A Necessity - 4 Marian Doctrines

[bbbbbbb]

Where in Scripture is it taught that Mary is immaculate? That Mary is a shrine? Tell me all the verses Paul and Peter wrote instructing the churches to teach these essential doctrines? When did Jesus talk about his mother remaining a virgin? In what verse did he title her the Queen of Heaven? I can't find these things in my Bible but perhaps they have been added to the Catholic Bible?

What has always struck me as completely baffling is the complete silence of scripture concerning any of the Four Marian dogmas. Surely, if Mary ascended directly to heaven, which was witnessed by many, then it would have surely found its way into the New Testament. Instead, we get various particulars such as the death and resurrection of Dorcas. I do not find any Catholic Churches dedicated to Saint Dorcas, whose resurrection is spelled out in the Acts. Rather, there are innumerable Catholic Churches dedicated to Mary in all of her various Catholic incarnations. It is not for nothing that most Muslims believe that Christians worship a trinity consisting of the Father (God), the Mother (Mary), and their Son (Jesus Christ).

 

[Justin_Mary]

From the context, it is far more likely Ezekiel has in mind the physical East Gate of the wall of the city, not Mary.

I think you're right. Ezekiel had no thought of Mary in his mind when he prophesied. I don't think any one is saying he did either. God on the other hand knew exactly what he meant when he inspired Ezekiel to prophesy. Jesus told his disciples that he would send one who will "teach you all things & remind you of everything I said to you."

To you, meaning the 11, the Church he built.

This is typical RC spiritualizing. Concluded a doctrine based on what you want and makes sense to you then go to Scripture and try and find some obscure verses or obscure interpretations of verses and claim those support your doctrine.

One of the things we have to contend with in the world today, is that our schools are teaching our students what to think & not how to think. Jesus taught his students how to think & that "way" of thinking has been passed down, from generation to generation, even to today. For example, one of Jesus' students pulled a story from Genesis to explain Baptism.

Surely Moses was not thinking about Baptism when he wrote the story about Noah, or about crossing the Red Sea, both used in the NT to explain Baptism. But the Holy Spirit taught St Peter & St Paul "all things & reminded them of everything GOD had said."

There is simply no hermeneutics that would support finding Mary in that passage.

I understand. If the guy teaching you the faith missed the lesson... how would you see the hermeneutic? We can only give what we've received. Thanks be to God he handed you something... a solid foundation to build on. Don't close your gates. Be open. Receive.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

I think you're right. Ezekiel had no thought of Mary in his mind when he prophesied. I don't think any one is saying he did either. God on the other hand knew exactly what he meant when he inspired Ezekiel to prophesy. Jesus told his disciples that he would send one who will "teach you all things & remind you of everything I said to you."

To you, meaning the 11, the Church he built.

One of the things we have to contend with in the world today, is that our schools are teaching our students what to think & not how to think. Jesus taught his students how to think & that "way" of thinking has been passed down, from generation to generation, even to today. For example, one of Jesus' students pulled a story from Genesis to explain Baptism.

Surely Moses was not thinking about Baptism when he wrote the story about Noah, or about crossing the Red Sea, both used in the NT to explain Baptism. But the Holy Spirit taught St Peter & St Paul "all things & reminded them of everything GOD had said."

I understand. If the guy teaching you the faith missed the lesson... how would you see the hermeneutic? We can only give what we've received. Thanks be to God he handed you something... a solid foundation to build on. Don't close your gates. Be open. Receive.

Here's the difference. The NT writers were inspired in what they wrote. God spoke through them. If they cite an OT passage and apply it in a way the author may not have had in mind, we accept it as God-breathed. When a later man, such as Justin writes, he is not inspired and his interpretation can't be taken as on par with Scripture.

All these Marian doctrines rest on tradition and possible obscure references in Scripture. There are no verses than plainly teach them like we have for truly essential doctrines. They were arrived at in the minds of men who then went looking for Scripture to use. They forced a pre-conceived interpretation on the Scriptures. We are to practice exegesis which means to let the Scriptures speak. We are to approach them with an unbiased mind. A simple, usually true, rule is, "If the plain sense makes sense, seek no other sense."

Where are the clear teachings of Scripture that establish these Marian doctrines? There are none.

 

[JoeT]

Where in Scripture is it taught that Mary is immaculate? That Mary is a shrine? Tell me all the verses Paul and Peter wrote instructing the churches to teach these essential doctrines? When did Jesus talk about his mother remaining a virgin? In what verse did he title her the Queen of Heaven? I can't find these things in my Bible but perhaps they have been added to the Catholic Bible?

Remember that Scripture is written by the Apostles from their own intellect inspired by the Holy Spirit. They didn't feel it was necessary that the moon reflects the light of the moon; such things are already known by all. Not all things are explicit in Scripture. God gave us a brain, use it.

JoeT

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Remember that Scripture is written by the Apostles from their own intellect inspired by the Holy Spirit. They didn't feel it was necessary that the moon reflects the light of the moon; such things are already known by all. Not all things are explicit in Scripture. God gave us a brain, use it.

JoeT

I cannot imagine the writers of the NT would fail to mention what you call "essential Marian doctrines." The essential doctrines are clearly stated in Scripture. You want to claim all the Marian doctrines we're the exception?

I have a brain and am using it. You are basing your beliefs on man-made traditions that have no basis in Scripture. You are grasping at obscure verses and twisted interpretations because Scripture does not teach these beliefs! So now we are to accept them because not everything was written down? It was well known? Nope.

This reminds me of the Book of Abraham in The Pearl of Great Price, a Mormon Scripture. Joseph Smith claimed to translate it from some Egyptian papyri. His notes and the papyri were in possession of the church then lost. In modern times they were discovered in a box at a museum in Chicago. Experts examined the papyri and recognized them as a common Egyptian funeral text that many copies had been found. It was not some Book of Abraham. The Mormon church admitted those were the papyri and Joseph Smith's notes. There were distinct markings on them. So the Book of Abraham was a hoax? No, said the Mormon church. Since "we know" Joseph Smith is a prophet of God, he must have been given a spiritual translation by God that doesn't follow the Egyptian text. So it's valid!

So the Catholic Church teaches things not found in Scripture or contradicting Scripture but "we know" it's God's true church so it must be true! That's how cults operate.

 

[Justin_Mary]

Here's the difference. The NT writers were inspired in what they wrote. God spoke through them. If they cite an OT passage and apply it in a way the author may not have had in mind, we accept it as God-breathed. When a later man, such as Justin writes, he is not inspired and his interpretation can't be taken as on par with Scripture.

I totally understand where you're coming from. A world where God has cut himself off from man in all but his imagination.

But... the Catholic Church teaches differently. God has never left man's side.

God poured out his spirit on the Church in the upper room & the Holy Spirit has never left it. Satan would have you believe that he overcame the Church & threw her into apostasy. Satan would have you believe God doesn't inspire man today. Satan would have you believe you know better than the Church.

God is real, God is present

Emmanuel

 

[Justin_Mary]

I cannot imagine the writers of the NT would fail to mention what you call "essential Marian doctrines." The essential doctrines are clearly stated in Scripture. You want to claim all the Marian doctrines we're the exception?

His disciples came to him & asked, "Master, why do you speak to them in parables?" Jesus answered, "It is not for them to understand, but to you I speak plainly."

The story that Luke tells of the visitation... does it not ring any bells for you?

If any man lacks wisdom, may he knock & the door will be opened to him.

So the Catholic Church teaches things not found in Scripture or contradicting Scripture but "we know" it's God's true church so it must be true! That's how cults operate.

Nothing the Church teaches contradicts scripture.

 

[JoeT]

I cannot imagine the writers of the NT would fail to mention what you call "essential Marian doctrines." The essential doctrines are clearly stated in Scripture. You want to claim all the Marian doctrines we're the exception?

I have a brain and am using it. You are basing your beliefs on man-made traditions that have no basis in Scripture. You are grasping at obscure verses and twisted interpretations because Scripture does not teach these beliefs! So now we are to accept them because not everything was written down? It was well known? Nope.

This reminds me of the Book of Abraham in The Pearl of Great Price, a Mormon Scripture. Joseph Smith claimed to translate it from some Egyptian papyri. His notes and the papyri were in possession of the church then lost. In modern times they were discovered in a box at a museum in Chicago. Experts examined the papyri and recognized them as a common Egyptian funeral text that many copies had been found. It was not some Book of Abraham. The Mormon church admitted those were the papyri and Joseph Smith's notes. There were distinct markings on them. So the Book of Abraham was a hoax? No, said the Mormon church. Since "we know" Joseph Smith is a prophet of God, he must have been given a spiritual translation by God that doesn't follow the Egyptian text. So it's valid!

So the Catholic Church teaches things not found in Scripture or contradicting Scripture but "we know" it's God's true church so it must be true! That's how cults operate.

In your own way, are you trying to tell me that the Catholic Scriptures are phony?

JoeT

 

[bbbbbbb]

In your own way, are you trying to tell me that the Catholic Scriptures are phony?

JoeT

Have you actually read your Catholic scriptures lately? You might discover that they are the same scriptures that Protestants also read and believe. Your problem seems to be that you conflate scriptures (holy writings, typically known as the Holy Bible) with the various traditions invented within your own denomination. If you expect non-members of your sect to believe your uniquely invented traditions because the leaders of your sect assert that they are true because they say that they are true, then don't be at all surprised that outsiders such as myself seen no particular reason to fall in line.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

In your own way, are you trying to tell me that the Catholic Scriptures are phony?

JoeT

There is no such thing as Catholic Scriptures. There is only The Scriptures. I would reject the Apocryphal books the Catholic Church added. No opinion on their translations as I don't use them.

It is their interpretations and man-made traditions I have issues with. I don't know what you mean by phony.

 

[JoeT]

There is no such thing as Catholic Scriptures. There is only The Scriptures. I would reject the Apocryphal books the Catholic Church added. No opinion on their translations as I don't use them.

It is their interpretations and man-made traditions I have issues with. I don't know what you mean by phony.

Have you actually read your Catholic scriptures lately? You might discover that they are the same scriptures that Protestants also read and believe. Your problem seems to be that you conflate scriptures (holy writings, typically known as the Holy Bible) with the various traditions invented within your own denomination. If you expect non-members of your sect to believe your uniquely invented traditions because the leaders of your sect assert that they are true because they say that they are true, then don't be at all surprised that outsiders such as myself seen no particular reason to fall in line.

I didn't know you use the Vulgate as a basis of your translations? Tell me who validates all the the various translations? The Catholic Church didn't.

JoeT

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

I didn't know you use the Vulgate as a basis of your translations? Tell me who validates all the the various translations? The Catholic Church didn't.

JoeT

Why would you translate from a Latin translation? That's a translation of a translation. Translations should always be made from the original languages.

Scholars check each other's work. The Catholic Church validating it's own translations is like an in-house audit. The best audits come from outside.

I don't think the main issues among us come from translation differences.

 

[JoeT]

Why would you translate from a Latin translation?

Because the Vulgate is the Bible inspired by the Holy Spirit. Was King James the "Holy Spirit"?

That's a translation of a translation. Translations should always be made from the original languages.

How do you have the Greek, Hebrew, and Latin expertise that St. Jerome had?

Scholars check each other's work

Really?

The Catholic Church validating it's own translations is like an in-house audit. The best audits come from outside.

I don't think the main issues among us come from translation differences.

When did the Protestant synod or council canonize their bible?

JoeT

 

[bbbbbbb]

I didn't know you use the Vulgate as a basis of your translations? Tell me who validates all the the various translations? The Catholic Church didn't.

JoeT

I do hope you understand that when Jerome translated the Vulgate from Greek and Hebrew he chose not to include the deutercanonical books, which makes the original form of the Vulgate identical to that of the Protestant Bible. Under pressure from Catholic Church authorities he later translated these books.

The only difference is that all other English versions, including the New American Bible of the Catholic Church uses reliable Greek and Hebrew texts for their translations. The Douay version is actually even more convoluted. The original texts were translated from Greek and Hebrew into Latin and then into French and then into English, which made for a really sloppy translation.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Because the Vulgate is the Bible inspired by the Holy Spirit. Was King James the "Holy Spirit"?

How do you have the Greek, Hebrew, and Latin expertise that St. Jerome had?

Really?

When did the Protestant synod or council canonize their bible?

JoeT

Now you are talking crazy Joe. The Holy Spirit inspired the original writings which were in Greek, Hebrew, and some Aramaic. It is from these that Jerome made his Latin translation. Since Jerome's time, more manuscripts have been discovered, some even older than what he had access to. Modern translations keep going back and using the best manuscripts available. Errors have been found in his translation. I'm not saying it's a bad translation but it's not perfect and it's in a dead language. Translations should always be based on the original language manuscripts.

The KJV, which I don't personally use, is a translation and as such is not inspired. Neither is the Vulgate. Nor are any other translations.

The council that canonized the Bible was made up of various Christian leaders at that time. The RC Church did not yet exist. To claim all these men were RC would be false. They were early Christians. Much of what became Catholicism did not yet exist.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Because the Vulgate is the Bible inspired by the Holy Spirit. Was King James the "Holy Spirit"?

How do you have the Greek, Hebrew, and Latin expertise that St. Jerome had?

Really?

When did the Protestant synod or council canonize their bible?

JoeT

"The Vulgate’s time as the standard for all translations ended with Pius XII’s encyclical Divina Afflante Spiritu in 1943. This encyclical mandated that future translations be made from the original languages, rather than the Vulgate."
(St. Jerome, the Vulgate, and Our Biblical Heritage)

That's from a Catholic site. So even the RC Church mandates translations be made from the original languages. How could the Vulgate then be the inspired translation? Do you disagree with Pius XII?

 

[JoeT]

"The Vulgate’s time as the standard for all translations ended with Pius XII’s encyclical Divina Afflante Spiritu in 1943. This encyclical mandated that future translations be made from the original languages, rather than the Vulgate."
(St. Jerome, the Vulgate, and Our Biblical Heritage)

That's from a Catholic site. So even the RC Church mandates translations be made from the original languages. How could the Vulgate then be the inspired translation? Do you disagree with Pius XII?

Why, yes I disagree. You might want to read DIVINO AFFLANTE SPIRITU again - you missed something. Do you read Scripture in koine Greek? Greek Scriptures themselves are 'translations'.

JoeT

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Why, yes I disagree. You might want to read DIVINO AFFLANTE SPIRITU again - you missed something. Do you read Scripture in koine Greek? Greek Scriptures themselves are 'translations'.

JoeT

The Greek manuscripts the NT are translated from are in Koine Greek. From that they are translated into various languages. No, I don't read Koine Greek. I have learned a little but am not qualified to read the text in Koine Greek. That's why we have translations. The Greek, written in Koine, are not translations. While they were likely speaking Aramaic, it is the Koine Greek that was inspired.

 

[JoeT]

The Greek manuscripts the NT are translated from are in Koine Greek. From that they are translated into various languages. No, I don't read Koine Greek. I have learned a little but am not qualified to read the text in Koine Greek. That's why we have translations. The Greek, written in Koine, are not translations. While they were likely speaking Aramaic, it is the Koine Greek that was inspired.

So, even the Koine Greek is a translation, so how can you say any other Protestant versions are better than the Vulgate given they are even further remote version in both time, number of translations of translations, and Protestant Bias? As I understand it St. Jerome was fluent in Greek, Hebrew and Latin not to mention closer to the authors in time and customs then anybody today. All English translations of the Vulgate are authorized by the Church for use by the faithful. Who validated the King James or any other Protestant Bible? You haven't answered that question yet - do you intend to?

As to Divina Afflante Spiritu the Pope had asked that scalars take advantage of their knowledge of the various to reveal the to correct understanding of Scripture. Furthermore, "it forbidden by the decree of the Council of Trent to make translations into the vulgar tongue, even directly from the original texts themselves, for the use and benefit of the faithful and for the better understanding of the divine word, as We know to have been already done in a laudable manner in many countries with the approval of the Ecclesiastical authority". That is to say, scholars may use their knowledge of the original languages used in the Holy Texts to better translate into the various vulgar languages used in the world today, from Afrikaans to Zulu. What was not discussed was that the "Vulgate was dated." What were you thinking, did you even read it?


JoeT

 

[bbbbbbb]

So, even the Koine Greek is a translation, so how can you say any other Protestant versions are better than the Vulgate given they are even further remote version in both time, number of translations of translations, and Protestant Bias? As I understand it St. Jerome was fluent in Greek, Hebrew and Latin not to mention closer to the authors in time and customs then anybody today. All English translations of the Vulgate are authorized by the Church for use by the faithful. Who validated the King James or any other Protestant Bible? You haven't answered that question yet - do you intend to?

As to Divina Afflante Spiritu the Pope had asked that scalars take advantage of their knowledge of the various to reveal the to correct understanding of Scripture. Furthermore, "it forbidden by the decree of the Council of Trent to make translations into the vulgar tongue, even directly from the original texts themselves, for the use and benefit of the faithful and for the better understanding of the divine word, as We know to have been already done in a laudable manner in many countries with the approval of the Ecclesiastical authority". That is to say, scholars may use their knowledge of the original languages used in the Holy Texts to better translate into the various vulgar languages used in the world today, from Afrikaans to Zulu. What was not discussed was that the "Vulgate was dated." What were you thinking, did you even read it?


JoeT

Let me emphasize that there are absolutely no essential differences in doctrines derived from the Latin Vulgate Bible and all Protestant translations.

The Old Testament was written in Hebrew. Much later it was translated into Greek, call the Septuagint, in Egypt. When Jerome translated the Old Testament he used both the Hebrew manuscripts and the Septuagint. He rejected the deutercanonical books because they are not among the Hebrew manuscripts and rightly concluded that they were a much later addition.

The New Testament was written in Koine Greek. It was not written in Hebrew or Aramaic, although both languages were used in Judea at the time. Thus, Jerome based his translation of the New Testament on the Koine Greek manuscripts at his disposal. All translations of the New Testament are based on the Koine Greek manuscripts, except for those used in the Catholic Church in the past which used the Vulgate translation as their basis or, as in the case of the infamous Douay translation which I cited previously, were translated from other translations which were translated from the Vulgate translation.

The deep doctrinal differences between the Catholic church and Protestants churches as well as Eastern Orthodox churches do not derive from differences in the Bible, but from the evolution of Catholic theology which introduced these dogmas as part of their particular "holy tradition".