A Necessity - 4 Marian Doctrines

[Darren Court]

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

 

[Darren Court]

I strongly disagree. Catholics are not bound to “Scripture alone”,

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

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.

Absolutely God wants a personal relationship with Him, so close He lives in us and us in Him.... but nowhere does scripture or for that matter any early church record does it say we cannot do so without knowing Mary. This would make Mary and yet the bible says there is only one intermediary between God and man, and that's Jesus!!

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.

Saying you don't worship Mary, believing passionately that you don't worship Mary, does not mean you don't worship Mary. Basing your claim that you don't worship Mary solely on the fact that you don't think you do is not evidence of anything but could be denial and delusion. Look, I made the point really clear and if you have something to offer on that point, I'd love to hear it. The fact is that you cannot point to any scripture to demonstrate where the line is between veneration and worship... and so you cannot say God does not see your veneration of worship. Granted I cannot say it is worship either but then I'm in no risk of falling foul to worshiping and contravening God's rules.

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

Catholics didn’t willy-nilly adopt doctrines.

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

All generations shall call her blessed, “because He that is mighty, hath done great things to me and Holy is His name.”

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

Recognizing Jesus Christ however affirms God's will that He dispenses grace through Mary.

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

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.

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

If asserting Mary was not immaculate at birth you prove that the God who took on flesh for your sins came out of sin!

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

God decidedly does not accept those things coming out of sin as a sacrifice.

You see, this is more creative thinking not based on God's instructions! Nowhere does the bible say that God does not accept those things coming out of sin!

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.

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

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.

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

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

 

[Darren Court]

There are so many holes in Catholic teaching. I call it the "It's like this but not really" doctrines...

1) We must literally eat the body and drink the blood, but not really
2) We are in mortal sin if we miss mass (when we could go), but not really
3) Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation, but not really
4) The Priest forgives sins, but not really.

It could be renamed the "Not Really" Church although I think the CCC would be better (Confused Catholic Church).

Even within their own beliefs, they are confused...

The Catholic catechism and indeed scripture itself defines “church” as the body of believers! That is also known as the body. It is not an organization or a building. cc752 “In Christian usage, the word "church" designates the liturgical assembly, but also the local community or the whole universal community of believers.

Then the catechism accepts that those who are baptised and believe OUTSIDE of the Catholic Church are brothers! Meaning they are believers! cc818 “All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church”

So it seems cc752 with cc818 are in conflict with “there is only one true Church and that’s the Catholic Church” because at the very least, even accepting Catholic arguments (which I don't), the church is much more than the Catholic Church!

The truth will set you free!

 

[concretecamper]

The Catholic catechism and indeed scripture itself defines “church” as the body of believers! That is also known as the body. It is not an organization or a building. cc752 “In Christian usage, the word "church" designates the liturgical assembly, but also the local community or the whole universal community of believers.

Then the catechism accepts that those who are baptised and believe OUTSIDE of the Catholic Church are brothers! Meaning they are believers! cc818 “All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church”

So it seems cc752 with cc818 are in conflict with “there is only one true Church and that’s the Catholic Church” because at the very least, even accepting Catholic arguments (which I don't), the church is much more than the Catholic Church!

818 and 752 are not in conflict. In fact, they both very clearly support Christian teaching. The Church has always taught that any validly Baptized person is a member of Christ's Church. Now whether or not they succumb to heresy is a different story.

 

[Darren Court]

818 and 752 are not in conflict. In fact, they both very clearly support Christian teaching. Any validly Baptized person is a member of Christ's Church. Now whether or not they succumb to heresy is a different story.

Perhaps if you read my words correctly, you would have understood! I didn't say 818 and 752 are in conflict with each other but rather there are in conflicting with.."there is only one true Church and that’s the Catholic Church” and curiously you make no attempt to actually reconcile that problem!

 

[concretecamper]

Perhaps if you read my words correctly, you would have understood! I didn't say 818 and 752 are in conflict with each other but rather there are in conflicting with.."there is only one true Church and that’s the Catholic Church” and curiously you make no attempt to actually reconcile that problem!

neither 818 or 752 conflict with "there is only one true Church and that's the Catholic Church"

The Sacrament of Baptism is valid for those protestants who perform the Sacrament in accordance with

1. Jesus's words
2. Water
3. Intentions in accordance with Jesus's commands.

Therefore they are part of the Church. Any validly baptized person is a member of the Catholic Church.

Your conflict doesn't exist.

 

[Darren Court]

neither 818 or 752 conflict with "there is only one true Church and that's the Catholic Church"

The Sacrament of Baptism is valid for those protestants who perform the Sacrament in accordance with

1. Jesus's words
2. Water
3. Intentions in accordance with Jesus's commands.

Therefore they are part of the Church. Any validly baptized person is a member of the Catholic Church.

Your conflict doesn't exist.

You seem to be deliberately missing the point! I'm going to have to break it down for you!

1) Catholics say the Catholic Church is the ONLY true church
2) Catholic catechism says Christ's church, the ONLY true church is comprised of ALL believers!
3) Catholic catechism says there are believers, outside of the Catholic Church.
4) Ergo Christ's church, the ONLY true church is much bigger than the Catholic Church because there are believers outside the Catholic Church!

Trying to argue that Protestants who never visit a Catholic Church, don't believe in the Catholic sacraments, never partake of Catholic mass or confession, reject Catholic teaching but somehow have a valid baptism are actually part of the Catholic Church, with not one shred of biblical support, requires impressive mental gymnastics!

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

neither 818 or 752 conflict with "there is only one true Church and that's the Catholic Church"

The Sacrament of Baptism is valid for those protestants who perform the Sacrament in accordance with

1. Jesus's words
2. Water
3. Intentions in accordance with Jesus's commands.

Therefore they are part of the Church. Any validly baptized person is a member of the Catholic Church.

Your conflict doesn't exist.

I disagree. First, baptism is not a requirement for salvation. It is an act of obedience any believer should participate in if at all possible, but baptism comes after salvation. Second, the only church all true believers belong to is the church universal. Not the Catholic Church, the Lutheran Church, the Baptist Church, etc.

At times the RC church has said there is no salvation outside their church. Then they fudge and say if you're validly baptized then you are a part of our church and thus your salvation comes through our church. This despite the fact that such persons were not baptized by the RC church, not confirmed, never took a single RC sacrament and does not even agree with its teachings. There was a time when the RC church taught that anyone who believed salvation was by faith alone was anathema. So far as I know, but correct me if I am wrong, this has never been rescinded. So if I had a "valid baptism" but believe salvation is by faith alone, am I saved or not?

This is the problem with putting a church between God and man. Salvation is an act of faith whereby our sins are forgiven by the blood of Christ and we are made righteous by His imputed righteousness. No church need be involved in that transaction. You could be stranded on a deserted island and have a Bible wash ashore, read it, and by faith be saved. You could live in NYC and do the same. We are commanded to fellowship together but our salvation is an act of God done directly to the believer and not dependent on any church.

 

[concretecamper]

You seem to be deliberately missing the point! I'm going to have to break it down for you!

1) Catholics say the Catholic Church is the ONLY true church CORRECT
2) Catholic catechism says Christ's church, the ONLY true church is comprised of ALL believers! All believed justified by faith through Baptism.
3) Catholic catechism says there are believers, outside of the Catholic Church. WHERE DOES THE CCC SAY THIS?
4) Ergo Christ's church, the ONLY true church is much bigger than the Catholic Church because there are believers outside the Catholic Church!
SEE #3 ABOVE

Ugh, let's try this again. See above.

 

[Landon Caeli]

What does this mean?:





























































I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Sorry for the spaces.
I can't fix it.

 

[Darren Court]

If you're Catholic it means Christ was giving Peter authority over the church.
If you're not Catholic that's nonsense and obviously so....

Which keys is that Peter is being given? Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, not the church. The church is NEVER called the Kingdom of Heaven
How many keys? Don't know, but more than one. If it's ONE church, it only needs ONE key!
... and so the keys are nothing to do with Peter's authority over the church. I'll tell you what the keys are below.

Bind on earth bound in heaven. Loose on earth loose in heaven.
The problem here is the English translation and understanding. If these words were correct in the English, what Jesus is effectively saying is "I abdicate and put you in charge of what goes on in heaven" because that's precisely what the words say.... but note this isn't what people are thinking. It's not about salvation, it's about binding and loosing. Actually it's not about binding and loosing because these terms were commonly used in Jewish teaching to mean permit and prohibit. In other words, Jesus is saying "What you permit (according to your Father's will) on earth is permitted in heaven, what you prohibit (according to your Father's will) on earth is prohibited in heaven." The context shows this to be the case because it's about church judgement. Jesus is just declaring that they will act and proclaim things on behalf of God... but beyond this there is no authority being given here.

The keys
If we are going to try to understand what Jesus actually meant and not what we want Him to say, we have to first of all accept that He wasn't speaking in code for us to decipher 2,000 years after His death. He was speaking to the people in the bible and most often the people who would write the bible. Therefore, we have to get to grips with what they understood at the time or those words of Jesus were useless to them.

To do this we have to understand the topic in hand (the context) and often the Jewish culture in which it's set and that Jesus spoke from and into.

This verse Mt 16:18-19 is set in a section of scripture between verse 13 and verse 20. The topic is "Who is Jesus?". It starts with "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” and ends with "Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ." Everything in this section of scripture is directly related to who Jesus is. EVERYTHING. So when Peter declares Jesus "the Christ", Jesus response is

1) This was not revealed to you
2) This is the rock upon which I will build my church
3) I will give you the keys
4) With this authority you will be able to declare permitted (to enter) and prohibited (to enter)

What is the one thing that runs through these things that directly relates to who Jesus is?
THE CONFESSION that Jesus is son of the living God.

2)It's people's confession that makes them follower of Christ that brings them into the collective called church (not a building or organisation)
3) It's people's confession that opens the doors to heaven (which is why they are plural - we each get one) and we get that confession from someone giving it to us
4) It's upon hearing this confession from others that Peter could declare permitted or prohibited


It's all about the confession!

 

[concretecamper]

Trying to argue that Protestants who never visit a Catholic Church, don't believe in the Catholic sacraments, never partake of Catholic mass or confession, reject Catholic teaching but somehow have a valid baptism are actually part of the Catholic Church, with not one shred of biblical support, requires impressive mental gymnastics!

Someone such as you describe undoubtedly will not have a valid Baptism.

I hope this clears up your confusion

 

[concretecamper]

At times the RC church has said there is no salvation outside their church.

She still teaches no salvation outside the Church.

Then they fudge and say if you're validly baptized then you are a part of our church and thus your salvation comes through our church

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

This despite the fact that such persons were not baptized by the RC church, not confirmed, never took a single RC sacrament and does not even agree with its teachings

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

There was a time when the RC church taught that anyone who believed salvation was by faith alone was anathema

The Church has always taught that.

So if I had a "valid baptism" but believe salvation is by faith alone, am I saved or not?

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

Trent:

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

 

[concretecamper]

baptism is not a requirement for salvation. It is an act of obedience any believer should participate in if at all possible

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

 

[Darren Court]

Someone such as you describe undoubtedly will not have a valid Baptism.

I hope this clears up your confusion

No, that makes it worse because you're in no position to judge. The catechism is very specific on this and the person I described who has had NOTHING to do with Catholicism could have a valid baptism and be included in the church!

 

[concretecamper]

No, that makes it worse because you're in no position to judge. The catechism is very specific on this and the person I described who has had NOTHING to do with Catholicism could have a valid baptism and be included in the church!

If, and it is a big if, the Baptism was valid, they are part of the Church until such time they profess heresy and are excommunicated ipso facto. That is why I mentioned the age of reason in my previous post.

So, beofre you disparage His Church, make sure you've got your facts straight, otherwise it looks silly.

 

[Darren Court]

If, and it is a big if, the Baptism was valid, they are part of the Church until such time they profess heresy and are excommunicated ipso facto. That is why I mentioned the age of reason in my previous post.

So, beofre you disparage His Church, make sure you've got your facts straight, otherwise it looks silly.

If, anyone is looking silly....

..let's spell out the silliness so that everyone can see it in a nutshell...

Someone who has a valid baptism but has nothing to do with the Catholic Church is part of the Catholic Church whether they know it or let it!

Now that's silly!

 

[concretecamper]

If, anyone is looking silly....

..let's spell out the silliness so that everyone can see it in a nutshell...

Someone who has a valid baptism but has nothing to do with the Catholic Church is part of the Catholic Church whether they know it or let it!

Now that's silly!

Such a merciful God we have.

 

[Darren Court]

Such a merciful God we have.

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