understood to be a separate person consubstantial and co-equal with the Father and the Son? Finally, when was the Holy Spirit determined to proceed from both the Father and the Son?

Is that in the NT? Or were some doctrines ironed out loooooooong after the close of the Apostolic era?

And if that is true of a doctrine that you do accept, why can it not be true of a doctrine that you do not accept like the Assumption of Mary?

Don’t you get tired of asking that question?​

It is clear from the Bible that God is a Godhead. It is extremely clear that God the Father and God the Son is part of that Godhead. It’s not as clear but still clear that the Holy Spirit is part of the Godhead. There are no other parts of the Godhead revealed in the Bible that I’m aware of so, if the Godhead is three, the term for that is clear, though unmentioned — Trinity.​

These teaching existed for quite awhile in the letters that were copied and passed around the early church. They were read and preached long before the cannon was settled all to the glory of God.​

There is no such evidence from the cannon of Mary’s assumption. It’s not against the Bible as far as I understand, so I guess it could be true, just not necessary to believe.

 

[Teneas]

There is no such evidence from the cannon of Mary’s assumption. It’s not against the Bible as far as I understand, so I guess it could be true, just not necessary to believe.

 

[Dokimas]

Something went wrong so I’ll repost it …

riginally Posted by Randy Carson
Of course.

Matthew 28:18-20
Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

All authority was given to Jesus, right?

John 20:21-23
Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

How was Jesus sent by the Father? With all authority, right?

How did Jesus send the Apostles? In the same manner in which the Father sent Him, right?

The Apostles were sent with the authority of Jesus Christ. That’s the magisterium or teaching authority of the Church.

I have no problem with what Jesus said to Peter and the first disciples/apostiles. I have a problem when someone claims they are the rightful heirs of the authority Jesus gave Peter and apostles and that everyone else must fall in line.

 

[graceandglory]

There is no such evidence from the cannon of Mary’s assumption. It’s not against the Bible as far as I understand, so I guess it could be true, just not necessary to believe.

Fascinating article about the earliest beliefs in Mary’s Dormition and Assumption.
THE ASSUMPTION OF MARY: A BELIEF SINCE APOSTOLIC TIMES
ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/AOFMARY.HTM

The Assumption is the oldest feast day of Our Lady, but we don’t know how it first came to be celebrated.

Its origin is lost in those days when Jerusalem was restored as a sacred city, at the time of the Roman Emperor Constantine (c. 285-337). By then it had been a pagan city for two centuries, ever since Emperor Hadrian (76-138) had leveled it around the year 135 and rebuilt it as in honor of Jupiter.

For 200 years, every memory of Jesus was obliterated from the city, and the sites made holy by His life, death and Resurrection became pagan temples.
…
.
.
.
…
That belief was ancient, dating back to the apostles themselves. What was clear from the beginning was that there were no relics of Mary to be venerated, and that an empty tomb stood on the edge of Jerusalem near the site of her death. That location also soon became a place of pilgrimage. (Today, the Benedictine Abbey of the Dormition of Mary stands on the spot.)

At the Council of Chalcedon in 451, when bishops from throughout the Mediterranean world gathered in Constantinople, Emperor Marcian asked the Patriarch of Jerusalem to bring the relics of Mary to Constantinople to be enshrined in the capitol. The patriarch explained to the emperor that there were no relics of Mary in Jerusalem, that “Mary had died in the presence of the apostles; but her tomb, when opened later . . . was found empty and so the apostles concluded that the body was taken up into heaven.”
…

 

[Teneas]

Something went wrong so I’ll repost it …
I have no problem with what Jesus said to Peter and the first disciples/apostiles. I have a problem when someone claims they are the rightful heirs of the authority Jesus gave Peter and apostles and that everyone else must fall in line.

I don’t believe that the Church’s teachings are that everyone “must” fall in line. Though, I will admit that throughout the 2,000 years of existence the church has done some horrific things to make others fall in line. It is not that way now thank God.

The belief of apostolic succession is based upon the fact that Christ said “As the Father as sent me, so I shall send you”

The laying on of hands was continued after Judas was no longer among the apostles to name a new apostle. It has never stopped from there, so it is our belief that through the laying on of hands, we have more apostles.

Rough version of what we believe, but pretty accurate.

 

[Dokimas]

I don’t believe that the Church’s teachings are that everyone “must” fall in line. Though, I will admit that throughout the 2,000 years of existence the church has done some horrific things to make others fall in line. It is not that way now thank God.

The belief of apostolic succession is based upon the fact that Christ said “As the Father as sent me, so I shall send you”

The laying on of hands was continued after Judas was no longer among the apostles to name a new apostle. It has never stopped from there, so it is our belief that through the laying on of hands, we have more apostles.

Rough version of what we believe, but pretty accurate.

I don’t mean to bring this up for discussing the specifics, but as I read posts to Tweetymom by some of the catholics on this forum, they keep telling her, if she wants to call herself a catholic, she needs to ‘fall in line’ (my words but I think they fit the situation) with what the CC teaches as truth.

 

[Janet1983]

And if that is true of a doctrine that you do accept, why can it not be true of a doctrine that you do not accept like the Assumption of Mary?

The doctrine of her assumption is not laid out in the Bible as the Trinity is. Even though the word trinity is not to be found we can still find the concept.

Discussing this however would lead off-topic.
You might want to open a thread with this question if you are interested.

May the love of God be with you.

In Him,
Janet

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t mean to bring this up for discussing the specifics, but as I read posts to Tweetymom by some of the catholics on this forum, they keep telling her, if she wants to call herself a catholic, she needs to ‘fall in line’ (my words but I think they fit the situation) with what the CC teaches as truth.

Look at it this way, Dokimas. Let’s say there’s someone who’s on a Muslim forum and she’s professing to be a Christian. She’s ostensibly presenting the Christian viewpoint, but she’ll say things like, *“I don’t believe Jesus is Divine. I think he was just a really good teacher. And, since my preacher knows this and he’s ok with it, and I’m ok with it, and God is ok with it, here you go!” * She does clarify and say, "I know Christianity says that Jesus is Divine, but I don’t believe everything Christianity says."

Of course, all the other Christians on this rhetorical Muslim forum must admonish and correct this sweet little old Christian great grandma, lest Muslims think she represents orthodox Christianity.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Don’t you get tired of asking that question?

Do you non-Catholics ever get tired of asking why we worship Mary?

But no, I never get tired of teaching non-Catholics the principle that not everything THEY believe about Christianity is found within the pages of scripture.

Why is this so juicy? Because it illustrates the absurdity of the “tradition of Protestant men” known as sola scriptura.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Something went wrong so I’ll repost it …
I have no problem with what Jesus said to Peter and the first disciples/apostiles. I have a problem when someone claims they are the rightful heirs of the authority Jesus gave Peter and apostles and that everyone else must fall in line.

That’s odd…Jesus specifically said, “He who hears you hears me…”

Since Apostolic Succession is illustrated from scripture and history easily enough, I would think you would WANT to listen closely to the successors of the Apostles.

 

[Dokimas]

Look at it this way, Dokimas. Let’s say there’s someone who’s on a Muslim forum and she’s professing to be a Christian. She’s ostensibly presenting the Christian viewpoint, but she’ll say things like, *“I don’t believe Jesus is Divine. I think he was just a really good teacher. And, since my preacher knows this and he’s ok with it, and I’m ok with it, and God is ok with it, here you go!” * She does clarify and say, "I know Christianity says that Jesus is Divine, but I don’t believe everything Christianity says."

Of course, all the other Christians on this rhetorical Muslim forum must admonish and correct this sweet little old Christian great grandma, lest Muslims think she represents orthodox Christianity.

First of all, as I said in my post I don’t want to discuss the issue you may have with Tweetymom; I just wanted to make a point with the example.​

Secondly, I hope you realize there’s a vast difference between true Muslims and true Christians. There’s no real grounds for comparrison. However, I hope we can agree there is a reasonable relationship between catholics and non-catholic Christians.

 

[Dokimas]

That’s odd…Jesus specifically said, “He who hears you hears me…”

Since Apostolic Succession is illustrated from scripture and history easily enough, I would think you would WANT to listen closely to the successors of the Apostles.

I hope I pay close attention to Peters writings. I’m not sure about those who claim they are in his succession.

 

[Teneas]

I don’t mean to bring this up for discussing the specifics, but as I read posts to Tweetymom by some of the catholics on this forum, they keep telling her, if she wants to call herself a catholic, she needs to ‘fall in line’ (my words but I think they fit the situation) with what the CC teaches as truth.

I think it was merely for the fact that she claimed to be Catholic. It is a hard enough job to represent the church’s teachings and beliefs without having someone going around misrepresenting them.

Can a Catholic have their own beliefs and not believe in all that the church teaches? Yep…of course they can.

Should they claim they are Catholic and then misrepresent what the Church actually teaches on a Catholic forum that others use to find out what the Church teaches and believes? NO way.

There is to much confusion already among the denominations as it is. Misrepresenting what a faith believes is a MAJOR set back in a discussion.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I hope I pay close attention to Peters writings. I’m not sure about those who claim they are in his succession.

Doesn’t it stand to reason that Apostles of the Church who wrote letters and epistles would have letters and epistles written by their successors?

 

[Dokimas]

Do you non-Catholics ever get tired of asking why we worship Mary? I may be mistaken, but I don’t think I’ve ever asked that question of any on this board. I guess then I can’t answer your question.

But no, I never get tired of teaching non-Catholics the principle that not everything THEY believe about Christianity is found within the pages of scripture. ** I’ve admitted that, ask PRmerger. Thanks for the reminder. I wish you’d be so willing to admit that some of what you believe, may be incorrect.**

Why is this so juicy? Because it illustrates the absurdity of the “tradition of Protestant men” known as sola scriptura. Wrong. It has nothing to do with Sola Scriptura.

Glad to be able to clear up some of your misunderstandings.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The doctrine of her assumption is not laid out in the Bible as the Trinity is. Even though the word trinity is not to be found we can still find the concept.

Discussing this however would lead off-topic.
You might want to open a thread with this question if you are interested.

Um…who brought it up?

Maybe I am completely mistaken, but where would we find the last dogma that was defined in scripture? Where is the “dogma of the assumption” that was defined as an apostolic constitution of pope Pius XII on November 1, 1950?
Maybe you can explain to me how this dogma could have been in existence before it was defined and before the NT was written.
If it had been, wouldn’t we find direct evidence of that in the Bible? Why would the Bible be silent about that subject and if not where could I find such information that clearly states these doctrines?
Correct me please if I am wrong as I cannot see these things stated in Scripture.

 

[Dokimas]

Doesn’t it stand to reason that Apostles of the Church who wrote letters and epistles would have letters and epistles written by their successors?

Sure. Seems sound reasoning to me.​

HI ProdigalSon. If I haven’t wished you a personal HNY — Happy New Year, friend.

 

[Randy_Carson]

First of all, as I said in my post I don’t want to discuss the issue you may have with Tweetymom; I just wanted to make a point with the example.​

Secondly, I hope you realize there’s a vast difference between true Muslims and true Christians. There’s no real grounds for comparrison. However, I hope we can agree there is a reasonable relationship between catholics and non-catholic Christians.

The point is still valid. Tweety professes to be a Catholic but she rejects major Catholic doctrines.

Can’t you see why faithful Catholics might have a problem with the public scandal she creates?