Catholics, what exactly do you believe about Mary?

[AlexDTX]

Mary, Mother of God was defined by the council of Ephesus in 431. Even some sola scripturists accept that.

Let's try another one. What do sola scripturists believe exactly about the perpetual virginity of Mary?

Councils are still the opinion of men and are not the voice of God. But, of course, you believe the Pope is the voice of God, hence he speaks ex cathedra - from the throne. Implication is the throne of God, but in truth his own throne.

 

[AlexDTX]

If Martin Luther was the first to interpret the Bible the way he did, isn't that the tradition of Martin Luther?

Martin Luther's Devotion to Mary
Martin Luther’s Mariology (Particularly the Immaculate Conception)
Debate w Lutherans re Luther’s Mariology
Reply to Lutheran Gene Edward Veith on Mariology

He is the first to have a very large impact. There have been many others who have chosen to trust in sola scriptura before Luther, and they were all persecuted by the Catholic Church that has no tolerance for those who disagree with them.

 

[Thursday]

Martin Luther meant that the only authoritative source was the Bible, not traditions nor non-canonical books.

I don't think that's what Luther believed:

The Bible, in Romans 3:28, states,

Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.

Martin Luther, in his German translation of the Bible, specifically added the word "allein" (English 'alone') to Romans 3:28-a word that is not in the original Greek.

Here was his response when challenged:

You tell me what a great fuss the Papists are making because the word alone is not in the text of Paul…say right out to him: 'Dr. Martin Luther will have it so,'…I will have it so, and I order it to be so, and my will is reason enough. I know very well that the word 'alone' is not in the Latin or the Greek text (Stoddard J. Rebuilding a Lost Faith. 1922, pp. 101-102; see also Luther M. Amic. Discussion, 1, 127).

 

[Thursday]

Councils are still the opinion of men and are not the voice of God. But, of course, you believe the Pope is the voice of God, hence he speaks ex cathedra - from the throne. Implication is the throne of God, but in truth his own throne.

Do you accept these bible passages?

Luke 10:16
"Whoever listens to you listens to me; whoever rejects you rejects me; but whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me."

John 20
21Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.”

Matt 18:17
If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

1 John 4
6We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

1 Tim 3:15
if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

 

[AlexDTX]

I don't think that's what Luther believed:

The Bible, in Romans 3:28, states,

Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.

Martin Luther, in his German translation of the Bible, specifically added the word "allein" (English 'alone') to Romans 3:28-a word that is not in the original Greek.

Here was his response when challenged:

You tell me what a great fuss the Papists are making because the word alone is not in the text of Paul…say right out to him: 'Dr. Martin Luther will have it so,'…I will have it so, and I order it to be so, and my will is reason enough. I know very well that the word 'alone' is not in the Latin or the Greek text (Stoddard J. Rebuilding a Lost Faith. 1922, pp. 101-102; see also Luther M. Amic. Discussion, 1, 127).

I do not wish to be in the conversation anymore. I first started reading the thread because Melody was asking an honest question with no ulterior motives. I wanted to simply read what Catholics had to say about Mary. Many Catholics responded in honesty to Melody and I was delighted to simply hear what they thought from their own mouths. I avoided arguing because that was not the original spirit of the thread. Regrettably, many Protestants began to argue and put the Catholics on the defense. I was initially mortified that the thread took this turn, but as I kept reading I, too, got caught up in the argument, of which I had no intention of doing. This is a futile debate, in my opinion, since it has been going on for the last 500 years. I only wanted to state what I believe, not argue it. No one is ever changed in their minds without the Holy Spirit touching them. So, I bow out of this discussion.

I want to thank all the Catholics who answered Melody in their simple honesty. I suppose you knew you were opening yourselves up to pot shots, but you did so because you could also sense that she was sincerely asking her question. I notice, too, that had dropped out of the conversation some time ago. All I wanted was to hear what Melody asked for, and you did so. Thank you again.

 

[AlexDTX]

Do you accept these bible passages?

Luke 10:16
"Whoever listens to you listens to me; whoever rejects you rejects me; but whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me."

John 20
21Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.”

Matt 18:17
If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

1 John 4
6We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

1 Tim 3:15
if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

See my other answer. I am out of the conversation, I will not be Sisyphus pushing an argument up hill just so it can roll down hill again.

 

[lsume]

A good friend of mine (who is Pentacostal) has some very confused ideas about what Catholics believe. I mentioned to him that there are people who call themselves "Christian Wiccans" and believe that Mary is a goddess, and he said that it sounds like they've got some Catholic ideology behind them. I'm like, uh, Catholics don't think that Mary is a goddess. He said, "They think she's the Queen Of Heaven and the mother of God. So yeah, they kinda do." He thinks that, while Catholics don't actually refer to her as a goddess, she's given the same status minus the name. I tried to explain that Catholics DO NOT believe that Mary is an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent being and that there's a big difference between honoring Mary more than they should and actually worshipping her, and my friend just said, "You don't know much about pantheons, do you?" I asked my dad (who is Eastern Orthodox but knows a lot about other denominations' beliefs) if he could explain what Catholics ACTUALLY believe so I could tell my friend, and he said that my friend has heard misinformation spread by Chick Publishing. He's busy right now and won't be able to explain what Catholics believe until this evening, and I realized it would probably be better to ask Catholics anyway. So, Catholics. What do you ACTUALLY believe about Mary?

I have Catholic friends and I do know that they pray for intercession from various Saints. Mother Mary is blessed among women and definitely a Saint. However, Christ is our high priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek. When the tent was rent at the moment of Christ's death, He became forever our lone intercession to God The Father. There are many verses in God's Word that Catholics do not practice. Mathew 6 has a number of such verses. However, in the day of the great visitation first spoken of by Moses in Numbers 16:29 I advise you read the entire story surrounding that verse. We are not to call anyone on earth Father for we have one God and Father of His only begotten Son Jesus The Christ. Also, The Word speaks of repetitive prayer thinking that you will be heard for your much speaking. When we pray, we are to go in our closets to pray and what we pray in secret God will hear. I don't take that to mean that I can't pray from within wherever I happen to be but that I pray within myself so that no one hears. How many times have you heard a preacher pray out loud in a church and his prayer sounds more like a sermon than a prayer? Have you ever heard a prayer that starts or at some point says something like "and Lord you know"? When I hear that type of approach to prayer I realize that whomever is saying it hasn't yet been visited or that possibly they missed their opportunity when they were visited. The Catholic friends pray for intercession from a granddaughter that passed about a year after birth. The baby was nearly brain dead at birth and the pain of suffering her death has caused great grief to my friends. I don't feel compelled to correct them on these type of prayers. Again, in their day of visitation, they will understand should they get through all of what God describes in His Word.

 

[Albion]

I do not wish to be in the conversation anymore. I first started reading the thread because Melody was asking an honest question with no ulterior motives. I wanted to simply read what Catholics had to say about Mary. Many Catholics responded in honesty to Melody and I was delighted to simply hear what they thought from their own mouths. I avoided arguing because that was not the original spirit of the thread. Regrettably, many Protestants began to argue and put the Catholics on the defense. .

...and some Catholics began to quiz the Protestants and put them on the spot, too. But I do sympathize with your feelings about the thread, Alex.

It occurs to me, though, that you could have gotten the answers you want by posting the question in the OBOB forum. We non-Roman Catholics are not permitted to comment there, although an inquiry like yours is accepted.

By putting it here instead you automatically open it to whoever is interested (although it's open only to Christians and certain rules of behavior are to be observed).

 

[OpenYourBibles]

He did not "flatly" state it. He rhetorically stated it, before an enthusiastic crowd, to make a point to each of them.

The Marian visitation at Lourdes didn't happen in the First Century, so it's not in the bible either, but you can go and read the voluminous medical records of the miracles that occur there.

I'm not sure how Lourdes plays into this at all. My question was why is this level of devotion to Mary not evident in the Bible? It is being claimed that she was immaculately conceived, she gave birth to God, she died or was (assumed into heaven), and was the "mother of the church," all within the timespan that the Bible was being written. Yet there does not appear to be biblical evidence of her holding such a strong position in the New Testament church, that people are praying to her, and pleading for her intercession, and otherwise venerating her. Quite to the contrary the only thing we have Biblical Evidence for is Jesus stating (whether "flatly" or "rhetorically" we have know evidence), "Who is my mother... but those who obey the will of my father!"

I can appreciate the volumes of miracles reported in Lourdes, my question however is addressing the lack of veneration for Mary in the first century? If all of these claims are true, or regardless of whether or not they are true, if all of these things are of such great importance, why do they not receive a single mention in the Bible.

 

[AlexDTX]

...and some Catholics began to quiz the Protestants and put them on the spot, too.

Yes, you are right, which is why I started debating the topic too.

It occurs to me, though, that you could have gotten the answers you want by posting the question in the OBOB forum. We non-Roman Catholics are not permitted to comment there, although an inquiry like yours is accepted.

Melody began this post, not me. I was just following it. Mention that to her, because I believe she is no longer reading the thread.

 

[Albion]

I can appreciate the volumes of miracles reported in Lourdes, my question however is addressing the lack of veneration for Mary in the first century? .

Not to detract from your point, but there isn't even a "volume" of miracles at Lourdes. The Catholic Church has verified only a precious few as real, out of the hundreds of thousands of people who have journeyed to Lourdes hoping for a miracle cure. Over 7000 of them reported having received a cure, and the church has verified less than 100 of these.

 

[Albion]

Melody began this post, not me. I was just following it. Mention that to her, because I believe she is no longer reading the thread.

My apologies. You were indeed clear about that, but I was thinking so much about the better forum in which to make the inquiry that I unconsciously plugged you into the OP.

 

[Thursday]

See my other answer. I am out of the conversation, I will not be Sisyphus pushing an argument up hill just so it can roll down hill again.

That's fine, but if you make provocative statements that contain inaccuracies you should expect to be challenged.

 

[OpenYourBibles]

When your faith is "Jesus-&-me" or "Bible-&-me".......every article of faith settled by Christ's Holy Body in His One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church has to be re-tested by "me".

This is where I feel misunderstood and this has been my point all along - The claim is that Peter is the first Pope, the first leader of the New Testament church, the claim is that modern Catholics are following an uninterrupted chain from the original "One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic church." But how do you account for the vast differences in the teachings of Peter and the Apostles (Apostolic) from Catholic Dogma?

For example Mary... she was around and would have been fulfilling many of the roles that many on this thread claim she carried - yet there is no evidence in scripture that Peter, nor the Apostles, venerated her in the way, or even remotely near the way, men do today.

In Acts 2:38, and all throughout the New Testament Peter baptizes in "the name of Jesus Christ" yet Catholics accept trinity.

Catholic accepted practice forbids marriage for the clergy, yet Peter, Paul, and other new testament leaders were married.

I don't mean to make a list of apparent Catholic vs. Bible contradiction (there are many more), but I do aim to support my assertion that calling Peter the first pope and claiming to be descendants of the Apostolic church should mean that you are following the lead set by Peter and the Apostles

 

[Vicomte13]

I'm not sure how Lourdes plays into this at all. My question was why is this level of devotion to Mary not evident in the Bible? It is being claimed that she was immaculately conceived, she gave birth to God, she died or was (assumed into heaven), and was the "mother of the church," all within the timespan that the Bible was being written. Yet there does not appear to be biblical evidence of her holding such a strong position in the New Testament church, that people are praying to her, and pleading for her intercession, and otherwise venerating her. Quite to the contrary the only thing we have Biblical Evidence for is Jesus stating (whether "flatly" or "rhetorically" we have know evidence), "Who is my mother... but those who obey the will of my father!"

I can appreciate the volumes of miracles reported in Lourdes, my question however is addressing the lack of veneration for Mary in the first century? If all of these claims are true, or regardless of whether or not they are true, if all of these things are of such great importance, why do they not receive a single mention in the Bible.

Why? Because every one of these things happened, or was revealed, after the Bible was written.

God sent Mary to Guadalupe in the 1500s, to Lourdes in 1858, and to Fatima in 1917. Mary only explicitly said she was the Immaculate Conception (confirming an old dogma) in 1858. The latest book of the Bible was written no later than 96 AD. Things that happened and that were revealed 1450 to 1800 years later could not have been written in the Bible, because they hadn't happened or been revealed yet, obviously.

 

[Thursday]

This is where I feel misunderstood and this has been my point all along - The claim is that Peter is the first Pope, the first leader of the New Testament church, the claim is that modern Catholics are following an uninterrupted chain from the original "One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic church." But how do you account for the vast differences in the teachings of Peter and the Apostles (Apostolic) from Catholic Dogma?

There aren't any. You are merely making claims about your personal interpretations.

I'm sure that you disagree with Peter and the early Church about the meaning of this passage, for example:

John 6
53Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.

 

[OpenYourBibles]

Why? Because every one of these things happened, or was revealed, after the Bible was written.

God sent Mary to Guadalupe in the 1500s, to Lourdes in 1858, and to Fatima in 1917. Mary only explicitly said she was the Immaculate Conception (confirming an old dogma) in 1858. The latest book of the Bible was written no later than 96 AD. Things that happened and that were revealed 1450 to 1800 years later could not have been written in the Bible, because they hadn't happened or been revealed yet, obviously.

Okay... you say Mary was Immaculately Conceived. My question is why is that not reported in scripture?! That is a pretty big deal! Bible obviously reports about Jesus' immaculate conception. Bible tells us the story of John the Baptist being born full of the Holy Ghost. Bible tells about the circumstances surrounding the conception of Issac and Jacob and Sampson, and I'm sure some others... yet it is silent on such an important subject as the supposed immaculate conception of Mary??? That doesn't add up.

Further more when this vision appears to the little girl in Lourdes the vision never declares herself to be Mary, and the girl never declares the person she is talking to is Mary. In addition the statement - I am the Immaculate Conception - does in know way say - I was immaculately conceived! Again things are not adding up, but they are held so strong by believers of such.

 

[Albion]

In Acts 2:38, and all throughout the New Testament Peter baptizes in "the name of Jesus Christ" yet Catholics accept trinity.

Catholic accepted practice forbids marriage for the clergy, yet Peter, Paul, and other new testament leaders were married.

I don't mean to make a list of apparent Catholic vs. Bible contradiction (there are many more), but I do aim to support my assertion that calling Peter the first pope and claiming to be descendants of the Apostolic church should mean that you are following the lead set by Peter and the Apostles

Not to dispute everything you wrote there, but it's helpful to keep the solid objections separate from the shaky ones.

For example, almost every Christian church believes in the Trinity, not just the Catholic Church; the order requiring priests in the Roman Catholic Church to be unmarried is just an administrative decision--it's not a doctrine and could be reversed at any time; and the New Testament certainly does indicate that baptisms should be done in the name of the Triune God.

 

[OpenYourBibles]

There aren't any. You are merely making claims about your personal interpretations.

I'm sure that you disagree with Peter and the early Church about the meaning of this passage, for example:

John 6
53Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.

You say there aren't any contradictions and that I am merely making claims about my personal interpretations - yet when I offer a few examples you are unable to refute them?

As far as John 6 is concerned that is not Peter talking for one and for two I have no problem at all agreeing with John 6.

 

[Vicomte13]

This is where I feel misunderstood and this has been my point all along - The claim is that Peter is the first Pope, the first leader of the New Testament church, the claim is that modern Catholics are following an uninterrupted chain from the original "One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic church." But how do you account for the vast differences in the teachings of Peter and the Apostles (Apostolic) from Catholic Dogma?

For example Mary... she was around and would have been fulfilling many of the roles that many on this thread claim she carried - yet there is no evidence in scripture that Peter, nor the Apostles, venerated her in the way, or even remotely near the way, men do today.

In Acts 2:38, and all throughout the New Testament Peter baptizes in "the name of Jesus Christ" yet Catholics accept trinity.

Catholic accepted practice forbids marriage for the clergy, yet Peter, Paul, and other new testament leaders were married.

I don't mean to make a list of apparent Catholic vs. Bible contradiction (there are many more), but I do aim to support my assertion that calling Peter the first pope and claiming to be descendants of the Apostolic church should mean that you are following the lead set by Peter and the Apostles

The simple answer is that God has been active in the world since 96 AD, the Holy Spirit dwells in the Church and continues to direct it, and there has been a great deal more revealed and developed and simple happenings since then. The Bible is an incomplete record. That which happened afterwards is not in it. The Catholic Church has indeed been continuously in operation since those days, with the Apostolic succession and the Holy Spirit, and it has the authority to update our understanding precisely BECAUSE it speaks with the authority of God.

Jesus updated Judaism, which became so hidebound with tradition that it could not accept new revelation. The Church Jesus left continues to update itself based on the ongoing revelations from God.

In the New Testament period, Mary was not being sent by God from heaven as his emissary, because it was not time to do that yet, the Apostles were in the world still, and the Church was moving in a pagan and extremely masculine society.

Her first great emissary work was to Aztec Guadelupe, a society and civlization that had a much stronger principle of feminine authority and that was, therefore, willing to listen to her. The Lord chooses his instruments according to his needs, and human beings and their societies are variable.

That's why it's not in the Bible.
For you, a Protestant, the Bible is the only source of authority. For Catholics, God is the authority, and revelation has continued through the Church. Prophesy, miracle, and revelation, and divine intervention, did not end in the First Century with the Apostles. They continue forward into the Twenty First, and the Church has to observe and react to each new thing under the Son that God does.