Why should Mary be a stumbling block!

[po18guy]

I’m not saying that all of “men’s traditions” are not helpful especially the kind you mention here.

Paul admonished us to hold fast to the traditions which had been handed down, whether by letter (scripture) or word of mouth (tradition). The early church was a combination of both. Catholics hold fast to scripture, as evidenced by the very bible you have. They hold fast to tradition as well, evidenced by the Eucharist and six other Sacraments. The Evangelical church sees no Eucharist in either chapter, since their church is much younger and they never had the Eucharistic tradition to complement it. This tradition, established by Christ, was recorded in 1 Corinthians 11 and in John 6. Both chapters are examples of scripture recording and preserving tradition. Conversely, tradition validates the scripture. If you have no tradition for scripture to explain, the scripture can be confusing.

BUT, if you have had both scripture and tradition since day one, it makes perfect sense. The Eucharist has been practiced continuously by Catholics for 1,974 years, the Eastern Orthodox since they were founded, and practiced and believed in by Lutherans since their founding.

Huh? What else do we know with any certainty about Christ that is not on the pages of scripture?
Even though the scriptrues do say Jesus did other things not mentioned, that still does not mean we know what these
other things" were.

Look to the Catholic church, since they preserved both tradition, as written of by Paul, and scripture since those days. The Evangelical church has most of the scripture, with the exception of the Septuagint, but very little of the tradition. As such, new traditions (“sola”) have been innovated, since they are not mentioned in scripture. Catholics believe that the two parts of the early Christian faith, preseved and used together, remain faithful to Paul’s teaching.

Actually, tradition may be more reliable than scripture, as it has been practiced, without interruption, since Christ was alive. Scripture can be inconsistent between the Gospels, according to the limitation of the Apostle’s memories. Paul advises to hold fast to both “letter” (scripture) and “word of mouth” (oral tradition). This is why the Catholic church uses both scripture and tradition. If you give up one, you must then rely “solely” on the other. Catholics believe that a combination of both is best, exactly as Paul did.

Christ’s peace be wth you.

 

[paarsurrey]

There is a very clear and important reason behind the title “Mother of God”. It safeguards the complete union of Christ’s two natures.

Jesus is not half God, half man. He is fully human and fully divine. Calling Mary simply “Mother of Christ the human” is seen as erroneously dividing Christ’s human nature from his Divine nature.

Hi

It is you defining God rather than God defining Himself. You could err.

Thanks

 

[po18guy]

Hi

It is you defining God rather than God defining Himself. You could err.

Thanks

Good day. We are incapable of defining God. We know of Him only that which he has revealed to us. The definition of God was revealed to us through scripture-the prophets that predicted the Messiah. We believe that it was confirmed by the arrival of the Messiah, through what His teaching revealed to us. We only report and believe what was revealed to us. We have a strong belief because the Messiah was predicted for centuries. He then became man, a fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14, the virgin giving birth. It is this virgin, in Greek called “God-bearer” that your Prophet honored.

Peace be with you.

 

[justasking4]

po18guy;2755193]Paul admonished us to hold fast to the traditions which had been handed down, whether by letter (scripture) or word of mouth (tradition).

What specific traditions is Paul referring to in 2 Thes 2:15?

The early church was a combination of both. Catholics hold fast to scripture, as evidenced by the very bible you have. They hold fast to tradition as well, evidenced by the Eucharist and six other Sacraments.

Is the “early church” the same as the church in the NT?

The Evangelical church sees no Eucharist in either chapter, since their church is much younger and they never had the Eucharistic tradition to complement it. This tradition, established by Christ, was recorded in 1 Corinthians 11 and in John 6. Both chapters are examples of scripture recording and preserving tradition. Conversely, tradition validates the scripture. If you have no tradition for scripture to explain, the scripture can be confusing.

How are you defining tradition here?

Is there a list of traditions that i can look at and see how tradition explains scripture?

BUT, if you have had both scripture and tradition since day one, it makes perfect sense. The Eucharist has been practiced continuously by Catholics for 1,974 years, the Eastern Orthodox since they were founded, and practiced and believed in by Lutherans since their founding.

This does not work for the marian doctrines though. Much of what the catholic church believes today about Mary was totally unknown to the church in the second third centuries. They knew nothing of Mary being queen of heaven for example.

Look to the Catholic church, since they preserved both tradition, as written of by Paul, and scripture since those days. The Evangelical church has most of the scripture, with the exception of the Septuagint, but very little of the tradition. As such, new traditions (“sola”) have been innovated, since they are not mentioned in scripture. Catholics believe that the two parts of the early Christian faith, preseved and used together, remain faithful to Paul’s teaching.

Are you saying that the traditions Paul was referring to included Mary being assumed into heaven, was immaculately concieved, queen of heaven etc?

Actually, tradition may be more reliable than scripture, as it has been practiced, without interruption, since Christ was alive.

This is where a list of all the traditions of the catholic church would help to see if this is indeed the case.

Scripture can be inconsistent between the Gospels, according to the limitation of the Apostle’s memories.

Huh? Where do you get this? Is this what the catholic church teaches?

Paul advises to hold fast to both “letter” (scripture) and “word of mouth” (oral tradition). This is why the Catholic church uses both scripture and tradition. If you give up one, you must then rely “solely” on the other. Catholics believe that a combination of both is best, exactly as Paul did.

The problem is that the traditions Paul is referring to is not the same thing as the catholic church has. We have no reason to believe that he knew anything of the marian doctrines.

Christ’s peace be wth you.

 

[guanophore]

Do you think Sola Scriptura is erroneous? Do you think its erroneous to reject catholic teachings?

Yes.
Yes.

 

[guanophore]

This is my first post here. I’m just beginning the RCIA program and come from a Protestant background. Yes, the whole Mary thing is a huge stumbling block for me. For years I’ve always wondered what the Catholic obsession about Mary was about. After all she is only a mere mortal, yet people pray to her.

Why would anyone want to pray to a dead human? As another poster said earlier in this thread that he only prays to the Triune God: God the Father, Jesus and the Holy Ghost. I’m of that camp of belief.

Another question I have is WHY do we need an intermediary to get to Jesus? Wouldn’t prayers directly to Jesus suffice?

With that said, I feel the calling to come home to the Catholic church. Could someone enlighten me more about praying to Mary (and the Saints too).

simonz

Welcome, simonz, and congratulations for following the Call.

I suggest you go to the library link above. On that link you will see a list on the left hand side of articles about Mary.

There are also a number of threads on Mary you can read here. Do a “search” for them, and put in either just mary, or mary and intercession, or whatever interests you.

 

[guanophore]

Good questions. If Christ is sufficent as the scriptures teach, why would you want to ask help from Mary or the saints? Have you looked carefully at the marian doctrines and compared them with Scripture?

If Christ’s sacrifice was sufficient, what is Paul “making up”?

24 Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church"Col 1:24

Jesus allows us to participate in His ministry of suffering and reconciling the world to Himself. “Jesus alone” mentality is as erroneous as “sola scriptura”.

Not all the Teaching of Jesus and the Apostles is contained within the scripture, and that is how one can miss the point by rejecting the Apostolic Teachings.

Huh? What else do we know with any certainty about Christ that is not on the pages of scripture?
Even though the scriptrues do say Jesus did other things not mentioned, that still does not mean we know what these
other things" were.

There is plenty yet to learn! For one, if you decide that you really will accept what the scriptures teach, you will come to the realization that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth, and that the truth of Christ is found within the church He founded.

 

[guanophore]

Huh? What else do we know with any certainty about Christ that is not on the pages of scripture?
Even though the scriptrues do say Jesus did other things not mentioned, that still does not mean we know what these
other things" were.

There is plenty yet to learn! For one, if you decide that you really will accept what the scriptures teach, you will come to the realization that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth, and that the truth of Christ is found within the church He founded.

What specific traditions is Paul referring to in 2 Thes 2:15?

The rest of the Apostolic Teaching that was not found in writing. Especially how to understand those writings in the way they were written.

Is the “early church” the same as the church in the NT?

There we see the seeds of the infant Church. “early” is generally considered the first 400 years.

How are you defining tradition here?

The Sacred Teachings of Jesus and the Apostles.

Is there a list of traditions that i can look at and see how tradition explains scripture?

Yes,you can find these in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
It is not a “list” but a “whole” teaching, which is how it was delivered to us from the Apostles.

This does not work for the marian doctrines though. Much of what the catholic church believes today about Mary was totally unknown to the church in the second third centuries. They knew nothing of Mary being queen of heaven for example.

You can’t assert this, ja, because you have no proof to back it up. You are not finding these teachings in the early documents,and you assume, therefore that they do not exist. This is like saying that, since pyramids are not mentioned in the Bible, they do not exist On the contrary, we have identified some pyramids that Jesus may have walked by on his journey there and back.

Are you saying that the traditions Paul was referring to included Mary being assumed into heaven, was immaculately concieved, queen of heaven etc?

We know that Paul did not dispute any of these, since he did not write or teach against them as He did the other heresies. However, Mary had not yet died when he wrote his letters, so he may never have given consideration to her assumption.

This is where a list of all the traditions of the catholic church would help to see if this is indeed the case.

NOt a “list”. Sorry, it is more complex than that. They are a “whole” teaching that are to be taken togetherr.

Huh? Where do you get this? Is this what the catholic church teaches?

We see that the representations of the gospels vary,a ndthat each have a specific audience in mind, and some of the gospels contain stories that others do not, and some contain details other do not, or have differently. Yes, the Catholic Church teaches all these things.

The problem is that the traditions Paul is referring to is not the same thing as the catholic church has. We have no reason to believe that he knew anything of the marian doctrines.

The Sacred Tradition does not depend upon Paul. However, they are the same as what the Church teaches today. You think they are not consistent with what scripture teaches because you are taking scripture out of context. The Catholic church IS the context of the entire NT. There is nothing written in it that does not seamlessly relate to Catholic Tradition and Teaching.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;2761382]If Christ’s sacrifice was sufficient, what is Paul “making up”?

24 Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church"Col 1:24

The death of Christ on the cross was totally sufficent to save us. Nothing can be added to that. What Paul is referring to the sufferings that he and other followers of Christ will also suffer for the cause of Christ in this world. These sufferings have no redeeming value in the sense that they add to what Christ has already won for us.

Jesus allows us to participate in His ministry of suffering and reconciling the world to Himself.

I agree so long as its qualified as i tried to explain above.

“Jesus alone” mentality is as erroneous as “sola scriptura”.

You do agree that only Christ can save us don’t you?

Do you also agree that only the scriptures are inspired-inerrant?

Not all the Teaching of Jesus and the Apostles is contained within the scripture, and that is how one can miss the point by rejecting the Apostolic Teachings.

I have yet to see any evidence of any Teaching of Jesus and the Apostles outside of the scriptures. Can you give me a couple of specific examples?

There is plenty yet to learn! For one, if you decide that you really will accept what the scriptures teach, you will come to the realization that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth, and that the truth of Christ is found within the church He founded.

I do accept this because this is what the scriptures do teach. However this needs to be qualified. All doctrines that a church teaches must be grounded in the scriptures for it to be truly binding. This is where the marian doctrines fail so clearly. Secondly, since the church is made up of fallen men who have and can err, we must not accept all that they teach as the truth without first looking to the scriptures. Third, the church is continually beset with false teachers who at times have been successful in getting their false teachings into the church itself. Both protestant and catholic churches have some false teachers.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;2761512]There is plenty yet to learn! For one, if you decide that you really will accept what the scriptures teach, you will come to the realization that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth, and that the truth of Christ is found within the church He founded.

The rest of the Apostolic Teaching that was not found in writing. Especially how to understand those writings in the way they were written.

Can you give me an example of this?

There we see the seeds of the infant Church. “early” is generally considered the first 400 years.

The Sacred Teachings of Jesus and the Apostles.

Then this means the Scriptures?

Yes,you can find these in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
It is not a “list” but a “whole” teaching, which is how it was delivered to us from the Apostles.

If i wanted to find out the origin of the traditions of the catholic church where should i go?

You can’t assert this, ja, because you have no proof to back it up. You are not finding these teachings in the early documents,and you assume, therefore that they do not exist. This is like saying that, since pyramids are not mentioned in the Bible, they do not exist On the contrary, we have identified some pyramids that Jesus may have walked by on his journey there and back.

Your church making claims about Mary that require support by your church. Without it, all you have is speculations that have no facts to back them up. I’m not making any claims about pyramids and the like from scripture. Your church is not only making claims from scripture but also history. I can know the pyramids exist not from scripture but history and archeology.

We know that Paul did not dispute any of these, since he did not write or teach against them as He did the other heresies. However, Mary had not yet died when he wrote his letters, so he may never have given consideration to her assumption.

Do any apostles mention her being immaculate concieved?

NOt a “list”. Sorry, it is more complex than that. They are a “whole” teaching that are to be taken togetherr.

There are lots of problems with “tradition” arguments. One is who decides what a Sacred Tradition vs a “regular tradition”? Who in the church decides these things and what is the criteria?

Are there Sacred Traditions being “formed” today?

We see that the representations of the gospels vary,a ndthat each have a specific audience in mind, and some of the gospels contain stories that others do not, and some contain details other do not, or have differently. Yes, the Catholic Church teaches all these things.

The Sacred Tradition does not depend upon Paul.

If not on the apostles then what do they depend on?

However, they are the same as what the Church teaches today.

How can that be when we know the apostles never taught these marian doctrines?

You think they are not consistent with what scripture teaches because you are taking scripture out of context. The Catholic church IS the context of the entire NT. There is nothing written in it that does not seamlessly relate to Catholic Tradition and Teaching.

Huh? You still need to understand the contexts of the books, circumstances and passages to truly understand what the scriptures teach. Without that you will arrive at all kinds of errors and that is exactly what has happened with these marian doctrines. Instead of letting the scriptures form doctrines the catholic church has forced the scriptures to say things it does not.

 

[guanophore]

The death of Christ on the cross was totally sufficent to save us. Nothing can be added to that. What Paul is referring to the sufferings that he and other followers of Christ will also suffer for the cause of Christ in this world. These sufferings have no redeeming value in the sense that they add to what Christ has already won for us. [/qoute]

Well, look here! You have just come across one of those Apostolic Teachings you are always asking about! I put it on another thread.

forum.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=2762107#post2762107

The Apostolic Teaching is that suffering does have merit.
justasking4;2761562:

You do believe that only Christ can save us don’t you?

Yes, I just think your concept of salvation is too small. this is why you cannot see that Mary is part of it.

Do you also agree that only the scriptures are inspired-inerrant?

No, we also know that the Apostolic Teaching and the Magesterium are inspired, and inerrant.

I have yet to see any evidence of any Teaching of Jesus and the Apostles outside of the scriptures. Can you give me a couple of specific examples?

In keeping with this thread, that Mary was given to the church at the foot of the cross, and that all the Apostles revered her as if she was their own mother.

However this needs to be qualified. All doctrines that a church teaches must be grounded in the scriptures for it to be truly binding. This is where the marian doctrines fail so clearly.

There is only one church, ja.

The Marian doctrines are grounded in Divine Revelation. We see the seeds of them in scripture. You cannot perceive that they are there because you reject the Apostolic Authority appointed by Jesus to lead the Church.

Secondly, since the church is made up of fallen men who have and can err, we must not accept all that they teach as the truth without first looking to the scriptures.

This rendering shows an incomplete understanding of the nature of the Church. The Church is the Body of Christ, and He is one with her. The two cannot be separated. the soul of the Church is the HS, who cannot err. This is why the Church cannot teach error.

However, I agree with you that the church is full of fallen men who do err. But since the Church preceeded the scriptures, and there is nothing in them that contradicts church teaching, checking them is always good.

Third, the church is continually beset with false teachers who at times have been successful in getting their false teachings into the church itself. Both protestant and catholic churches have some false teachers.

That does not make the Church itself fallen, any more than Judas’ betrayal makes Jesus’ teaching infallible.

 

[guanophore]

Can you give me an example of this?

Yes. We have from the Apostolic Teachings that the Body and Blood spoken about by Jesus in Jn. 6 is His literal Body and Blood, and not a sign or a metaphor.

Then this means the Scriptures?

The scriptures do capture and reflect what the Apostles taught, but don’t record the totality of the Sacred Traditions.

If i wanted to find out the origin of the traditions of the catholic church where should i go?

You would have to study the Jewish Talmud. However, you omay find The Catechism easier!

Your church making claims about Mary that require support by your church.

There are several errors in this statement. One is “your church” there is only one Church. Jesus did not found “Churches”. Secondly, we did not 'make up claims". these things were revealed to us by the HS. Thirdly, they do not require suppor by our church. We accept them by faith. On the contrary, YOU seem to be the one that requires proof, since you don’t accept the Apostolic Authority.

Without it, all you have is speculations that have no facts to back them up. I’m not making any claims about pyramids and the like from scripture. Your church is not only making claims from scripture but also history. I can know the pyramids exist not from scripture but history and archeology.

But they are not mentioned in scripture. It doesn;t SAY in there that Jesus ever walked by them!

There are lots of problems with “tradition” arguments. One is who decides what a Sacred Tradition vs a “regular tradition”? Who in the church decides these things and what is the criteria?

This is an excellent question. Because there is a difference. Sacred traditions are handed down to us from the Apostles, are confirmed by the scripture, and are ratified by infallible council or the Magesterium.

Are there Sacred Traditions being “formed” today?

No. All public revelation ceased with the death of the last Apostle.

If not on the apostles then what do they depend on?

Sacred Traditions do depend upon Apostolic Teachings. My point is that, just because Paul did not write about it, does not mean it is not an Apostolic Teaching.

How can that be when we know the apostles never taught these marian doctrines?

You don’t know what they taught, because you were not there.

Huh? You still need to understand the contexts of the books, circumstances and passages to truly understand what the scriptures teach. Without that you will arrive at all kinds of errors and that is exactly what has happened with these marian doctrines. Instead of letting the scriptures form doctrines the catholic church has forced the scriptures to say things it does not.

I agree that other types of context are also important. My point is that the NT was written by Catholics, for Catholics. There is nothing in the Church teaching that contradicts scripture. Holy writings being reviewed in the first 400 years were considered scripture only on the basis of whether they represented the Apostolic Teachings.

 

[justasking4]

justasking4;2761562:

The death of Christ on the cross was totally sufficent to save us. Nothing can be added to that. What Paul is referring to the sufferings that he and other followers of Christ will also suffer for the cause of Christ in this world. These sufferings have no redeeming value in the sense that they add to what Christ has already won for us. [/qoute]

Well, look here! You have just come across one of those Apostolic Teachings you are always asking about! I put it on another thread.

forum.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=2762107#post2762107

The Apostolic Teaching is that suffering does have merit.

Yes, I just think your concept of salvation is too small. this is why you cannot see that Mary is part of it.

No, we also know that the Apostolic Teaching and the Magesterium are inspired, and inerrant.

In keeping with this thread, that Mary was given to the church at the foot of the cross, and that all the Apostles revered her as if she was their own mother.

There is only one church, ja.

The Marian doctrines are grounded in Divine Revelation. We see the seeds of them in scripture. You cannot perceive that they are there because you reject the Apostolic Authority appointed by Jesus to lead the Church.

This rendering shows an incomplete understanding of the nature of the Church. The Church is the Body of Christ, and He is one with her. The two cannot be separated. the soul of the Church is the HS, who cannot err. This is why the Church cannot teach error.

However, I agree with you that the church is full of fallen men who do err. But since the Church preceeded the scriptures, and there is nothing in them that contradicts church teaching, checking them is always good.

That does not make the Church itself fallen, any more than Judas’ betrayal makes Jesus’ teaching infallible.

 

[LilyM]

That does not make the Church itself fallen, any more than Judas’ betrayal makes Jesus’ teaching infallible.

You mean fallible here.

People, please for the sake of clarity remember that there is a difference between fallible (error-prone) and infallible (without error), and peccable (capable of sin) and impeccable (incapable of sin).

I get the feeling that some of you think these are interchangeable like flammable and inflammable are. Not so.

End of grammar lesson back to the regular scheduled programming…