Catholics, what exactly do you believe about Mary?

[OpenYourBibles]

Just because you interpret scripture in a modern way you can't assume that those who hold to the ancient interpretations are wrong. Why should we believe you above those who learned the gospel from the apostles?

And again I request you show me where my interpretations are off. And please... don't believe me... believe what the Bible tells us together!

 

[OpenYourBibles]

A Catholic priest takes vows of celibacy when entering the Latin rite. The exceptions are for those who are already married.

Matt 19
11 “Not everyone can accept this saying,” he replied, “except those to whom celibacy has been granted,12because some men are celibate from birth, while some are celibate because they have been made that way by others. Still others are celibate because they have made themselves that way for the sake of the kingdom from heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.”

So I suppose you are not going to answer whether the church would allow me or forbid me to marry?

 

[Thursday]

And again I request you show me where my interpretations are off. And please... don't believe me... believe what the Bible tells us together!

The bible tells many people different things. That's why there are hundreds of protestant denominations, all claiming that the bible is the Word of God, but teaching multiple contradictory doctrines from the same book. Jesus didn't want this, which is why he gave us a Church and told us to listen to the Church.

You don't accept the real presence of the body and blood of Jesus in the Eucharist, but the early Christians did.

You don't accept the authority of the Church leaders, but the early Christians did.

You don't accept the ability of a priest to forgive sins by the authority of Christ, but the early Christians did.

These and others are scriptural beliefs that you reject.

 

[Thursday]

So I suppose you are not going to answer whether the church would allow me or forbid me to marry?

I did answer. If you take a vow of celibacy of course you cannot marry. However, the Church doesn't force you to be a priest, that is your choice.

The Church praises marriage and is a strong supporter of marriage.

 

[wilts43]

Thanks for those explanations for a couple of the claims. However, Luke 1:28 does not use the words "full of grace". It does give honor to Mary but does not indicate "full of grace".

I have heard of the connection, that many make, between Mary and the ark of the covenant. However, there is no scripture to back it up.



I agree, Enoch and Elijah were taken without an earthly death. The Bible makes it clear, in it's scriptures. There are no scriptures that indicate that this happened to Mary.

Could Christ have done this for His mother? Of course. It just doesn't say He did, anywhere.

Protestants know as much about Mary as the word of God tells them.

You won't find "The Trinity" explicitly in The Bible either.....it is a Catholic doctrine in response to heretical challenges. Ditto Marian doctrines.

You are stuck on sola scriptura....which also isn't in The Bible.

And "The Bible" isn't in The Bible!.... because it is a Catholic selection of writings made 350 years into the life of The Catholic Church.
A selection authorised by Councils of Catholic bishops like those who declared the Trinity....& Marian Dogmas.

Christ left us His One Church ....not a book. The Church gave us the book, alongside its meanings and oral traditions.
It was a continuation of Judaism (Those who accepted the Messiah) which had Talmud as well as Torah.

The OT (& NT) is full of Mary.....but you have to see typology.
Do you see Jesus as the New (Greater) Adam?
If so....Do you see Mary as the New (Greater) Eve?
There are so many allusions to this (see my posts above) That is scripture!

As for Ark of The New Covenant scripture. (Aside from the total exact parrallels of function & contents..... and of Mary/Old Ark both visiting The Judaen hills for 3 months where David/John The Baptist leaps before it/her and The Shekinah "overshadowing" Mary). This was written for Jews who would "get it" right away....not for Protestants.
Anyhoo....
See Rev 11:19 -12:1....following (NB There are no chapter divisions in the orriginal)
In a few verses Mary is portrayed as the Ark in Heaven; Queen of Heaven; & Eve (verses the serpent/dragon viz. Gen. 3:15)
Could it be you don't want to see these things in scripture.....because they "are catholic"? Because they are certainly there.......over and over and over again.

 

[Halbhh]

He spoke and said those words to emphasize that God's central concern with humanity is that we do as he says - follow his commandments - that our deeds comport with what he wants of us. The Jewish woman who said that to him was not herself a Christian, knowing anything about the virgin birth. To her, Jesus was just an itinerant preacher with the good word. She praised him by praising his mother, a traditional thing to do.

Jesus doubled down on his teaching, by coming back at her that even more blessed than family relationships was obedience to God.

I can understand why you would think that this somehow diminishes the importance of Mary, his mother. And I can understand why, if it were important to diminish the importance of Mary, somebody would point to this.

I would merely say that the Bible cannot teach the full importance of Mary, because God didn't use Mary as an emissary to Christians in the First Century. But in the 16th, 19th and 20th Centuries, Marian visitations have been the sources of the most powerful divine revelations and exposition of miracles.

So I would say that given the reality of what we know now, given those events, that when we read back into Scripture, if faced with the prospect of something like this that can be taken two ways, we err if we interpret the Scripture to diminish Mary, when God has greatly exalted her during our own centuries.

Thank you. I don't feel you answered all about this, but you did answer a part of it, as to your own view. I want you to know I don't think a person can diminish the importance of Mary. How could one, even were they to try?

Certainly to try to intentionally though would be a sin.

We don't presume strangers whom we don't know are doing sins, of course, unless we have a clear witness first hand directly to it. We don't guess and suppose and attribute without evidence. I know factually no one has seen or hear or read me trying to diminish Mary in any way because I have not.

But I do indeed have real questions about viewpoints and information that I do not yet understand.

Is that ok?

 

[Vicomte13]

Thank you. I don't feel you answered all about this, but you did answer a part of it, as to your own view. I want you to know I don't think a person can diminish the importance of Mary. How could one, even were they to try?

Certainly to try to intentionally though would be a sin.

We don't presume strangers whom we don't know are doing sins, of course, unless we have a clear witness first hand directly to it. We don't guess and suppose and attribute without evidence. I know factually no one has seen or hear or read me trying to diminish Mary in any way because I have not.

But I do indeed have real questions about viewpoints and information that I do not yet understand.

Is that ok?

Of course it's ok! You're trying to figure things out, to understand. We all do this. I'm willing to answer anything you ask, though sometimes I do answer questions with a question of my own.

 

[Halbhh]

It suddenly came to me just now a related verse to my question in post #150:

"46 While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. 47 Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.”

48 He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?”

49 Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”

------

We know that Christ was speaking to people, just as in Luke 11, who most of them would not yet understand at that time Who He was, the Messiah. They did not know, and some thought Him a prophet, for instance. Later it would be clear that Peter recognized He was more than only a prophet, this would become evident later in Matthew 16.

I do *not* think this diminishes the importance of Mary at all, not even the slightest bit. She was even before the angel visited her a pure vessel of righteousness and correct relationship with God we can just piece together even from the text and her responses, such as the Magnificat. Because of her direct and prolonged relationship directly with Christ first hand, we can at the minimum expect her to be far more advanced than any of us or anyone we have known in her qualities and gain in wisdom and love, as the expected outcome. Saying that I do not even hint that more cannot be, but rather that this is already clear from the text, even for someone not hearing more yet than is in the gospel texts.

This passage from Matthew 12 though seems to relay a similar message as that in Luke 11 v 28-29, which itself has a word He chose in it: "more", specifically "more blessed". That's especially dramatic in Luke 11 for us, we who know Mary is not only blessed by the powerful and wonderful blessing of a truly righteous child of great quality, alone -- as many in the crowd listening at that moment may have thought (is that correct?), but more even.

He would know.

He would know that we would read this later, knowing Whom He is....

 

[Albion]

You won't find "The Trinity" explicitly in The Bible either.....it is a Catholic doctrine in response to heretical challenges.

You won't find that word in the Bible. You will find Father, Son, and Holy Ghost identified as God. Taking account of the fact that we all agree that the Bible teaches that there is only one God, what word do you think would describe this better?

 

[OpenYourBibles]

There was the Church Jesus started, which is the one, holy, and apostolic Church that came to be based in Rome. If you can tell us why the Church led by the successors of the apostles is not the Church Jesus started please do so.

This is exactly the whole point of our contention! I'm glad you and Albion could flush it out better than I could, I was growing weary! The church that Jesus started, the New Testament Church that started in Acts 2 does not match up in principle, doctrine, or practice with the Catholic Church that came to be based in Rome or the Catholic Church we know today!

 

[Albion]

This is exactly the whole point of our contention! I'm glad you and Albion could flush it out better than I could, I was growing weary! The church that Jesus started, the New Testament Church that started in Acts 2 does not match up in principle, doctrine, or practice with the Catholic Church that came to be based in Rome or the Catholic Church we know today!

This is true, but I still think that it's important to point to doctrines that are wrong, not to optional matters that may be unlike what the first Christians did (and, honestly, there is NO Christian church that does do things exactly as the first churches did) but which don't pose that problem (false doctrine).

 

[OpenYourBibles]

A Catholic priest takes vows of celibacy when entering the Latin rite. The exceptions are for those who are already married.

Matt 19
11 “Not everyone can accept this saying,” he replied, “except those to whom celibacy has been granted,12because some men are celibate from birth, while some are celibate because they have been made that way by others. Still others are celibate because they have made themselves that way for the sake of the kingdom from heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.”

He has made a vow required by no one but the Church - certainly there is no evidence of such a vow being necessitated by God - and by that vow to a church he has been forbidden to marry?

To answer my question - So, if he wishes to remain a priest his is forbidden from that marriage he desires?

Jesus makes no claim that it is better for the Kingdom if the church leadership remains unmarried - Matt 19 included.

And to be honest I could care less about whether these men want to marry or not, what I am pointing to is the mandate put on these men if they wish to continue in the priestly office vs. the acceptance shown by Paul of both married and unmarried.

Simply put Paul would allow a man, a priest, even a Bishop to marry and be the husband of one wife. While the Catholic church would require a man to give up his office of priest and or Bishop if he desired marriage.

The words of Paul have been taken to a completely different level and it is not suggested or even encouraged that a man remain unmarried it is demanded. And so again we see how individuals claiming to be descendants of the Apostolic church finding themselves and their church doctrine at odds with scripture.

 

[JacksBratt]

You won't find "The Trinity" explicitly in The Bible either.....it is a Catholic doctrine in response to heretical challenges. Ditto Marian doctrines.

The word "trinity" is a term used to describe the triune God. It is a recognized term used to describe a very biblical entity.
This is not the same as changing the meaning of a piece of scripture.

You are stuck on sola scriptura....which also isn't in The Bible.

You say that like it's a bad thing.... taking the Bible as it is written is now a considered wrong?

And "The Bible" isn't in The Bible!.... because it is a Catholic selection of writings made 350 years into the life of The Catholic Church.
A selection authorised by Councils of Catholic bishops like those who declared the Trinity....& Marian Dogmas.

Well, it is the "Bible" to me and millions of others who read it, study it and rely on it as the fully true, fully endorsed, fully inspired word of God.

Christ left us His One Church ....not a book. The Church gave us the book, alongside its meanings and oral traditions.
It was a continuation of Judaism (Those who accepted the Messiah) which had Talmud as well as Torah.

So, We are to rely on the Catholic Church for our direction? Sorry, God left us His word and it is still as applicable today as it was at the time of Christ and at the time of Moses. Both the Old and New Testaments are living word of God.

The OT (& NT) is full of Mary.....but you have to see typology.
Do you see Jesus as the New (Greater) Adam?
If so....Do you see Mary as the New (Greater) Eve?
There are so many allusions to this (see my posts above) That is scripture!

Sorry, I do see Jesus as the new "Adam" but I do not see any need for Mary to be a parallel to Eve. Eve was Adam's wife who was made from him. Eve was not Adams mother.

As for Ark of The New Covenant scripture. (Aside from the total exact parrallels of function & contents..... and of Mary/Old Ark both visiting The Judaen hills for 3 months where David/John The Baptist leaps before it/her and The Shekinah "overshadowing" Mary). This was written for Jews who would "get it" right away....not for Protestants.
Anyhoo....
See Rev 11:19 -12:1....following (NB There are no chapter divisions in the orriginal)
In a few verses Mary is portrayed as the Ark in Heaven; Queen of Heaven; & Eve (verses the serpent/dragon viz. Gen. 3:15)
Could it be you don't want to see these things in scripture.....because they "are catholic"? Because they are certainly there.......over and over and over again.

I haven't the time right now to check these out but I will.

 

[OpenYourBibles]

This is true, but I still think that it's important to point to doctrines that are wrong, not to optional matters that may be unlike what the first Christians did (and, honestly, there is NO Christian church that does do things exactly as the first churches did) but which don't pose that problem (false doctrine).

But shouldn't that be the end goal!

I am as lined up with the doctrine of scripture as I can be, and when I am shown where I have a short coming I work to fix it. But to blatantly continue in practices that are clearly extra-biblical even completely contrary to biblical doctrine is not the same as ignorance and desire for further instruction.

 

[Vicomte13]

The supposed new revelation that flies in the face of the old and doctrine established by Peter and the Apostolic church you claim to descend from, how can that be accounted for?

I don't think that the new revelations "fly in the face of the old". When speaking of Mary, I think that nothing latterly revealed by Mary "flies in the face" of the old. I think they are additional information that has to be accounted for.

It will not do at all, for example, to simply ignore the healing miracles at Lourdes. Those are real, and within the realm of modern scientific data. They happened, and they are remarkable. They happened at a Marian shrine, where Mary appeared (or at least was said to have appeared by a girl) - that girl devoted her life to God as a religious, and when she died, her body did not decay. This is all a matter of scrutinized public records of the late 19th and 20th Centuries. You can look at her body today, in a glass case in a church.

One can look around the world and one will not find another Lourdes. There are claims of miracles here and there, but no scientific documentation on an ongoing basis, nothing that has been so studied, corroborated, examined.

The hearings at Lourdes are real, and numerous, and scientifically documented.

So by what power do they occur? God? (Can Satan cast out Satan?).

Would God make such a singular display of miracles at a place that offended him because it was based on lies or things that don't appear in the Bible?

 

[Albion]

He has made a vow required by no one but the Church - certainly there is no evidence of such a vow being necessitated by God - and by that vow to a church he has been forbidden to marry?

It can be said that it's wrong to forbid married men to be ordained or, for that matter, forbid unmarried priests to get married. However, I have some sympathy for the Catholic Church on this matter for the following reasons:

1. No one has to take those vows if he doesn't want to.
2. It's the Latin rite of the Catholic Church that bars married priests. The Church has many other rites that have married priests.
3. Even in the Latin rite, it's not a firm prohibition. There are married priests in the Latin rite, men who have converted, after marrying, from Anglican or Lutheran churches.

and most of all

4. It's not a doctrine. If a Catholic says that this is nuts and the Church ought to change it back to the way it once was, there's nothing wrong with doing that. He's not a heretic, not in trouble with the pastor, or anything like that.

 

[Thursday]

This is exactly the whole point of our contention! I'm glad you and Albion could flush it out better than I could, I was growing weary! The church that Jesus started, the New Testament Church that started in Acts 2 does not match up in principle, doctrine, or practice with the Catholic Church that came to be based in Rome or the Catholic Church we know today!

That is your opinion and your opinion is false. Your modern interpretation does not match up with the interpretations of the early Christians who learned the gospel from the apostles.

Have you read the writings of the early Church? They interpret scripture as Catholics do today, not as you do.

 

[kepha31]

So I suppose you are not going to answer whether the church would allow me or forbid me to marry?

Regarding you post on page 10, there is plenty in scripture about Mary. You have to take off your Protestant welding goggles, you can't see much of anything with them on. wiltz posted a good list in #225, but it is by no means comprehensive.

"...These Fundamentalists are often surprised to learn that even today celibacy is not the rule for all Catholic priests. In fact, for Eastern Rite Catholics, married priests are the norm, just as they are for Orthodox and Oriental Christians...
...As these variations and exceptions indicate, priestly celibacy is not an unchangeable dogma but a disciplinary rule. The fact that Peter was married is no more contrary to the Catholic faith than the fact that the pastor of the nearest Maronite Catholic church is married. "
Celibacy and the Priesthood | Catholic Answers​

In your scenario, you or any priest is free to go back on their vows they made to God (not to the Church) and get married. That means wasting 7 years of education and spiritual formation. The Church is not a policeman. Celibacy is a discipline only in the Roman (Latin) rite. The Church does not take away the wife and children of converted ministers seeking ordination. Exceptions are made because celibacy is a discipline, not a doctrine.

I think Protestants are so caught up in our sex crazed culture that total dedication to God, giving up even having a family to serve full time, is unthinkable. That's partly why they argue so much about Mary's perpetual virginity. Wasn't Jesus celibate?
Some Protestants therefore imagine that because priests cannot marry, the Church is enacting the “doctrines of demons” and “forbidding marriage.”

But this is a hasty assessment, given that the Church also celebrates marriage as a sacrament. It is also, by the way, a very narrow reading of Paul, who was himself a celibate and who urged consecrated celibacy as the higher vocation than marriage: 1 Corinthians 7:1-7

former Protestant minister ordained as a Catholic priest,
with his family​

 

[Thursday]

He has made a vow required by no one but the Church - certainly there is no evidence of such a vow being necessitated by God - and by that vow to a church he has been forbidden to marry?

To answer my question - So, if he wishes to remain a priest his is forbidden from that marriage he desires?

Jesus makes no claim that it is better for the Kingdom if the church leadership remains unmarried - Matt 19 included.

And to be honest I could care less about whether these men want to marry or not, what I am pointing to is the mandate put on these men if they wish to continue in the priestly office vs. the acceptance shown by Paul of both married and unmarried.

Simply put Paul would allow a man, a priest, even a Bishop to marry and be the husband of one wife. While the Catholic church would require a man to give up his office of priest and or Bishop if he desired marriage.

The words of Paul have been taken to a completely different level and it is not suggested or even encouraged that a man remain unmarried it is demanded. And so again we see how individuals claiming to be descendants of the Apostolic church finding themselves and their church doctrine at odds with scripture.

Jesus gave the Church the authority to bind and loose, ie. to make rules.

Jesus told us to listen to the Church.

Jesus told the Church leaders that those who reject them are rejecting him.

Why would we want to reject those sent by Jesus?

 

[Albion]

But shouldn't that be the end goal!

Not necessarily. In my church, the priests wear attire, during worship, that is copied from the robes used by people in the first century, both in church and out. Does your pastor dress that way for church? Why not, if you think today's churches ought to "match up" with the first churches?

OK, you may say that this is a difference, but it doesn't go against something we find in the Bible. What then, do you think of churches that do not observe the Lord's Supper each Sunday? The New Testament says that they did back then.