A Necessity - 4 Marian Doctrines

[Darren Court]

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

Keep on assuming things, don't you!
We have very few "early church fathers" and they provide very little clarity on many issues. Irrespective those "early church fathers" must have done a really crappy job if hundreds of years later they were fighting and killing each other over doctrine

Don't read much on church history do you?

 

[Darren Court]

I hope you know what you are trying to say.

I know exactly what I'm saying but for clarity I'll spell it out...

The church has been pathetic in establishing correct doctrine from only a few hundred years after Christ's death all the way up to modern day...

 

[Darren Court]

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

Like I replied, you don't do much research on church history do you?

Thinking about it you don't do much more than keep offering your opinions and judgments on these threads because your responses are pretty devoid of historical facts, scriptures or even logic! Just saying from the evidence you provide!

 

[JoeT]

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.”

Until justified in Jesus Christ all acts of 'belief' are avaricious in nature, thus sin. It is through justification in the baptismal fonts of the Church is Jesus Christ "in you". Being Baptized in the Church you drive Christ away with a a misguided will, a rejection of God. To simply say, "I believe" without Baptism, without justification every act, even those of charity are tainted with selfishness. After Baptism sin blots or deforms righteousness not abiding in Jesus.

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

You do know that we were created with a brain. It's thing that hangs out between your shoulders. One of the things about human nature is that we cannot love what we don't know. We can certainly hope, but we can't love the unknown. It follows then, the Mary is the only Apostle that can truly describe the love that God has for us, she alone can identify Jesus Christ.

That's not all together right, Mary was with Him through much of His ministry. She was there at the beginning, the wedding of Cana, she was there at least twice during the middle of ministry, and she was there at the end.

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

Ok. Thank you.

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!

With whom am I trying to score points? Frankly, I didn't know I was playing a game.

JoeT

 

[JoeT]

None of which are in the Bible.

1. No one in all of the NT calls Mary "the mother of God"

John calls Mary Mother of Jesus. Jesus is God, hence Mary is 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"

Don't have to, common sense tells us she is immaculate. Jesus Christ, God wasn't issued from sin.

3. No one in all of scripture says Mary was always a virgin

Neither is there said that she wasn't.

4. No one in all of scripture says Mary was bodily assumed into heaven

Being assumed into heaven is the promise of all Christians - Are you saying Christ is an Indian giver to His own mother?

So then what is the source for those ideas?

The source is Scripture together with Sacred Tradition, the Church, the Early Church Fathers, miracles, and good ol' common sense.

JoeT

 

[BobRyan]

John calls Mary Mother of Jesus.

Agreed. I think that is a statement that no Christian group opposes since we actually see it in the Bible

Jesus is God

But He is God incarnate - NOT God procreated by a human. A not-so-subtle detail that gets lost if we were to use statements like

• Mary wiser than God
• Mary instructor of God
• Joseph stronger than God
• Joseph protector of God
• Mary mother of God

So no wonder no NT person ever does that.

 

[BobRyan]

Being assumed into heaven is the promise of all Christians - Are you saying Christ is an Indian giver to His own mother?

The saints will be resurrected and bodily assumed into heaven in the future - the claim that Mary was assumed into heaven sometime before 90 A.D. lacks historic affirmation by John (for example) which you would think would be a noteworthy event.

from: The Assumption of Mary

"Second, the Catechism teaches that Mary was taken to heaven when the course of her earthly life was finished. The Church does not declare whether Mary died and then was assumed into heaven or whether she was assumed before she died. It leaves open both possibilities. However, the majority of theologians and saints throughout the centuries have affirmed that Mary did experience death"​

So I am not sure which of those two options you prefer - but neither is mentioned in the Bible as an event in the first century. You could argue that the Bible writers did not consider it worth mentioning even though Paul does mention things like books and papers and coats that need to be brought to him. It is up to you.

My point is that something that unusual would at least make "honorable mention" - and it does not in the first century.

Both forms of it are recorded in the OT.

Enoch was bodily assumed into heaven without dying (and yes that event does make honorable mention into scripture)
Moses is said to have been bodily assumed into heaven after being resurrected in the book "The Assumption of Moses" quoted by Jude in the NT. And of course that also happens in the case of Christ - which also is worthy of mention by NT writers.

 

[JoeT]

That turns into an infinite loop.

That would be a "do-loop", do charitable "works".

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.

If Christ doesn't need a mother then He's not human. You do know all humans are "born of woman". Maybe you're not?

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

I know where the doctrines come from, the Holy Spirit.

JoeT

 

[JoeT]

Agreed. I think that is a statement that no Christian group opposes since we actually see it in the Bible

But He is God incarnate - NOT God procreated by a human. A not-so-subtle detail that gets lost if we were to use statements like

He is indeed incarnate, but human never the less. All god had to do is provide the male component to procreation, some call it the spark of life.

Mary wiser than God

That's your assumption.

Mary instructor of God

This is true at least to a limited degree. Mary was Mother of the infant, young child, young adult. Her role in His life was to train him in the ways his humanity.

Joseph stronger than God

Who said that? is this one of your loop-de-loops?

Joseph protector of God

He was indeed, again in a limited and human way.

Mary mother of God

Indeed!

So no wonder no NT person ever does that.

They didn't need to, there weren't Protestants in those days.

JoeT

 

[JoeT]

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).

I don't think Matthew 3:16-17 part of the Scriptural proof for the Trinity - but if you like it so be it. What you described could also be called Tritheism. There is God the father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Not one God, but three.

JoeT

 

[JoeT]

The saints will be resurrected and bodily assumed into heaven in the future - the claim that Mary was assumed into heaven sometime before 90 A.D. lacks historic affirmation by John (for example) which you would think would be a noteworthy event.

from: The Assumption of Mary

"Second, the Catechism teaches that Mary was taken to heaven when the course of her earthly life was finished. The Church does not declare whether Mary died and then was assumed into heaven or whether she was assumed before she died. It leaves open both possibilities. However, the majority of theologians and saints throughout the centuries have affirmed that Mary did experience death"​

So I am not sure which of those two options you prefer - but neither is mentioned in the Bible as an event in the first century. You could argue that the Bible writers did not consider it worth mentioning even though Paul does mention things like books and papers and coats that need to be brought to him. It is up to you.

My point is that something that unusual would at least make "honorable mention" - and it does not in the first century.

Mary's assumption is mentioned in Scripture. Mary was in heaven when John had his vision, Apocalypse 11:19-12:5.

Both forms of it are recorded in the OT.

Enoch was bodily assumed into heaven without dying (and yes that event does make honorable mention into scripture)
Moses is said to have been bodily assumed into heaven after being resurrected in the book "The Assumption of Moses" quoted by Jude in the NT. And of course that also happens in the case of Christ - which also is worthy of mention by NT writers.

Fr. Longenecker lists the reasons for her assumption alot better than I could:

1. No other creature is united to Christ as Mary was united. Singularly protected from original sin, Mary becomes first-born of grace as Mother of your redemption:​

​

​

Wisdom shall praise her own self, and shall be honoured in God, and shall glory in the midst of her people, And shall open her mouth in the churches of the most High, and shall glorify herself in the sight of his power, And in the midst of her own people she shall be exalted, and shall be admired in the holy assembly. And in the multitude of the elect she shall have praise, and among the blessed she shall be blessed, saying: I came out of the mouth of the most High, the firstborn before all creatures: [Ecclesiasticus 24:1-5]​

​

2) Mary is Mother of God, Theotokos; the mother of Jesus Christ our Lord. The Blessed Virgin Mary is, as the Mother of God, she becomes our Spiritual mother. Among her titles is Mediatrix of All Graces. She facilitates our reconciliation and unity with Christ. She interposes herself between you and Christ, i.e. an intermediary. You say you don't need an intermediary, that doesn't mean they don't exist.​

​

3) Crowning as Queen of Heaven is not separated from her assumption, she reflects the glory of Christ as the moon reflects the light of the sun.​

​

The Queen Mother's position in the Kingdom is signified by her crown in the assumption. Give ye glory to the Lord your God... Say to the king, and to the queen: Humble yourselves, sit down: for the crown of your glory is come down from your head. (Jeremiah 13:16-18). Recall Bathsheba bowed humbly before King David, later it is King David that bows to the Queen Mother:​

​

​

"Then Bethsabee came to king Solomon, to speak to him for Adonias: and the king arose to meet her, and bowed to her, and sat down upon his throne: and a throne was set for the king's mother, and she sat on his right hand" 1 Kings 2:19​

​

In like manner the Queen Mother has a place of eminence in the Kings court. She rules with his authority. Nabuchodonosor King of Babylon carried away not only Joachim but the Queen Mother – primarily because of her prominence. (Cf. 2 Kings 24:12-15). We know Joachim's replacement is a young King Sedecias, his mother, Amital, was prominent enough to be mentioned in Scripture.​

​

4) Her assumption is foretold in the procession of the Ark of the Covenant into Jerusalem, city of peace.​

​

5) Assumption implies that she is risen by the power of Christ, contrasted with Christ’s Ascension which is done with His own power.​

​

6) Mary’s assumption by the New Adam completes a certain redemptive healing for womankind. It was Jewish custom to hold womankind responsible for tempting Adam to eat of the forbidden fruit. Thinking of woman as the ‘weaker sex’ carried over into Christianity.​

​

​

Ye husbands, likewise dwelling with them according to knowledge, giving honor to the female as to the weaker vessel, and as to the co-heirs of the grace of life: that your prayers be not hindered. [1 Peter 3:7]​

​

The New Adam redeems all of mankind while Mary restores the honor of womanhood back to God through Jesus Christ, small but beneficial restoration equilibrium between the sexes. What better way to right a wrong caused by our act of rebellion. [Cf. Pope Pius X, E Supremi (The restoration of all things in Christ)]. Where Eve failed, Mary succeeds​

​

7)Mary, as the first Christian shows the way, beckoning from antiquity to a perfection of faith in today’s reality.​

​

8) Mary’s assumption shows how the final purity of the Church foreshadows our own resurrection, BODY and SOUL.​

​

9) Eve turned away from God, Mary turns to God as a completely humble servant. ​

​

10) Mary leads the way for the assumption of all the Saints, demonstrating the unmerited and merited promise of Christ’s redemption. Those who follow Mary’s purity of love is poured over us at the baptismal fount in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.​

JoeT

 

[Landon Caeli]

I know exactly what I'm saying but for clarity I'll spell it out...

The church has been pathetic in establishing correct doctrine from only a few hundred years after Christ's death all the way up to modern day...

This post makes it seem like you've had all you can stand of the Catholic Church.

...An alternative thought, though, is that we're all Christians together. Even according to the Statement of Faith on this very website.

Those who have a bone to pick will have to realize that Catholics value the Holy Church's Traditions equally with the Holy Gospel. They are equal... It is what it is... Whether one likes it or not.

 

[Landon Caeli]

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!!

However God chooses to speak or take action is his own. Whether it's through betrayal and then crucifixion? Or a king on a donkey? Or even a pagan senator.

God's will be done. The Church is a Holy institution, and is always equal to the "living and active word" in regards to authority.

 

[Darren Court]

Until justified in Jesus Christ all acts of 'belief' are avaricious in nature, thus sin. It is through justification in the baptismal fonts of the Church is Jesus Christ "in you". Being Baptized in the Church you drive Christ away with a a misguided will, a rejection of God. To simply say, "I believe" without Baptism, without justification every act, even those of charity are tainted with selfishness. After Baptism sin blots or deforms righteousness not abiding in Jesus.

What? Moving the goalposts again?

The point here was that I said God lives in us and you said that's not true!

I provided you with scripture to show it's true and then you respond about justification to change the subject!

You do know that we were created with a brain. It's thing that hangs out between your shoulders. One of the things about human nature is that we cannot love what we don't know. We can certainly hope, but we can't love the unknown. It follows then, the Mary is the only Apostle that can truly describe the love that God has for us, she alone can identify Jesus Christ.

Ah sarcasm, the refuge of those who have ran out of worthwhile argument!

We cannot love what we don't know.... agreed
It follows then Mary is the only Apostle that can truly describe the love that God has for us ... absolute rubbish and it goes to prove one thing. That the thing between your ears is malfunction, a feature that is really common!

1) Again NOTHING in scripture supports the idea we need Mary to know God
2) There are plenty of scriptures that tell us we can know God without Mary, not least because He lives in us (you evaded that reality)
3) Since Mary cannot speak to us (divination) she cannot actually tell us anything

The bible is fundamentally clear (no joining dots, no brain work required) that we can KNOW and HAVE a personal relationship with Christ. If you don't know that and don't know Christ personally then you need to read Mt 7:21-23 that talks about such people who THINK they are saved but are not. Then read John 10:27-28 as just one verse that tells us that a personal direct relationship with Christ is essential for true followers!

That's not all together right, Mary was with Him through much of His ministry. She was there at the beginning, the wedding of Cana, she was there at least twice during the middle of ministry, and she was there at the end.

You missed the point! YOUR claim is that nobody can know Jesus without Mary. Here you accept that she was with him for much of His ministry (which incidentally is assumption because there's scant evidence of it), but in doing so you also accept she wasn't there all the time! This means there are people who met Jesus who didn't meet Mary.... and that knew Him but didn't know Mary.... and proves your thesis wrong.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

I don't think Matthew 3:16-17 part of the Scriptural proof for the Trinity - but if you like it so be it. What you described could also be called Tritheism. There is God the father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Not one God, but three.

JoeT

But those statements are part of the same body of Scripture that says there is but one God. Taken as a body, they teach there is one God in three persons. The understanding of the Trinity was based on Scripture. It was not a private revelation to the RC church. Even in Genesis, we see the statement "Let us make man in our image." That implies more than one person. The full knowledge of the Trinity took time to be realized but the teaching is found in the Scriptures. Later, men coined terms and phrases to better explain it but it was there in Scripture.

 

[Darren Court]

I don't think Matthew 3:16-17 part of the Scriptural proof for the Trinity - but if you like it so be it. What you described could also be called Tritheism. There is God the father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Not one God, but three.

That's astonishing! The three persons of the Trinity are present and active in Mt 3:16-17, but you somehow manage to believe their being present and actions isn't proof of the Trinity.... because you WANT to believe the revelation of the Trinity came from Catholic Councils, the most significant of which, Constantinople, was presided over by a Pagan!!

I'm glad I don't have the ability for such mental gymnastics!

 

[Landon Caeli]

That's astonishing! The three persons of the Trinity are present and active in Mt 3:16-17, but you somehow manage to believe their being present and actions isn't proof of the Trinity.... because you WANT to believe the revelation of the Trinity came from Catholic Councils, the most significant of which, Constantinople, was presided over by a Pagan!!

I'm glad I don't have the ability for such mental gymnastics!

...But the Scriptures say that a voice came from heaven and said: "this is my Son"... Nothing in scripture *actually* says Jesus is the third Person of the Holy Trinity.

...That's something that has been confirmed through Tradition. Scripture simply doesn't go against it.

 

[Landon Caeli]

because you WANT to believe the revelation of the Trinity came from Catholic Councils, the most significant of which, Constantinople, was presided over by a Pagan!!

I'm glad I don't have the ability for such mental gymnastics!

Correction here... A pagan did not receive revelation on the concept of the Trinity. That was *already* a Christian Tradition.

 

[Darren Court]

...But the Scriptures say that a voice came from heaven and said: "this is my Son"... Nothing in scripture *actually* says Jesus is the third Person of the Holy Trinity.

...That's something that has been confirmed through Tradition. Scripture simply doesn't go against it.

Nothing in the bible says the words on the page are the "bible" or that God is omnipotent, omniscient or omnipresent because none of these words are there... but that doesn't mean we don't call it the bible or that God isn't omnipotent, omniscient or omnipresent.
Also would you not accept it was the Father speaking here? How can you possibly know that because it does not say, "The Father said, '....'" ?

Tradition is a cop out because there is nothing in the early church record that indicates the early church actually believe in the Trinity. It wasn't even confirmed in the Council of Nicea.... and infact the first real confirmation is not until the Council of Constantinople where it took a pagan senator to preside over the argument and conclusion that in fact Jesus and the Holy Spirit are God! There's no tradition playing a part here but there is church authority through a pagan!

So either scripture confirms the Trinity else if scripture does not do so all we have is a pagan senator's direction!

The problem is that all those people who claim scripture doesn't speak of the Trinity haven't bothered to FULLY research. I speak to many of them who are Jehovah's Witnesses all the time. How can you claim the bible doesn't speak of the Trinity without asking God and searching the scriptures.... and if you've searched the scriptures you'll know there are HUNDREDS of scriptures that speak to the divinity of Christ and the Holy Spirit. Not one or two but literally hundreds. To evaluate these scriptures, you have to find them, document them in order consider the context, linguistic usage, audience understanding, culture and then consider various different views, and cross correlated to potentially lots of other bible verses. It's a huge task and my own notes now are 70+ pages and continue to grow. The thing is, if you're going to claim scripture doesn't support the Trinity then you have to do the work and find all those verses that might attest to the divinity of Christ and the Holy Spirit, then do all the extra work to show why they don't actually do what might be claimed. You have no choice if you really want to know the truth and know you haven't simply brought your own bias to isolated piecemeal considerations.... and yet I've never met a single person who has their own copious notes on this subject who hasn't concluded the Trinity is right there in the bible.

You can chose to live in delusion, but you cannot blame anyone else if you do so!

 

[Landon Caeli]

Nothing in the bible says the words on the page are the "bible" or that God is omnipotent, omniscient or omnipresent because none of these words are there... but that doesn't mean we don't call it the bible or that God isn't omnipotent, omniscient or omnipresent.
Also would you not accept it was the Father speaking here? How can you possibly know that because it does not say, "The Father said, '....'" ?

Tradition is a cop out because there is nothing in the early church record that indicates the early church actually believe in the Trinity. It wasn't even confirmed in the Council of Nicea.... and infact the first real confirmation is not until the Council of Constantinople where it took a pagan senator to preside over the argument and conclusion that in fact Jesus and the Holy Spirit are God! There's no tradition playing a part here but there is church authority through a pagan!

So either scripture confirms the Trinity else if scripture does not do so all we have is a pagan senator's direction!

The problem is that all those people who claim scripture doesn't speak of the Trinity haven't bothered to FULLY research. I speak to many of them who are Jehovah's Witnesses all the time. How can you claim the bible doesn't speak of the Trinity without asking God and searching the scriptures.... and if you've searched the scriptures you'll know there are HUNDREDS of scriptures that speak to the divinity of Christ and the Holy Spirit. Not one or two but literally hundreds. To evaluate these scriptures, you have to find them, document them in order consider the context, linguistic usage, audience understanding, culture and then consider various different views, and cross correlated to potentially lots of other bible verses. It's a huge task and my own notes now are 70+ pages and continue to grow. The thing is, if you're going to claim scripture doesn't support the Trinity then you have to do the work and find all those verses that might attest to the divinity of Christ and the Holy Spirit, then do all the extra work to show why they don't actually do what might be claimed. You have no choice if you really want to know the truth and know you haven't simply brought your own bias to isolated piecemeal considerations.... and yet I've never met a single person who has their own copious notes on this subject who hasn't concluded the Trinity is right there in the bible.

You can chose to live in delusion, but you cannot blame anyone else if you do so!

I think you would have to have a complete mastery on biblical interpretations, to conclude, without a doubt, that "Son" should equal the same as God. To many people who are not masters in understanding, they might view the term "Son" as being a smaller or lower entity than the father. Or dozens of other possibilities.

...So I'm struggling to see how obvious it is with the verse you cited, Mt 3:16-17 . And if it truly were so obvious, there would have been no need for a counsel on it in the first place.