A Necessity - 4 Marian Doctrines

[NotUrAvgGuy]

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

The Koine Greek is not a translation. The writers wrote in Greek and the words they wrote were inspired by the Holy Spirit in Greek. Yes, they were remembering things spoken in Aramaic but they were inspired in what they wrote in Greek. The "translation" was in their minds as inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Jerome translated from the best manuscripts he had available. Since then many more manuscripts have been found and some older than what he had. Today's translations are also done by men fluent in those languages. I never said Protestant translations were better. So far as I know, Jerome's translation was very good. Some minor issues have been found but that happens. I have never suggested he made a bad translation. He himself felt future translations should be based on the original languages and not his Latin translation.

All modern translations are done by groups of men who check each other's works and then others check their work. Many people review the translations. Since they are not authorized by a particular church, there is no ecclesiastical body offering validation but many times the works are validated by foundations. You can look up the names of the translators and the foundation review boards. They draw learned men from many different universities and research institutes. The RC church does not have a monopoly on translators. I would venture to say Protestant translations get more validation than Catholic translations. That said, I have no issue with Catholic translations. Just Catholic interpretations.

I reviewed the document. He also stressed going back to original languages to then translate into modern tongues. Sounds good to me. There was a period in RC history when many translations were made from the Vulgate but now they are translating from original languages. You seem to be arguing a point I am not contesting. I am not saying the Catholic translations are bad. I would imagine they are very, very, very close to any of the Protestant translations. I am also not a King James devotee. For the record, I prefer the 1995 New American Standard translation. It is one of the most accurate word-for-word translations ever made. That said, I think there are many good translations and I don't care which one someone uses.

 

[JoeT]

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

Scripture isn't doctrine perse. If it were the case then there wouldn't be such a thing as Protestantism, reformation, or Evangelicalism. Those outside the specifically nullify the Catholic Scriptures and substitute their own 'doctrine of symbolism'. One cannot love what he does not know, likewise one cannot offer real worship to an unknown God.

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.

Nevertheless, he translated the deutercanonical. The Church adopted them as the Holy Spirit directed. It wasn't that St. Jerome didn't think they were inspired text, rather had technical issues with them he couldn't resolve to satisfy himself.

And there isn't just one Greek old testament called the Septuagint, rather there are a considerable number written in various Greek formats. The Sptuagint was appears between 300 BC and 100 BC. Most of Christ's quotes of the Old Testament either came from the Septuagint or from another version closely related.

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.

There are four dialects of Greek with the fifth the late comer, Ionic proper, Ionic (Attic), Aeolic, Doric and Koine. I think, could be wrong but you'll find the Old Testament in either Attic or Koine. The Septuagint uses primarily Koine Greek but also several different Semitic languages such as Hebrew and Aramaic.

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".

Please, your contradicting yourself. If Sacred Scripture is doctrine itself and if as you say there is no different, then why now do you say there are "deep doctrinal differences". Do you understand the difference between doctrine and dogma? Dogma is the dogmatic martial taught by the Church one is obliged to believe. You also seem to confused as to what an objective Tradition is.

Scripture itself is infallible in so long as it resides in the Catholic Church. Christ’s mission, at least in part, establishes a “Church” both as teacher and measure. Not Scripture a BOOK standing alone as the eunuch said, ‘how will I know unless someone shows me’ [Cf. Acts 8:31] Should we find Scripture to be the Divine Word himself, rightly it would be an object of worship – that is having the infallible spirit of word would make the object BOOK Divine. Church Councils, Synods, Fathers, Popes and miracles along with natural reason together form a uniform measure of that faith, whereby the faithful can equate good and discern evil. Miracles are individual extraordinary graces by which we can understand the Word of God and occasionally become binding on the remaining body of Christ. Natural reasoning requires knowledge of things yet unseen forming a truth revealed over centuries. The Popes and Councils both teach and maintain the meaning of Scripture. They also establish those things binding on all members of the Body of Christ. Sacred tradition is entwined with all of these.

Tradition is only one part in a sole and infallible rule of faith that stands with Sacred Scripture and the Church, not apart. One function of Sacred Tradition is similar to licensing of disciplines, similar to those in the natural sciences, e.g. medical doctors, architects, engineers, etc. Each offers the public the use of certain fields of science to solve specific problems. These disciplines function within parameters of a 'standard of practice,' the basic ethics of their practice. The science is applied morally when certain technical and ethical standards are met; those applications are proven by theorem or validating tests. Our legal system recognizes a 'standard of practice' as the measure or a guide of rightly applied science. Similarly, the function of Sacred Tradition is to 'maintain' proven theological axioms and those received by word of mouth from Christ and His Apostles.

Another purpose of Sacred Tradition maintains generational transmission of habits (discipline) in putting to practice God’s revelations to man. Words have changed over millennia, sometimes completely reversing in meaning necessitating a body of knowledge keeping the original intent. In short we live and learn within the costumes prevalent in our own era, which may or may not have similarities to Christ’s society 2,000 years ago. Tradition therefore is a measure, keeping constant through the ages the intent of Christ’s meaning. “A man might measure heaven and earth with a reed, but not with a growing reed.” (Heretics, G. K. Chesterton). Likewise, we cannot measure the revealed heavens with customs and language that changes generation to generation.

To measure the Divine Word, we are given a rule from the Holy Spirit through the Church consisting of Sacred Tradition together with Sacred Scripture, the Church to teach a divine word Divinely. Private interpretations should be reformed to the doctrines of the Church so that the faithful have the real intent and purpose of God’s Word, unchanging in meaning era to era to the whim of various groups or individuals. Furthermore, the faithful are obligated by this rule to be docile in learning these doctrines of faith’s discipline.

Concluding, Church forms our faith, and we affirm this faith measuring it against an objective Tradition. This is the role of 'Tradition', the established rule; yes, outside of which is chaos, disorder in opposition to God's order.

JoeT

 

[JoeT]

The Koine Greek is not a translation. The writers wrote in Greek and the words they wrote were inspired by the Holy Spirit in Greek.

I disagree, both Old and New Testaments are written in a handful of different Near East languages, they are translated to Greek and eventually to Latin for the Roman population by the Catholic Church.

Yes, they were remembering things spoken in Aramaic but they were inspired in what they wrote in Greek. The "translation" was in their minds as inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Many Catholic scholars believe that Matthew was first written in Aramaic then translated to Greek.

Jerome translated from the best manuscripts he had available.

Many of which are not in existence today and not available to scholars of any kind.

Since then many more manuscripts have been found and some older than what he had. Today's translations are also done by men fluent in those languages. I never said Protestant translations were better. So far as I know, Jerome's translation was very good. Some minor issues have been found but that happens. I have never suggested he made a bad translation. He himself felt future translations should be based on the original languages and not his Latin translation.

I'm going to challenge you on this, what 1st century manuscripts related to the bible are still in existence.

I reviewed the document. He also stressed going back to original languages to then translate into modern tongues.

To give a better exegesis. Not to re-write scripture in the Protestant image.

JoeT

 

[bbbbbbb]

Scripture isn't doctrine perse. If it were the case then there wouldn't be such a thing as Protestantism, reformation, or Evangelicalism. Those outside the specifically nullify the Catholic Scriptures and substitute their own 'doctrine of symbolism'. One cannot love what he does not know, likewise one cannot offer real worship to an unknown God.

Nevertheless, he translated the deutercanonical. The Church adopted them as the Holy Spirit directed. It wasn't that St. Jerome didn't think they were inspired text, rather had technical issues with them he couldn't resolve to satisfy himself.

And there isn't just one Greek old testament called the Septuagint, rather there are a considerable number written in various Greek formats. The Sptuagint was appears between 300 BC and 100 BC. Most of Christ's quotes of the Old Testament either came from the Septuagint or from another version closely related.

There are four dialects of Greek with the fifth the late comer, Ionic proper, Ionic (Attic), Aeolic, Doric and Koine. I think, could be wrong but you'll find the Old Testament in either Attic or Koine. The Septuagint uses primarily Koine Greek but also several different Semitic languages such as Hebrew and Aramaic.

Please, your contradicting yourself. If Sacred Scripture is doctrine itself and if as you say there is no different, then why now do you say there are "deep doctrinal differences". Do you understand the difference between doctrine and dogma? Dogma is the dogmatic martial taught by the Church one is obliged to believe. You also seem to confused as to what an objective Tradition is.

Scripture itself is infallible in so long as it resides in the Catholic Church. Christ’s mission, at least in part, establishes a “Church” both as teacher and measure. Not Scripture a BOOK standing alone as the eunuch said, ‘how will I know unless someone shows me’ [Cf. Acts 8:31] Should we find Scripture to be the Divine Word himself, rightly it would be an object of worship – that is having the infallible spirit of word would make the object BOOK Divine. Church Councils, Synods, Fathers, Popes and miracles along with natural reason together form a uniform measure of that faith, whereby the faithful can equate good and discern evil. Miracles are individual extraordinary graces by which we can understand the Word of God and occasionally become binding on the remaining body of Christ. Natural reasoning requires knowledge of things yet unseen forming a truth revealed over centuries. The Popes and Councils both teach and maintain the meaning of Scripture. They also establish those things binding on all members of the Body of Christ. Sacred tradition is entwined with all of these.

Tradition is only one part in a sole and infallible rule of faith that stands with Sacred Scripture and the Church, not apart. One function of Sacred Tradition is similar to licensing of disciplines, similar to those in the natural sciences, e.g. medical doctors, architects, engineers, etc. Each offers the public the use of certain fields of science to solve specific problems. These disciplines function within parameters of a 'standard of practice,' the basic ethics of their practice. The science is applied morally when certain technical and ethical standards are met; those applications are proven by theorem or validating tests. Our legal system recognizes a 'standard of practice' as the measure or a guide of rightly applied science. Similarly, the function of Sacred Tradition is to 'maintain' proven theological axioms and those received by word of mouth from Christ and His Apostles.

Another purpose of Sacred Tradition maintains generational transmission of habits (discipline) in putting to practice God’s revelations to man. Words have changed over millennia, sometimes completely reversing in meaning necessitating a body of knowledge keeping the original intent. In short we live and learn within the costumes prevalent in our own era, which may or may not have similarities to Christ’s society 2,000 years ago. Tradition therefore is a measure, keeping constant through the ages the intent of Christ’s meaning. “A man might measure heaven and earth with a reed, but not with a growing reed.” (Heretics, G. K. Chesterton). Likewise, we cannot measure the revealed heavens with customs and language that changes generation to generation.

To measure the Divine Word, we are given a rule from the Holy Spirit through the Church consisting of Sacred Tradition together with Sacred Scripture, the Church to teach a divine word Divinely. Private interpretations should be reformed to the doctrines of the Church so that the faithful have the real intent and purpose of God’s Word, unchanging in meaning era to era to the whim of various groups or individuals. Furthermore, the faithful are obligated by this rule to be docile in learning these doctrines of faith’s discipline.

Concluding, Church forms our faith, and we affirm this faith measuring it against an objective Tradition. This is the role of 'Tradition', the established rule; yes, outside of which is chaos, disorder in opposition to God's order.

JoeT

To be concise and clear, the primary difference between Protestant and Catholic theology relates to what Catholics consider to be "holy tradition". Protestants rely upon the Bible as the infallible Word of God - period. Catholics also believe that the Bible is the Word of God, but consider it as part of its "holy tradition" and not the only source of truth. On an equal plane of significance in Catholicism with the Bible are various doctrines and dogmas which continue to form "holy tradition". In Catholicism, unlike Eastern Orthodoxy, "holy tradition" continues to develop and grow. Thus, in 1871 it was determined that the doctrine of Papal infallibility was divine truth. That assertion split the Catholic Church in Poland asunder with the Polish National Catholic Church (which is neither Protestant nor Orthodox) being the result. Then, in 1950 the four Marian doctrines were turned into dogmas which must absolutely be believed in order for a person to hope to obtain salvation.

Catholic "holy tradition" continues to evolve and change. Conservative Catholics have been agitating for the dogmatization of the fifth Marian doctrine of Co-Redemptrix. Liberal Catholics, recently in the Synod of Germany, are agitating for greater acceptance of Catholics who fall outside of the moral strictures of traditional Catholicism, as well as greater participation by women, including ordination to the priesthood. All it takes to achieve any of these goals is a simple "ex-cathedra" statement by a Pope and it is a done deal, at least until some later Pope decides to consign earlier "holy tradition" to the dustbin of the Vatican, as with many of the old Papal Bulls and Anathemas.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

I disagree, both Old and New Testaments are written in a handful of different Near East languages, they are translated to Greek and eventually to Latin for the Roman population by the Catholic Church.

The NT was written in Greek with a few phrases in Aramaic. The OT was written in Hebrew. The OT was translated to Greek (Septuagint) but the NT was originally written in Greek so no translation.

Many Catholic scholars believe that Matthew was first written in Aramaic then translated to Greek.

I have done some digging on this and there is no strong evidence it was written in Aramaic. It would change nothing if it was.

Many of which are not in existence today and not available to scholars of any kind.

There is a lot of speculation as to which manuscripts he used and some of the possibilities do exist today. Not all are convinced he did all the translating. There are some different styles in his work suggesting he may have used some existing Latin translations or had help. His was not the first Latin translation.

I'm going to challenge you on this, what 1st century manuscripts related to the bible are still in existence.

Jerome lived in the 400s. We don't know for sure which manuscripts he used. Saying he used 1st-century manuscripts is speculation. The miraculous thing about the Bible is how wonderfully it's been preserved. We have over 26,000 full or partial manuscripts dating from the 100s onward. All but 11 verses of the NT were quoted in writings by the early church fathers. As all these sources have been studied, less than 1% of the NT text is different and most of that is spelling and punctuation changes. No other work of antiquity can compare. That gives us great confidence in all the manuscripts we have.

To give a better exegesis. Not to re-write scripture in the Protestant image.

JoeT

You keep implying there are major differences between Protestant translations and Catholic translations. What examples can you give of Scripture being re-writing "in the Protestant image?" As I have stated before, the difference between Catholics and Protestants is not in our Bibles but in our interpretations and use of tradition. I have never suggested Jerome did a bad translation or that any Catholic translation is bad. Why do you keep bringing this up?

 

[JoeT]

To be concise and clear, the primary difference between Protestant and Catholic theology relates to what Catholics consider to be "holy tradition".

By all means lets be concise and as clear as possible; unless Sacred Scripture was literally written by the hand of God, it is Sacred Tradition. Jesus Christ did not write Scripture, nor did were they written by the finger of God. The Scriptures were written by Apostles who were chosen by God to disseminate His word throughout the world teaching whatsoever was commanded by Christ . Hence, the Body of Christ, the Church is a Divine institution created by God to keep and spread the word of God. Sacred Scriptures, inspired by God through the Apostles, was written for the authority of the Church to teach the Divine Word as Christ commissioned them to do. This is done in the context of their customs and life with Christ for the authority of the Church.

Protestants rely upon the Bible as the infallible Word of God - period.

In Sacred Scripture Christ tells the Apostles that the Holy Spirit will teach them what to say. How do you know the meaning without Catholic Tradition which is also Sacred? [John 14:26]

Catholics also believe that the Bible is the Word of God, but consider it as part of its "holy tradition" and not the only source of truth.

We believe Sacred Scripture together with Sacred Tradition along with the Church, consisting of the Popes, the Caouncils, Bishops, and the Early Church Fathers together form the rule of faith.

On an equal plane of significance in Catholicism with the Bible are various doctrines and dogmas which continue to form "holy tradition". In Catholicism, unlike Eastern Orthodoxy, "holy tradition" continues to develop and grow. Thus, in 1871 it was determined that the doctrine of Papal infallibility was divine truth. That assertion split the Catholic Church in Poland asunder with the Polish National Catholic Church (which is neither Protestant nor Orthodox) being the result. Then, in 1950 the four Marian doctrines were turned into dogmas which must absolutely be believed in order for a person to hope to obtain salvation.

Catholic "holy tradition" continues to evolve and change. Conservative Catholics have been agitating for the dogmatization of the fifth Marian doctrine of Co-Redemptrix. Liberal Catholics, recently in the Synod of Germany, are agitating for greater acceptance of Catholics who fall outside of the moral strictures of traditional Catholicism, as well as greater participation by women, including ordination to the priesthood. All it takes to achieve any of these goals is a simple "ex-cathedra" statement by a Pope and it is a done deal, at least until some later Pope decides to consign earlier "holy tradition" to the dustbin of the Vatican, as with many of the old Papal Bulls and Anathemas.

They change because the Holy Spirit teaches the Church "teach you all things" needed. With regard to Papal infallibility, it was practiced long before the First Vatican Council only defined at the council. It's true of slavery as well, none Catholics believed slavery was moral, Catholics did not for centuries before the 17 and 18 hundreds. Catholics still teach that divorce is immoral, Protestants do not.

You should know, that most of the so called Protestant 'traditions' are less than 200 years old.

I don't see an equal plane rather a tilted plane of Protestantism, like all slippery slopes is headed for a fall.

JoeT

 

[prodromos]

With regard to Papal infallibility, it was practiced long before the First Vatican Council only defined at the council.

Um, no it wasn't.

 

[JoeT]

Aren't we getting far afield. The OP is "A Necessity - 4 Marian Doctrines". Not your opinion of Scripture.

JoeT

 

[bbbbbbb]

By all means lets be concise and as clear as possible; unless Sacred Scripture was literally written by the hand of God, it is Sacred Tradition. Jesus Christ did not write Scripture, nor did were they written by the finger of God. The Scriptures were written by Apostles who were chosen by God to disseminate His word throughout the world teaching whatsoever was commanded by Christ . Hence, the Body of Christ, the Church is a Divine institution created by God to keep and spread the word of God. Sacred Scriptures, inspired by God through the Apostles, was written for the authority of the Church to teach the Divine Word as Christ commissioned them to do. This is done in the context of their customs and life with Christ for the authority of the Church.


In Sacred Scripture Christ tells the Apostles that the Holy Spirit will teach them what to say. How do you know the meaning without Catholic Tradition which is also Sacred? [John 14:26]

We believe Sacred Scripture together with Sacred Tradition along with the Church, consisting of the Popes, the Caouncils, Bishops, and the Early Church Fathers together form the rule of faith.




They change because the Holy Spirit teaches the Church "teach you all things" needed. With regard to Papal infallibility, it was practiced long before the First Vatican Council only defined at the council. It's true of slavery as well, none Catholics believed slavery was moral, Catholics did not for centuries before the 17 and 18 hundreds. Catholics still teach that divorce is immoral, Protestants do not.

You should know, that most of the so called Protestant 'traditions' are less than 200 years old.

I don't see an equal plane rather a tilted plane of Protestantism, like all slippery slopes is headed for a fall.

JoeT

I think we both agree that the Bible is more than 200 years old.

Thank you for your excellent post affirming the essential differences between Catholic theology and Protestant theology. Thus, we confirm that in Catholic theology, which is subject to changes and alterations, the proclamation in 1950 that the Four Catholic Marian Dogmas are, and must be, considered by all Catholics as an essential set of beliefs in order to have any hope for salvation. The rest of Christendom, including the EOC, simply do not recognize Catholic holy tradition in the same light, to say the least.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

By all means lets be concise and as clear as possible; unless Sacred Scripture was literally written by the hand of God, it is Sacred Tradition. Jesus Christ did not write Scripture, nor did were they written by the finger of God. The Scriptures were written by Apostles who were chosen by God to disseminate His word throughout the world teaching whatsoever was commanded by Christ . Hence, the Body of Christ, the Church is a Divine institution created by God to keep and spread the word of God. Sacred Scriptures, inspired by God through the Apostles, was written for the authority of the Church to teach the Divine Word as Christ commissioned them to do. This is done in the context of their customs and life with Christ for the authority of the Church.


In Sacred Scripture Christ tells the Apostles that the Holy Spirit will teach them what to say. How do you know the meaning without Catholic Tradition which is also Sacred? [John 14:26]

We believe Sacred Scripture together with Sacred Tradition along with the Church, consisting of the Popes, the Caouncils, Bishops, and the Early Church Fathers together form the rule of faith.




They change because the Holy Spirit teaches the Church "teach you all things" needed. With regard to Papal infallibility, it was practiced long before the First Vatican Council only defined at the council. It's true of slavery as well, none Catholics believed slavery was moral, Catholics did not for centuries before the 17 and 18 hundreds. Catholics still teach that divorce is immoral, Protestants do not.

You should know, that most of the so called Protestant 'traditions' are less than 200 years old.

I don't see an equal plane rather a tilted plane of Protestantism, like all slippery slopes is headed for a fall.

JoeT

The "church" Christ founded was not the RC church, the Lutheran church, the Baptist church, or any other similar church. It was the church universal comprised of all who follow Christ regardless of which earthly church they attend. What Jesus taught the apostles and disciples to pass on is found in the Scriptures. That is our sure source of divine truth. All human traditions no matter how ancient must be tested against Scripture and only those consistent with Scripture are valid. To claim divine authority outside of Scripture is dangerous and flawed.

You would consider my church a Protestant church (it's a non-denominational church) and it very much teaches that divorce is immoral. I have never attended a church that taught otherwise. I can't speak to the mainline Protestant denominations as I have never been a member of one. It is the Word of God that forms the rule of faith. Not popes, cardinals, or bishops.

That is the difference between Catholics and Protestants. We (Protestants) based our faith on sola scriptura. For that reason, we reject the Marian doctrines that aren't based on Scripture. They are the traditions of men that fail to find their basis in Scripture.

 

[bbbbbbb]

The "church" Christ founded was not the RC church, the Lutheran church, the Baptist church, or any other similar church. It was the church universal comprised of all who follow Christ regardless of which earthly church they attend. What Jesus taught the apostles and disciples to pass on is found in the Scriptures. That is our sure source of divine truth. All human traditions no matter how ancient must be tested against Scripture and only those consistent with Scripture are valid. To claim divine authority outside of Scripture is dangerous and flawed.

You would consider my church a Protestant church (it's a non-denominational church) and it very much teaches that divorce is immoral. I have never attended a church that taught otherwise. I can't speak to the mainline Protestant denominations as I have never been a member of one. It is the Word of God that forms the rule of faith. Not popes, cardinals, or bishops.

That is the difference between Catholics and Protestants. We (Protestants) based our faith on sola scriptura. For that reason, we reject the Marian doctrines that aren't based on Scripture. They are the traditions of men that fail to find their basis in Scripture.

Thanks for expanding on my explanation that Protestants believe the Bible to be the inerrant Word of God, plus nothing else, including other aspects of any "holy tradition".

 

[JoeT]

I think we both agree that the Bible is more than 200 years old.

Thank you for your excellent post affirming the essential differences between Catholic theology and Protestant theology. Thus, we confirm that in Catholic theology, which is subject to changes and alterations, the proclamation in 1950 that the Four Catholic Marian Dogmas are, and must be, considered by all Catholics as an essential set of beliefs in order to have any hope for salvation. The rest of Christendom, including the EOC, simply do not recognize Catholic holy tradition in the same light, to say the least.

They should. And, they must; the Marian doctrines, in fact all Catholic doctrine is binding on all Christendom.

JoeT

 

[JoeT]

The "church" Christ founded was not the RC church, the Lutheran church, the Baptist church, or any other similar church. It was the church universal comprised of all who follow Christ regardless of which earthly church they attend. What Jesus taught the apostles and disciples to pass on is found in the Scriptures. That is our sure source of divine truth. All human traditions no matter how ancient must be tested against Scripture and only those consistent with Scripture are valid. To claim divine authority outside of Scripture is dangerous and flawed.

Where does it say that in Scripture?

You would consider my church a Protestant church (it's a non-denominational church) and it very much teaches that divorce is immoral. I have never attended a church that taught otherwise. I can't speak to the mainline Protestant denominations as I have never been a member of one. It is the Word of God that forms the rule of faith. Not popes, cardinals, or bishops.

Then Jesus Christ didn't know what He was talking about when He said He would always be with the Church?

That is the difference between Catholics and Protestants. We (Protestants) based our faith on sola scriptura. For that reason, we reject the Marian doctrines that aren't based on Scripture. They are the traditions of men that fail to find their basis in Scripture.

Then you worship a book?

JoeT

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Where does it say that in Scripture?

Then Jesus Christ didn't know what He was talking about when He said He would always be with the Church?

Then you worship a book?

JoeT

Paul wrote that the church was built on the "apostles and the prophets." Jesus said he would build his church on the confession that he is the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus has always been with his church and always will be. He has never not been with the church (universal). I worship the God revealed to us in the Scriptures.

 

[bbbbbbb]

They should. And, they must; the Marian doctrines, in fact all Catholic doctrine is binding on all Christendom.

JoeT

Precisely what makes you think that "all Catholic doctrine is binding on all Christendom"?

 

[Darren Court]

On recent threads, the conversation turned to the Mother of God, Mary. I contend however that the Catholic Marian Doctrines are not only profitable to knowing Jesus Christ, but also a necessity to our love of the Lord.

St. Augustine once said, and I’ll paraphrase, ‘no one can love what is not known’. [St. Augustine, On the Holy Trinity, X] St. Paul gets more to the point couching it a little differently, “But if any man love God, the same is known by him." [1 Corinthians 8:3]. You might recall from the Magnificat where Mary makes two passionate statements. The first is she is the handmaiden of God implying a spousal relationship. The other is that her soul “magnifies the Lord”.

And Mary said: My soul doth magnify the Lord. And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Savior. Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid; for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. Because he that is mighty, hath done great things to me; and holy is his name. And his mercy is from generation unto generations, to them that fear him. He hath shewed might in his arm: he hath scattered the proud in the conceit of their heart. He hath put down the mighty from their seat, and hath exalted the humble. He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away. He hath received Israel his servant, being mindful of his mercy: As he spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to his seed forever." [Luke 1:46-55]​

The four Marian dogmas regarding Mary are the Mother of God, Immaculate Conception, perpetual virginity, and Assumption, I’m not sure if they came in that order. Nevertheless, each of these doctrines ‘magnify’ the Lord who is the Second Person of the Trinity, wholly Divine, wholly human without mixing or confusion, in unity uniquely and inseparably joined.

Consequently, without adopting and knowing these doctrines one does not truly know Jesus Christ except maybe superficially, a peffi faith [Cf. 1 Corinthians 8:3]. Jesus Christ becomes a confused image in a dark opaque shadow.

JoeT

Brother, I would contend completely the opposite.. that the Catholic Marian Doctrines are based on spurious understanding and misapplication of scripture that goes over the line of veneration into worship of Mary.
..
The fact is that there is a line between veneration and worship. The bible does not make it clear where the line is, and so any discussion about the precise point of this line is mute. It means it is entirely possible that what some passionately believe is just veneration, that God sees as worship... and God makes it clear worship is reserved for Him.
..
Adopting these doctrines is at best risky and at worst damnation. Irrespective, the scripture does not support in any way the requirement to KNOW Mary or even the ability to have any kind of relationship with Mary that you says is required to love Yeshuah!

 

[JoeT]

Brother, I would contend completely the opposite.. that the Catholic Marian Doctrines are based on spurious understanding and misapplication of scripture that goes over the line of veneration into worship of Mary.
..

I strongly disagree. Catholics are not bound to “Scripture alone”, you see God wants us to know Him through His interactions with mankind and doesn’t ask us to put aside the intellect He gave us. We believe God want’s us to know Him because you can’t love what you don’t know. Without Mary one cannot know the love of God, cannot know Jesus Christ.

The fact is that there is a line between veneration and worship. The bible does not make it clear where the line is, and so any discussion about the precise point of this line is mute. It means it is entirely possible that what some passionately believe is just veneration, that God sees as worship... and God makes it clear worship is reserved for Him.
..

There could be two reasons for this, you are imprinting your own prejudices on Catholic doctrine, or you don’t understand that we don’t worship Mary as divinity or want to believe we don’t worship Mary. She is the Mother of our faith. Either way, I can’t help you.

How do you know what God sees and doesn't see. Are you setting yourself up as the arbiter of worship?

Adopting these doctrines is at best risky and at worst damnation. Irrespective, the scripture does not support in any way the requirement to KNOW Mary or even the ability to have any kind of relationship with Mary that you says is required to love Yeshuah!

Catholics didn’t willy-nilly adopt doctrines. Once again, Sacred Scripture is not a DIY manual, rather the story of life and death. The angel Gabriel, an envoi from God didn’t hesitate to honor Mary. It such an august celestial being honors Mary why should we not, to help your ego? All generations shall call her blessed, “because He that is mighty, hath done great things to me and Holy is His name.” [Luke 1:49]

In recognizing Mary's role in as the New Eve, we acknowledge Jesus Christ as the only mediator. We have only one whose merits obtain our grace and salvation. Recognizing Jesus Christ however affirms God's will that He dispenses grace through Mary. Consequently we are affirming her role as mediatrix, dispenser of God's graces.

The prophecy of Mary asserts, "By me [Mary] kings reign, and lawgivers decree just things," [Proverbs 8:15]. Thus, avowing our "most fervent affection" Mary intercedes with her prayers which profits graces to reign over our passions. It is in Mary alone that we can affirm or worship of God the Person of Father, God the Person of the Son, and God the Person of the Holy Spirit. Mary becomes as it were our looking glass onto and into Divinity.

And the holy Church herself assures us of this, when she affirms that God prepared the body and soul of the Virgin to be, on earth, a habitation worthy of his only begotten Son.

And we affirm that this necessity arises from the will of God itself, who has ordained that all the favors which he dispenses should pass through the hands of Mary,

We acknowledge that Jesus Christ is the only mediator of justice who by his merits obtains for us grace and salvation; but we affirm that Mary is the mediatrix of grace, and although whatever she obtains, she obtains through the merits of Jesus Christ. She prays and asks for it in the name of Jesus Christ who cannot refuse her, yet whatever favors we ask are all obtained through her intercession.

If asserting Mary was not immaculate at birth you prove that the God who took on flesh for your sins came out of sin! God decidedly does not accept those things coming out of sin as a sacrifice. In Sacred Scripture see that any one born of woman with original sin bears a dead child without salvation therein receiving the justice passed on Adam, death. In Saint Ambrose’s day Christology was just being formed into the body of knowledge we have today. The First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea was 325 and the third Ecumenical Council at Ephesus would occur 34 years after St. Ambrose’s death. Yet, Ambrose, didn't find her Perpetual Virginity an oddity at all, rather he says she was worthy to be chosen "Mother of God", not exceedingly lucky, not because of her brown skin, not because of her beautiful hair, but because she was found worthy of God in her own righteousness.

And why should I tell how great is the grace of virginity, which was found worthy to be chosen by Christ, that it might be even the bodily temple of God, in which as we read the fullness of the Godhead dwelt bodily. A Virgin conceived the Salvation of the world; a Virgin brought forth the life of all. Virginity then ought not to be left to itself, seeing that it benefited all in Christ. A Virgin bore Him Whom this world cannot contain or support. And when He was born from His mother’s womb, He yet preserved the fence of her chastity and the inviolate seal of her virginity. And so Christ found in the Virgin that which He willed to make His own, that which the Lord of all might take to Himself. Further, our flesh was cast out of Paradise by a man and woman and was joined to God through a Virgin. [St. Ambrose, 339 A.D., Epistle LXIII: To the Church at Vercellæ ]​

JoeT

 

[bbbbbbb]

I strongly disagree. Catholics are not bound to “Scripture alone”, you see God wants us to know Him through His interactions with mankind and doesn’t ask us to put aside the intellect He gave us. We believe God want’s us to know Him because you can’t love what you don’t know. Without Mary one cannot know the love of God, cannot know Jesus Christ.

There could be two reasons for this, you are imprinting your own prejudices on Catholic doctrine, or you don’t understand that we don’t worship Mary as divinity or want to believe we don’t worship Mary. She is the Mother of our faith. Either way, I can’t help you.

How do you know what God sees and doesn't see. Are you setting yourself up as the arbiter of worship?

Catholics didn’t willy-nilly adopt doctrines. Once again, Sacred Scripture is not a DIY manual, rather the story of life and death. The angel Gabriel, an envoi from God didn’t hesitate to honor Mary. It such an august celestial being honors Mary why should we not, to help your ego? All generations shall call her blessed, “because He that is mighty, hath done great things to me and Holy is His name.” [Luke 1:49]

In recognizing Mary's role in as the New Eve, we acknowledge Jesus Christ as the only mediator. We have only one whose merits obtain our grace and salvation. Recognizing Jesus Christ however affirms God's will that He dispenses grace through Mary. Consequently we are affirming her role as mediatrix, dispenser of God's graces.

The prophecy of Mary asserts, "By me [Mary] kings reign, and lawgivers decree just things," [Proverbs 8:15]. Thus, avowing our "most fervent affection" Mary intercedes with her prayers which profits graces to reign over our passions. It is in Mary alone that we can affirm or worship of God the Person of Father, God the Person of the Son, and God the Person of the Holy Spirit. Mary becomes as it were our looking glass onto and into Divinity.

And the holy Church herself assures us of this, when she affirms that God prepared the body and soul of the Virgin to be, on earth, a habitation worthy of his only begotten Son.

And we affirm that this necessity arises from the will of God itself, who has ordained that all the favors which he dispenses should pass through the hands of Mary,

We acknowledge that Jesus Christ is the only mediator of justice who by his merits obtains for us grace and salvation; but we affirm that Mary is the mediatrix of grace, and although whatever she obtains, she obtains through the merits of Jesus Christ. She prays and asks for it in the name of Jesus Christ who cannot refuse her, yet whatever favors we ask are all obtained through her intercession.

If asserting Mary was not immaculate at birth you prove that the God who took on flesh for your sins came out of sin! God decidedly does not accept those things coming out of sin as a sacrifice. In Sacred Scripture see that any one born of woman with original sin bears a dead child without salvation therein receiving the justice passed on Adam, death. In Saint Ambrose’s day Christology was just being formed into the body of knowledge we have today. The First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea was 325 and the third Ecumenical Council at Ephesus would occur 34 years after St. Ambrose’s death. Yet, Ambrose, didn't find her Perpetual Virginity an oddity at all, rather he says she was worthy to be chosen "Mother of God", not exceedingly lucky, not because of her brown skin, not because of her beautiful hair, but because she was found worthy of God in her own righteousness.

And why should I tell how great is the grace of virginity, which was found worthy to be chosen by Christ, that it might be even the bodily temple of God, in which as we read the fullness of the Godhead dwelt bodily. A Virgin conceived the Salvation of the world; a Virgin brought forth the life of all. Virginity then ought not to be left to itself, seeing that it benefited all in Christ. A Virgin bore Him Whom this world cannot contain or support. And when He was born from His mother’s womb, He yet preserved the fence of her chastity and the inviolate seal of her virginity. And so Christ found in the Virgin that which He willed to make His own, that which the Lord of all might take to Himself. Further, our flesh was cast out of Paradise by a man and woman and was joined to God through a Virgin. [St. Ambrose, 339 A.D., Epistle LXIII: To the Church at Vercellæ ]​

JoeT

Hi Joe. Would you kindly answer my question? "Precisely what makes you think that "all Catholic doctrine is binding on all Christendom"?"

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

I strongly disagree. Catholics are not bound to “Scripture alone”, you see God wants us to know Him through His interactions with mankind and doesn’t ask us to put aside the intellect He gave us. We believe God want’s us to know Him because you can’t love what you don’t know. Without Mary one cannot know the love of God, cannot know Jesus Christ.

Wrong. God could have chosen another woman. Even before Christ, in the OT, the love of God was manifest. Jesus made pre-incarnate appearances. One most certainly can know the love of God without Mary.

There could be two reasons for this, you are imprinting your own prejudices on Catholic doctrine, or you don’t understand that we don’t worship Mary as divinity or want to believe we don’t worship Mary. She is the Mother of our faith. Either way, I can’t help you.

Mary is NOT the mother of our faith. Our faith comes from the Holy Spirit and Mary did not have any part in that. Being the mother of Jesus' humanity does not make her the mother of our faith. Just because God used her as an instrument in the incarnation does not make her a part of our faith.

How do you know what God sees and doesn't see. Are you setting yourself up as the arbiter of worship?

Catholics didn’t willy-nilly adopt doctrines. Once again, Sacred Scripture is not a DIY manual, rather the story of life and death. The angel Gabriel, an envoi from God didn’t hesitate to honor Mary. It such an august celestial being honors Mary why should we not, to help your ego? All generations shall call her blessed, “because He that is mighty, hath done great things to me and Holy is His name.” [Luke 1:49]

Notice who Mary gives the glory to? God. "Because He that is might, hath done great things to me..." Mary is blessed because God blessed her. Mary is honored because God chose her for honor. While I believe Mary to be a chaste and virtuous woman, look at all the people in Scripture God used. Moses, who stuttered and constantly felt unworthy. Rahab, a harlot. David (a man after God's own heart) an adulterer and murderer. Saul a Jew who was zealous to arrest Christians and throw them in prison. That is just a partial list. It is God who makes the man. These people were not chosen because they were perfect. They were chosen to display the mercy and power of God. Mary was a lowly handmaiden yet made the mother of God incarnate. All these people considered themselves worthless slaves unworthy of their calling. They gave all the glory to God. You insist on putting Mary on a pedestal but she never sought such a position. No author of the NT puts her in such a position. Gabriel recognized that she would be honored because of God's grace. The glory was never Mary's. It was God's and I'm sure Mary would be the first to say that.

In recognizing Mary's role in as the New Eve, we acknowledge Jesus Christ as the only mediator. We have only one whose merits obtain our grace and salvation. Recognizing Jesus Christ however affirms God's will that He dispenses grace through Mary. Consequently we are affirming her role as mediatrix, dispenser of God's graces.

As we have discussed before, Scripture does not call Mary a "New Even" nor sets up a parallel between her and Eve. That is a Catholic invention. God dispensed some grace through Mary but dispenses grace in many ways through many people. Being the mother of Jesus is no way makes her a mediatrix or dispenser of God's graces. You are assigning titles to her Scripture does not. Jesus alone mediates.

The prophecy of Mary asserts, "By me [Mary] kings reign, and lawgivers decree just things," [Proverbs 8:15]. Thus, avowing our "most fervent affection" Mary intercedes with her prayers which profits graces to reign over our passions. It is in Mary alone that we can affirm or worship of God the Person of Father, God the Person of the Son, and God the Person of the Holy Spirit. Mary becomes as it were our looking glass onto and into Divinity.

Proverbs 8 has NOTHING to do with Mary. It speaks of wisdom and in no way alludes to Mary. That is more Catholic fiction. To say that "it is in Mary alone that we can affirm or worship ..." is blasphemy! No one in the OT needed Mary to worship the Trinity. Mary is no looking glass. God forgive you for such blasphemous statements!

And the holy Church herself assures us of this, when she affirms that God prepared the body and soul of the Virgin to be, on earth, a habitation worthy of his only begotten Son.

And we affirm that this necessity arises from the will of God itself, who has ordained that all the favors which he dispenses should pass through the hands of Mary,

We acknowledge that Jesus Christ is the only mediator of justice who by his merits obtains for us grace and salvation; but we affirm that Mary is the mediatrix of grace, and although whatever she obtains, she obtains through the merits of Jesus Christ. She prays and asks for it in the name of Jesus Christ who cannot refuse her, yet whatever favors we ask are all obtained through her intercession.

Blasphemy!

If asserting Mary was not immaculate at birth you prove that the God who took on flesh for your sins came out of sin! God decidedly does not accept those things coming out of sin as a sacrifice. In Sacred Scripture see that any one born of woman with original sin bears a dead child without salvation therein receiving the justice passed on Adam, death. In Saint Ambrose’s day Christology was just being formed into the body of knowledge we have today. The First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea was 325 and the third Ecumenical Council at Ephesus would occur 34 years after St. Ambrose’s death. Yet, Ambrose, didn't find her Perpetual Virginity an oddity at all, rather he says she was worthy to be chosen "Mother of God", not exceedingly lucky, not because of her brown skin, not because of her beautiful hair, but because she was found worthy of God in her own righteousness.

How is it an immaculate Mary came from sinful parents? If Mary had to be without original sin, to bear a child without original sin, then how could her parents have original sin and bear her without? If God could have Mary born without original sin, by sinful parents, then why could he not do the same with Jesus? All the things you claim would have been passed from Mary to Jesus would have been passed from Mary's parents to her. Are you saying God could preserve Mary from original sin but not Jesus? Your argument holds no logic. God can do anything. Jesus was without original sin because it is passed through the father and Jesus' "father" was the Holy Spirit. It was not necessary for Mary to be without original sin. If it was, then her parents would have had to be without it as well or else you are saying God can only preserve Mary from original sin but not His son?

And why should I tell how great is the grace of virginity, which was found worthy to be chosen by Christ, that it might be even the bodily temple of God, in which as we read the fullness of the Godhead dwelt bodily. A Virgin conceived the Salvation of the world; a Virgin brought forth the life of all. Virginity then ought not to be left to itself, seeing that it benefited all in Christ. A Virgin bore Him Whom this world cannot contain or support. And when He was born from His mother’s womb, He yet preserved the fence of her chastity and the inviolate seal of her virginity. And so Christ found in the Virgin that which He willed to make His own, that which the Lord of all might take to Himself. Further, our flesh was cast out of Paradise by a man and woman and was joined to God through a Virgin. [St. Ambrose, 339 A.D., Epistle LXIII: To the Church at Vercellæ ]​

JoeT

This all comes from an ancient cult of virginity. Even in pagan religions, it was always a virgin that had to be sacrificed to appease their gods. Yet God ordained marriage and sex within marriage. Virginity is not a superior state. Virginity does not make someone more holy. The only significance of Mary's virginity is that it proved her son was of the Holy Spirit as women cannot otherwise get pregnant without a man. Having served that purpose, it was not necessary for her to remain a virgin. Having relations with her husband was a holy thing and a normal part of marriage. A married woman who has relations with her husband is chaste! Chastity is only lost through sinful sex, not through marital sex. We need to stop this virgin worship.

Joe, you can spout all this Catholic nonsense but much of it is blasphemous. Rightly is Catholocism rejected. It is a false religion, preaching a false Gospel, leading men astray. The good name of Mary is being trampled under blasphemous titles. I have no doubt it saddens her heart to see how God's glory is being lessened in giving glory to her. You need to repent and ask God's forgiveness for teaching such falsehoods. I hate to have to put it like that. I am a sinner too but you go too far. Your church goes too far. It is a cult.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

On the Immaculate Conception, several Greek church fathers (e.g. Origen, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, and Basil) held that while Mary had outstanding character she was still guilty of such sins as doubt, vanity, and ambition. (See Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 4th ed., ed. in English by James Canon Bastible, trans. from the German by Patrick Lynch (Rockford, Ill.: TAN Books and Publishers, 1974), 203. Augustine taught that while Mary (like all humans) had been conceived with original sin, she received a special measure of grace through which she overcame it. In other words, she was free from personal sin but not original sin.

The doctrine that Mary was conceived "immaculately" --without the stain of original sin -- was first propagated at the beginning of the 12th century by the British monk Eadmer. It was strongly opposed, however, by virtually all the leading theologians of the time, including Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure, Peter Lombard, and Alexander of Hales. It was John Duns Scotus (1264-1308) who proposed that it was the foreseen merits of Christ that enabled Mary to escape original sin. The doctrine remained controversial in the 14th and 15th centuries until Pope Pius IX defined it as unquestionable dogma in 1854. This was the first dogma ever to be pronounced solely on the authority of a pope without the official sanction of a council. (The Cult of the Virgin, Elliot Miller and Kenneth Samples).

Thus we have a Catholic dogma, declared by a lone Pope, in 1854. History shows that not all Catholic scholars of the ages were in agreement. It was never made dogma by a council. One cannot claim it was a truth long held by the church but made official in 1854. It has no Scriptural support and not even the consensus of the leading scholars of the time. Quite a few early church fathers disagreed.

It is a heretical teaching.