A Necessity - 4 Marian Doctrines

[JoeT]

It seems you misunderstand. Sola Scriptura does not mean we can ONLY use scripture but that scripture alone stands as the ULTIMATE authority. Ironically Catholics believe in "Sola Ecclessia" but don't like the term and try to reject the notion that the church alone stands as the ultimate authority. Yet, reality dictates this is the truth! You see who decides what the scripture authority says, but the church. Who decides which traditions should be accepted, which rejected and how should they be applied but the church. In other words, the church dictates both scripture and tradition and stands alone as the ULTIMATE authority.... Frankly, there is no scriptural support for this!

Well, yes there is Scriptural support for the authority of the Church. To the Twelve, representing the Church Jesus Christ said, "whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven." [Matthew 18:18]. You see, He built His Church on St. Peter, not SAM, not Fred, not Luther, etc, etc. One Body, One Church.

Absolutely God wants a personal relationship with Him, so close He lives in us and us in Him....

Really, God lives in you with sin present? That's unique. According to your own philosophy you are a child of wrath, sin, are you not? How then does the Holy Spirit live in you.

but nowhere does scripture or for that matter any early church record does it say we cannot do so without knowing Mary. This would make Mary and yet the bible says there is only one intermediary between God and man, and that's Jesus!!

I didn't say there was any one else but Jesus Christ, our savior, never suggested otherwise. You are imprinting your doubt onto me. I know this because Mary did live with God in her, without sin.

Saying you don't worship Mary, believing passionately that you don't worship Mary, does not mean you don't worship Mary. Basing your claim that you don't worship Mary solely on the fact that you don't think you do is not evidence of anything but could be denial and delusion. Look, I made the point really clear and if you have something to offer on that point, I'd love to hear it. Basing your claim that you don't worship Mary solely on the fact that you don't think you do is not evidence of anything but could be denial and delusion.

That makes a whole lot of sense. Lets see what you said: I passionate that I don't worship Mary, believe I don't worship Mary, consequently, I worship Mary. But, I'm delusional? You're all over the board.

Look, I made the point really clear and if you have something to offer on that point, I'd love to hear it. The fact is that you cannot point to any scripture to demonstrate where the line is between veneration and worship... and so you cannot say God does not see your veneration of worship. Granted I cannot say it is worship either but then I'm in no risk of falling foul to worshiping and contravening God's rules.

Let me see, if I understand in your paradigm is faith based on probabilistic science, and not knowledge of God? I thought faith was the substance of things hoped for, yet unknown. [Cf. Hebrews 11:1]

Let's also be clear, whilst I can't say your veneration of Mary is worship, I can definitely say that some Catholics veneration is worship since they bow to Mary's statue and kiss her feet, just like one would worship an idol.

Your perception is because says Johnann Eck that men outside the Church are "without the fear of God and without trust in God is rather the actual guilt of an adult than the offense of a recently-born infant . . ." Deut 1:39. (Johann Eck, The Confutatio Pontificia, 1530)

For my foolish people have not known me: they are foolish and senseless children: they are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge."
[Jeremias 4:22]

Well, that depends on your definition of "willy-nilly" but how Catholics adopt doctrines isn't relevant here.

Okay, I think she was blessed greater than any human being in all mankind's history. She was blessed more than Elizabeth, David, Moses, Abraham, etc.... but that's it, we're done. They were all blessed, she was blessed more! So every generation, that recognizes truth recognizes this truth.... and we're still done.

Absolutely not. Jesus did't dispense His grace to those in the chapters of the bible, through Mary then, and He doesn't now. There is NOTHING in the bible or even the early church to support such a claim. It maybe controversial but Mary's work was pretty much after Jesus ceased to be an infant. At that point his earthly father took over the training of Jesus both in spiritual and vocational matters.

What? Pr 8 is about wisdom, it's not about Mary!

Nothing in scripture says Mary was without sin and immaculate. It says she was a virgin, nothing more, nothing less.

This is what I find so amazing... Catholics ignore history and scripture to make up stuff! The fact is in Jewish belief sin passed through the father to the children not the mother... and as Jesus was a Jewish man, it's what he would have been taught to. Nowhere in scripture does He correct this view and the reason is quite obvious.... scripture says so! "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man..." Sin came through a man, not a woman!

Firstly, I always find it amusing when people appeal to people like Ambrose because in doing so they are in effect claiming Ambrose couldn't make a mistake on this. So when Ambrose acted pretty shamelessly in his anti-Semitic beliefs I guess we all have to fully endorse his actions and beliefs because he couldn't be mistaken. In other words, Catholics like to latch onto the teaching and actions of such "church fathers" when it suits them and dismiss the beliefs of these "church fathers" when it doesn't!

Secondly, worthy of being blessed to be Jesus mother doesn't mean sinless, no matter how hard you try to make it so. Furthermore, the bible actually tells us that we can be blessed in the same way as Mary!! The word Mary uses for being blessed in Lu 1:48 is "makarizō" . It's the same word in "Jam 5:11 "Behold, we consider those blessed who remained steadfast. You have heard of the steadfastness of Job, and you have seen the purpose of the Lord, how the Lord is compassionate and merciful." Here we see Joel had the same "makarizō" blessing Mary had for being steadfast and we can too!!

That's right those who remain steadfast. Not those who jump ship.

JoeT

 

[Darren Court]

Well, yes there is Scriptural support for the authority of the Church. To the Twelve, representing the Church Jesus Christ said, "whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven." [Matthew 18:18]. You see, He built His Church on St. Peter, not SAM, not Fred, not Luther, etc, etc. One Body, One Church.

Sadly misusing scripture isn't a good way to justify belief. How does Mt 18:18 give authority?

 

[Darren Court]

Really, God lives in you with sin present? That's unique. According to your own philosophy you are a child of wrath, sin, are you not? How then does the Holy Spirit live in you.

Romans 8:10“But if Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, the spirit is life because of righteousness.”

Galatians 1:15-16“But when it pleased God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called by His grace, to reveal His Son in me.”

Galatians 2:20“I am crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live in faith, the faith of the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself up for me.”

Galatians 4:19“My children, with whom I travail again in birth until Christ is formed in you.”

Ephesians 3:17“That Christ may make His home in your hearts through faith, that you, being rooted and grounded in love.”

Colossians 1:27“To whom God willed to make known what are the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.”

I didn't say there was any one else but Jesus Christ, our savior, never suggested otherwise. You are imprinting your doubt onto me. I know this because Mary did live with God in her, without sin.

That's odd. You admit Christ never said or suggested that you cannot know Him without knowing His mother. You say that Christ never suggested otherwise which is not only false but a strange basis upon which to believe anything, but seems to be greatly used by Catholics. Christ didn't say a lot of things that we don't believe. eg. Peter is in charge, Steven is sinless (note he is described with the exact same word "blessed" that Mary is described with and Catholics use to argue she is sinless), etc.

Irrespective, we do know that MANY people KNEW Jesus without knowing His mother when He was on earth threw the various accounts and interactions where His mother wasn't present... and so the ONLY biblical reality is that we don't need to know His mother to know Him

That makes a whole lot of sense. Lets see what you said: I passionate that I don't worship Mary, believe I don't worship Mary, consequently, I worship Mary. But, I'm delusional? You're all over the board.

Sorry but you're just being argumentative here because you didn't read or understand what I wrote. If that makes you feel good to do so and then judge me delusional, then so be it. I won't join you on that road

Let me see, if I understand in your paradigm is faith based on probabilistic science, and not knowledge of God? I thought faith was the substance of things hoped for, yet unknown.

Trying to move the goalpost so you can score a goal is great if you want to win the game but poor if you want truth or you want to convince others. Irrespective, ALL faith must be underpinned by truth not imagination. That is the kind of things hoped for an unknown. The rest belongs in Disneyland. So in response to a challenge to demonstrate faith based on scripture, you argue you don't need any!

Your perception is because says Johnann Eck that men outside the Church are "without the fear of God and without trust in God is rather the actual guilt of an adult than the offense of a recently-born infant . . ." Deut 1:39. (Johann Eck, The Confutatio Pontificia, 1530)

For my foolish people have not known me: they are foolish and senseless children: they are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge."
[Jeremias 4:22]

Guessing what my perception is based on, is either pure fantasy else claim for extra sensory powers. I'll assume the former unless you specifically claim the later. The fact is I have witnessed Catholic worship of Mary and even had MANY Catholics express their concern that some Catholics have crossed the line into worship of Mary. If you wish to deny it because you have made such a heavy emotional investment in it, so be it, you'll answer to God and then realise this conversation was at least part of where you ran out of excuse

 

[Landon Caeli]

A Confused God according to the silliness we on display here!

Surely you do believe *some* Catholic dogmas, right? Like the Latin word, and concept of the Holy Trinity..? Because the word "trinity" is not found in the Bible, but rather from a council of Bishops in Rome.

So Christians like yourself believe *some* Catholic dogmas not found in the Bible, at least... Just not all of them.

...Doesn't really seem all that silly when considering this.

 

[Darren Court]

Surely you do believe *some* Catholic dogmas, right? Like the Latin word, and concept of the Holy Trinity..? Because the word "trinity" is not found in the Bible, but rather from a council of Bishops in Rome.

So Christians like yourself believe *some* Catholic dogmas not found in the Bible, at least... Just not all of them.

...Doesn't really seem all that silly when considering this.

This is a perfect example of a strawman argument...
... You decide what my argument is
... You demonstrate that this fictitious argument is wrong
... In order to claim or infer I'm stupid

Strawman arguments are the refuge of the desperate!

So Christians like yourself believe *some* Catholic dogmas not found in the Bible, at least... Just not all of them.

No I don't believe in ANY Catholic dogma that is not directly supported by scripture and if I happen to believe in ANY Catholic dogma or doctrine for that matter I do so, not because they are Catholic dogma/doctrine but because they are right there in scripture!

 

[Landon Caeli]

This is a perfect example of a strawman argument...
... You decide what my argument is
... You demonstrate that this fictitious argument is wrong
... In order to claim or infer I'm stupid

Strawman arguments are the refuge of the desperate!


No I don't believe in ANY Catholic dogma that is not directly supported by scripture and if I happen to believe in ANY Catholic dogma or doctrine for that matter I do so, not because they are Catholic dogma/doctrine but because they are right there in scripture!

Can you show me then where the concept of Trinity is expressed in scripture? Because from what I see, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit tend to be spoken of separately.

I need to see where the Bible says they are one. Explicitly.

 

[Darren Court]

Can you show me then where the concept of Trinity is expressed in scripture? Because from what I see, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit tend to be spoken of separately.

I need to see where the Bible says they are one. Explicitly.

Yes and no! Yes because I have a hundred page document that deals with possibly a couple of hundred bible verses that directly or indirectly to the Trinity. No because I'm not going to post the contents here (not structured well or proof read because it's in my own note style)

It would seem by inference you believe the Catholic Church made up this doctrine without scriptural support!

 

[Landon Caeli]

Yes and no! Yes because I have a hundred page document that deals with possibly a couple of hundred bible verses that directly or indirectly to the Trinity. No because I'm not going to post the contents here (not structured well or proof read because it's in my own note style)

It would seem by inference you believe the Catholic Church made up this doctrine without scriptural support!

I only need one example.

 

[Darren Court]

I only need one example.

I'll discuss giving you one example when you answer the point that "you believe the Catholic Church made up this doctrine without scriptural support"

If you do, then my response will be one thing
If you don't then my response will be entirely different
..and I've no mind to go down a rabbit hole!

 

[Landon Caeli]

I'll discuss giving you one example when you answer the point that "you believe the Catholic Church made up this doctrine without scriptural support"

If you do, then my response will be one thing
If you don't then my response will be entirely different
..and I've no mind to go down a rabbit hole!

Yes, I believe the Holy Church came to the concept of "Trinity" outside scripture.

...Your turn.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

I only need one example.

The OT teaches that there is one God. The NT has Jesus saying he was sent from His father and that he and his father are one. We know the Jews understood what he was claiming because they tried to stone him for blasphemy. There are numerous verses that say the Holy Spirit comes from God and is part of the one God. So:

1. There is one God
2. Jesus claims that he and the Father are one
3. The Holy Spirit is God

Thus we have 3 persons claiming to be that one God. Never does the Bible teach there are 3 gods. One God in three persons. The word trinity came later as a useful label to describe a triune God. The Scriptures define that there is one God in three persons. The label came later but the creation of the label was not when the concept of the trinity became known. It was not new revelation. We don't have the concept of the Trinity thanks to the RC church. It was there in Scripture. We don't need one neat, clear-cut verse when these other verses collectively clearly teach the concept. If you want a single verse, this one comes close:

Matthew 3:16-17​

16 And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him; 17 and behold, a voice from heaven said, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.”

Here we have the trinity. Jesus, "the Spirit of God" (i.e. the Holy Spirit), and the voice from heaven saying "This is my beloved Son" (i.e. the Father).

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Just to clear things up, this is the wrong intention and therefore would invalidate the Baptism

I don't understand your statement

She still teaches no salvation outside the Church.

Validly baptized is a high bar to reach. Every validly baptized person is a member of the Body of Christ. The Church has always taught that. And the Catholic Church is the One True Church. She has always taught that

Infants or those before the age of reason who are validly baptized don't need other sacraments to remain part of the Body of Christ.

The Church has always taught that.

You are not. By believing heresy, you are excommunicated ipso facto.

Trent:

If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone,[114] meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema.

I submit you believe a false gospel in which you must add to the justifying grace of Jesus Christ in order to be saved. What he did is not sufficient. You must "cooperate" which involves good works, confession, etc. That is not the Gospel. That is "another Gospel." Paul said let such as who preach another gospel be anathema!

 

[BobRyan]

The four Marian dogmas regarding Mary are 1 - the Mother of God, 2- Immaculate Conception, 3 - perpetual virginity, and 4- Assumption,

None of which are in the Bible.

1. No one in all of the NT calls Mary "the mother of God"
2. No one in all of scripture says mary was born sinless or was sinless her entire life etc. Rather she calls Christ "her savior"
3. No one in all of scripture says Mary was always a virgin
4. No one in all of scripture says Mary was bodily assumed into heaven

So then what is the source for those ideas?

 

[BobRyan]

There are several ways Mary’s perpetual virginity focuses our attention to who Jesus is and what He is. We declare that Jesus Christ is the Messias wholly God and wholly man. Fleshy things like rabbits beget rabbits, not toads, not birds.

When corrupt flesh man begets the image of himself, he gets corrupt flesh. We inherit the absence of original justice that was once a part of man’s inheritance. Thus, men inherit original sin through birth. Mary then being incorruptible receiving the grace of justification at birth, never experiences sin. Consequently, when her Son is born he does not contract original sin.

That turns into an infinite loop.

If Christ needed a mother to be born without sin so He could be without sin - then His grandmother also needed to be born without sin so that His mother could be born without sin. And so also His great-grandmother so His grandmother could be born without sin... goes all the way back to Eve claiming she too had to be without sin.

Don't know where that doctrine comes from - but it is not in the Bible

 

[concretecamper]

I don't understand your statement

I submit you believe a false gospel in which you must add to the justifying grace of Jesus Christ in order to be saved. What he did is not sufficient. You must "cooperate" which involves good works, confession, etc. That is not the Gospel. That is "another Gospel." Paul said let such as who preach another gospel be anathema!

I'm not surprised. However, my belief is backed up by scripture and is consistent with close to 2,000 years of Church teaching. I'm sure you won't mind if I don't follow man made novel ideas

 

[Darren Court]

Yes, I believe the Holy Church came to the concept of "Trinity" outside scripture.

...Your turn.

Wow.... Wow.... Wow... then you have a huge problem in contending that there is any infallibility in church doctrine and I'm shocked.

Most people think that the Arian controversy was settled at the Council of Nicea in 325 but the reality was that it was short lived victory for Athanasius and his supporters because in the next sixty years or so, the battle (literally battle with Christians killing Christians) raged on and infact he was exiled five times for his view that Christ was not created but God Himself. In other words, church doctrine flip flopped between Arian and Athansius. By 381 at the Council of Constantinople, the debate included whether the Holy Spirit was God with no clear resolution with Archbishop Gregory residing. When he got ill, a non-Christian senator was appointed (i.e. NOT someone from the church), Nectarius and he presided over the agreement that the Holy Spirit and Christ's divinity... and this the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed was the formalisation of the Trinity doctrine!


If scripture doesn't provide support that's a huge problem for Catholics because there's a HUGE question mark on which authority the doctrine was created under.
1) Scripture - you ruled that out
2) The Church - it can't be the church, not least because of the flip flopping but also because it was decided under the direction of a Pagan
3) Apostolic Succession - can't have played a part because it wouldn't have taken over 300 years, bloodshed and debate!

Conversely, Protestants don't have that problem because they can see the Trinity on the pages of scripture.

So I'll give you just one because that's what you asked for and if you're really interested you'll do what I did and study the bible to consider how many there are and create your own notes.

The one I'm going to give you though is one that in fairness the early church quickly lost as they the "church fathers" deliberately distanced themselves from all things Jewish. Sadly in doing so they threw out truth.
John 21:11 "So Simon Peter climbed back into the boat and dragged the net ashore. It was full of large fish, 153, but even with so many the net was not torn."

The question of 153 fish has long been debated and there are many different ideas, some better than others. There, of course, many who think the number is irrelevant but the problem with that is it makes no sense if John's gospel is part of God's "living and active" word. If the bible is God's book the number 153 was included because God wanted it included.

So what does it mean? Well, Jesus sages were known to play with alphanumerics where words have numerical values and numbers have corresponding words. It's done by giving each letter a value in the Hebrew alphabet. In the equivalent English "A" would be "1", "B" would be "2", etc. The number 153 would in Hebrew spell out something. That something is "I am God". Only Hebrew sages would know this. We're not sure if Jesus explained this to the disciples and it got lost along the way, especially with Christian's distancing themselves from all things Jewish, but we know two things... i) God intended it to be in His word ii) It spells "I am God".

You might WANT to dismiss this and not bother with hundreds of other verses that directly attest to the Trinity, in the strange hope that God's word does not demonstrate the veracity of the Trinity, and instead accept that the flawed church presided at Constantinople by a pagan was God's chosen root to bring such infallible teaching, but I'll stick with God's word!

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

I'm not surprised. However, my belief is backed up by scripture and is consistent with close to 2,000 years of Church teaching. I'm sure you won't mind if I don't follow man made novel ideas

Maybe 1600+ years of RC teaching but it's not Biblical and not believed much outside the RC church.

 

[Darren Court]

I'm not surprised. However, my belief is backed up by scripture and is consistent with close to 2,000 years of Church teaching. I'm sure you won't mind if I don't follow man made novel ideas

You're having a laugh or dreaming! 2,000 years? The Catholic Church has been making stuff up. There's very little in the Catholic Church that has been believed for over 1,000 years and even less that didn't evolve through argument, debate, threats and even bloodshed!

...but of course, that process is infinitely more reliable than God's "living and active" word because God was incapable of ensuring the precise words He desired on the pages of His book!

My favourite is how the infallible Magisterium decided on the validity of the Trinity in Constantinople! No resolution could be found over the council whilst Archbishop Gregory presided but when he got ill and a Pagan senator was brought in, he was able to solve the conflict to become the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed... i.e the birth of formalization of the Trinity! That's a PAGAN SENATOR!!

 

[concretecamper]

Maybe 1600+ years of RC teaching but it's not Biblical and not believed much outside the RC church.

undoubtedly heresy has pulled many from His Catholic Church

 

[concretecamper]

You're having a laugh or dreaming! 2,000 years? The Catholic Church has been making stuff up. There's very little in the Catholic Church that has been believed for over 1,000 years and even less that didn't evolve through argument, debate, threats and even bloodshed

Don't read the Early Church Fathers, do you.

...but of course, that process is infinitely more reliable than God's "living and active" word because God was incapable of ensuring the precise words He desired on the pages of His book!

I hope you know what you are trying to say.

My favourite is how the infallible Magisterium decided on the validity of the Trinity in Constantinople! No resolution could be found over the council whilst Archbishop Gregory presided but when he got ill and a Pagan senator was brought in, he was able to solve the conflict to become the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed... i.e the birth of formalization of the Trinity! That's a PAGAN SENATOR!!

Like I said, don't read the Early Church Father much do you.