Catholics, what exactly do you believe about Mary?

[wilts43]

There must be some communication error on my part here. The spy's for the Sanhedrin left after the miracle to report back about Christ. Those who came to Christ and those who stayed with Christ were chosen among men. I'm not sure of what offense you are accusing me of.

Please look at the thread title.

 

[wilts43]

None of the Protestant voices on here, demanding biblical foundations, for Marian doctrines & veneration have reported back on the subject of Biblical Typology & Mary.
I know it's a big subject but have any of you looked at it seriously?

 

[Halbhh]

Indeed, there is a lot of Scripture that would indicate the Trinity and Christology (Jesus as God), but if one doesn’t attempt to put the verses together in a certain systematic way, it wouldn’t jump right out from Scripture. So for that reason the Church had to develop it — and usually in response to heretics.
Doctrines agreed upon by all develop, too.

• The Divinity or Godhood of Christ was only finalized in 325 at the Council of Nicaea,

But the Gospel of John seems unambiguous --

"No one has ever yet seen God. The only begotten God, the One being in the bosom of the Father, He has made Him known."

It seems to me even more evident in John 1:1-3

One merely need to read with eyes that see, so the only way any could think differently is lack of knowing that Gospel. And that's not the only source, also.

So, this isn't a "development". To the extent someone is listening to men instead of reading/listening to the scripture, it would be a development to them, possibly.

 

[Albion]

Hello Albion,

I have used my IpadPro exclusively as my tool for interacting on Christian Forums. To date, I don't seem to be able to start a new thread using my IPad. If you don't mind, could you find me in the system and send me an email pertaining to this issue?

Thank you

I'll start the thread for you. Just tell me the title and the gist of your OP.

 

[lsume]

I definitely was off topic and for that I do apologize. I know very little about The Catholic Church as well. Should you read my other posts on topic, perhaps you may get a different view. One item that I have not addressed, perhaps because I'm unsure about its validity, is that Catholics believe that in order to go to Heaven one must be a Catholic. This may be an urban legend with zero truth or it might be true. Perhaps you could set me and others straight about this.

 

[lsume]

I'll start the thread for you. Just tell me the title and the gist of your OP.

Thank you very much for your quick reply. A moment ago, I for the first time, was able to see how to start a new post. I simply went to my blogs, as I recall, and after that the option to create a new post presented itself.

Thank you again

 

[Wolf_Says]

But the Gospel of John long predates Nicea --

"No one has ever yet seen God. The only begotten God, the One being in the bosom of the Father, He has made Him known."

"No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him."

These are unambiguous, and that's only one of many verses from John one can see from.

It seems to me even more evident yet in John 1:1-3

One merely need to read with eyes that see, so the only way any could think differently is lack of knowing that Gospel. And that's not the only source, also.

So, this isn't a "development". To the extent someone is listening to men instead of reading the scripture, it would be a development to them, possibly.

However, and here is the kicker, the Gospel of John is only 1 book, among many at the time that were floating around claiming to be divinely inspired.

At what time this book was written does not matter as much as how soon was this book available to the masses through the teachings of the Church? The Church did not declare the books of the NT until the late 4th century, and prior to this point were many false books and gospels.

So the Church made this decision prior to the declaration of the NT cannon.

Your last paragraph is laughable because it makes no sense historically. There really was no NT "scripture" until the late 4th century, prior to that were the OT and the teachings of the Apostles. Yes the books were around, but so were false books, and none were yet compiled into the Bible as we know it today.

So the only place people could learn that Jesus is God, was from the Church, and the Church made this declaration in response to heresy at the Council of Nicaea

 

[Halbhh]

However, and here is the kicker, the Gospel of John is only 1 book, among many at the time that were floating around claiming to be divinely inspired.

At what time this book was written does not matter as much as how soon was this book available to the masses through the teachings of the Church? The Church did not declare the books of the NT until the late 4th century, and prior to this point were many false books and gospels.

So the Church made this decision prior to the declaration of the NT cannon.

Your last paragraph is laughable because it makes no sense historically. There really was no NT "scripture" until the late 4th century, prior to that were the OT and the teachings of the Apostles. Yes the books were around, but so were false books, and none were yet compiled into the Bible as we know it today.

So the only place people could learn that Jesus is God, was from the Church, and the Church made this declaration in response to heresy at the Council of Nicaea

Ok, this makes it sound to me like you suggest that instead of only a minority of people confused about Christ's divinity, most people did not know of hear of the Gospel of John before 325? Also that most did not deduce His divinity from the other gospel(s) they did have? If so, how do you know that? (I had a vague impression not just many but even that most all or possibly all wrong beliefs were minority views)

It's almost like a suggestion that there was no thread of...well...of a Church with a capital C.

If a "Church" existed, as I think it did, then the people would mostly have been hearing accurate accounts of Christ.

 

[Vicomte13]

There must be some communication error on my part here. The spy's for the Sanhedrin left after the miracle to report back about Christ. Those who came to Christ and those who stayed with Christ were chosen among men. I'm not sure of what offense you are accusing me of.

I'll explain it. When Jesus said that you had to chew his flesh and gulp his blood or you were not with him and would not have a part of the Kingdom, he was referring forward to the institution of communion - eating the blood and body of Christ - at the Last Supper.

He was not talking about reading Scripture. He was talking about the wine and the bread, and how they will literally be the body and blood of himself. Taking communion is fundamental to salvation. IT, not reading the Bible, is what is vital to be part of Christ.

What you wrote appeared to the Catholic reader as substituting the flesh and blood of the eucharist - and absolutely central and necessary nature of taking communion, and replacing it with something about reading the Bible and understanding doctrines.

That offended the Catholic reader.

You did not intend to do that - you sincerely believe that the BIBLE is the centerpiece of God's revelation. Catholics believe that we EAT GOD every Sunday, and that by doing so, we PHYSICALLY TOUCH GOD and our venial sins are wiped away, by God, by doing so, just as sins are literally washed away, by water, at Baptism.

The core of individual Catholic practice is wiping away sin - with water, with confession and penance, and with holy communion. Protestants have replaced all of that with reading a book, the translations of the Bible, and thinking about them.

The differences in practices are so stark that there is great misunderstanding.

Also, Catholics are severely criticized, hectored, by Protestants whenever you are in a place where religion and differences are seriously discussed, as this forum. Protestants believe that the Bible is central and the sacraments are merely traditions of men. Catholics believe that we are literally eating God, and that God is literally washing away sin, and that THIS is central to the religion, while reading the Bible - while a good thing - is essentially unnecessary.

Because Protestants and Catholics have screamed at each other for 500 years about these things, and killed each other by the millions over them, there is tremendous misunderstanding, and there is the expectation that, once a discussion happens, it will quickly devolve into the shoving match that you see on this particular thread, and every thread. These are two different fundamentally different religions both claiming to be the same.

So, when you posted, innocently, a positive story about a passage that the Catholic poster had mentioned, and you explained how that very passage had come up in a discussion with your daughter over the weekend, you were - inadvertently - walking into the middle of a firefight, and then presenting a reading of that text which is violently repulsive to Catholics.

In that text, Jesus said that you have to take communion to be saved. That's what he said - you have to literally eat his flesh and blood, which can only be done at communion. That's what the text says, and that is what it literally means - according to the Catholics. So your stepping in, at that moment, and writing a well-meant story about how you explained to your Protestant daughter your Protestant belief that Jesus was talking about Scripture and the Bible (he was not: he was saying that taking communion is necessary for salvation) - this was taken as a direct assault and challenge on a central doctrine of Catholicism, by a new arrival on the scene.

It's unfortunate, because you did not intend that, and the ferocity of the response left you understandably bewildered.

Anyway, that's what happened. And the Catholic who said what he said to you did not mean to personally attack you. He launched a counterattack on what he perceived (mistakenly I think) to have been an intentional frontal assault on the very heart of sacramental Catholicism.

Catholics and Protestants have a very hard time understanding each other. And given the long and fraught history of animosity, particularly in the English-speaking world, often expect the worst from each other.

In this particular case, I don't think you intended to start a fight - one was already going on, and you just happened into it.

 

[Wolf_Says]

Ok, this makes it sound to me like you suggest that instead of only a minority of people confused about Christ's divinity, most people did not know of hear of the Gospel of John before 325? Also that most did not deduce His divinity from the other gospel(s) they did have? If so, how do you know that? (I had a vague impressions the heresies were minority views)

I never said they were most or a minority as I do not know the number of people who belonged to that heresy.

I will say that, prior to the Church declaration of Jesus as True God, nobody would have known for sure.

It is through the Catholic Church that further understanding of the divine revelation has come about.

Case in point, God is a trinity. Look for the word Trinity in the Bible, you will get nothing. There is not a single verse that explicitly says that God is 3 persons in 1 God. Yet all Christians believe this.

Jesus Christ has 2 natures, God and human.

Just are simply 2, that all Christians believe that is not explicitly stated in scripture, and was declared by the Catholic Church.

 

[Halbhh]

I will say that, prior to the Church declaration of Jesus as True God, nobody would have known for sure.

By "nobody" you mean...some people as compared to all people? (I don't necessarily use the same idiom as you, and I'm using 'nobody' to mean 0%) Do you mean for instance that the Gospel of John was only known by a few? If so, how do you know?

We seem to have a very different picture of the early church, and I don't presume I know enough about it, but I did think of it as having leadership from the apostles and then from people who directly knew the apostles, so that I don't expect widespread errors to be all-the-time.

 

[Vicomte13]

None of the Protestant voices on here, demanding biblical foundations, for Marian doctrines & veneration have reported back on the subject of Biblical Typology & Mary.
I know it's a big subject but have any of you looked at it seriously?

It is interesting to me: the PURPOSE of the thread was to find out just what the heck Catholics believe about Mary anyway. A lot of Catholics have come here, and we have presented a mosaic of Marian beliefs, all of which complement each other. No Catholic has disagreed with any other Catholic about anything in her regard. We've each added some threads to the tapestry, but there has been a broad, clear, multifaceted expose about what, exactly, we believe about Mary.

There has been such great uniformity and unanimity of expression on this that there can be no doubt that this IS what we believe about Mary.

Now, the thread has devolved into something else. Catholics and Protestants don't believe the same things, at all, and they're not shy about telling each other that the other is WRONG. So, now that we know what the Catholics think, we've moved on to the "Well then you're WRONG!" "No, YOU'RE wrong! "No, YOU'RE wrong!" phase of the thread, which will continue until we see the "Closed by Moderator" post that ends it.

And thus will pass into the archives another archetypical Catholic-Protestant "dialogue".

 

[Halbhh]

It is interesting to me: the PURPOSE of the thread was to find out just what the heck Catholics believe about Mary anyway. A lot of Catholics have come here, and we have presented a mosaic of Marian beliefs, all of which complement each other. No Catholic has disagreed with any other Catholic about anything in her regard. We've each added some threads to the tapestry, but there has been a broad, clear, multifaceted expose about what, exactly, we believe about Mary.

There has been such great uniformity and unanimity of expression on this that there can be no doubt that this IS what we believe about Mary.

Now, the thread has devolved into something else. Catholics and Protestants don't believe the same things, at all, and their not shy about telling each other that the other is WRONG. So, now that we know what the Catholics think, we've moved on to the "Well then you're WRONG!" "No, YOU'RE wrong! "No, YOU'RE wrong!" phase of the thread, which will continue until we see the "Closed by Moderator" post that ends it.

And thus will pass into the archives another archetypical Catholic-Protestant "dialogue".

Ok, but I've learned a few things about that tradition. And it might be too much to hope, but I hope that at least a few learned that at least some people not knowing that tradition are still nonetheless acting in good faith, with real belief in Christ, and following Him. That would be a lot for many internet discussions, but....well, I do know it happens all the time in just ordinary life in person. I have good friends who are Catholics, including one that is extremely well educated in theology. We don't seem to have conflicts at all. I know, having talked with him for hours at a time.

 

[Phil 1:21]

Catholics believe that we are literally eating God, and that God is literally washing away sin, and that THIS is central to the religion, while reading the Bible - while a good thing - is essentially unnecessary.

No comment needed.

 

[Wolf_Says]

We seem to have a very different picture of the early church, and I don't presume I know enough about it, but I did think of it as having leadership from the apostles and then from people who directly knew the apostles, so that I don't expect widespread errors to be all-the-time.

I am only going to respond to this as I do not have alot of time.

The Apostles taught what they had learned from Jesus, and they made disciples, and through laying on hands passed their knowledge and gifts down the generations.

You are correct that this is how the early Church was, and this early Church was Catholic, and has remained Catholic for 2000 years.

I am not saying wide-spread errors were the norm, but what you must understand is that there wasn't a unified place to "check scripture" like we have today. This needs to be taken into consideration when in regards to the early Church.

 

[Vicomte13]

I'm unsure about its validity, is that Catholics believe that in order to go to Heaven one must be a Catholic. This may be an urban legend with zero truth or it might be true.

It's not true anymore. The concept of "No salvation outside of the Church" remains, and the dogma that Jesus alone saves always is true. But the Church has come to understand that we humans do not see the actual boundaries of the Church, and that people who don't outwardly profess Christianity (having never known it, or known it properly) may nevertheless belong to God and follow the Gospel by instinct and the inward urging of their guardian angels, whom they do not see, and of whose existence they may not even be aware.

The Lord reveals himself to different people in many varied ways. Christ saves whom he will, and that can include non-Catholics. Examine their lives, and you will find that they comported themselves as lovers of God, even though their eyes were obscured as to the exact nature of God. God sifts hearts and knows motives. The Catholic will tell you that the what we know is that this way is the Pointed-out-path (Torah means "pointed-out-path"), to have certitude, to please God and pass final judgment. But of course can and will save whom he pleases. We KNOW this way is to him. The other paths, we don't know, they have not been revealed.

 

[Halbhh]

I am only going to respond to this as I do not have alot of time.

The Apostles taught what they had learned from Jesus, and they made disciples, and through laying on hands passed their knowledge and gifts down the generations.

You are correct that this is how the early Church was, and this early Church was Catholic, and has remained Catholic for 2000 years.

I am not saying wide-spread errors were the norm, but what you must understand is that there wasn't a unified place to "check scripture" like we have today. This needs to be taken into consideration when in regards to the early Church.

But wouldn't you expect that Peter knew basically what John knew, about such central things?

It would not be the case the Peter was a thinking like an Arian would, like Arius, right?

the wiki reads "most" -- "most bishops" :

"The First Council of Nicaea was convened by Emperor Constantine the Great upon the recommendations of a synod led by Hosius of Córdoba in the Eastertide of 325. This synod had been charged with investigation of the trouble brought about by the Arian controversy in the Greek-speaking east.[16] To most bishops, the teachings of Arius were heretical and dangerous to the salvation of souls.[17] In the summer of 325, the bishops of all provinces were summoned to Nicaea"

Ergo, most did not think this wrong way. They already had it correct.

 

[Vicomte13]

No comment needed.

For the first 350 years of Christianity, Bibles did not exist.

For the next 1150 of years of Christianity, Bibles were hand-copied and cost several years salary of a workingman, who could not read it because less than 5% of the people could. And yet for 1500 years the bulk of European humanity was born, baptized, grew up in Christ, died in Christ, and went on to their eternal rewards with Christ, all completely illiterate, without having read, or having any ability to read, a single line.

So yes, that's right, the reading of the Bible is unneccessary to salvation. The only things required, reduced to their fundamental essences, are contained in the Seven Sacraments: be baptized, confess sins, take communion, be chrismated - if you marry, be married, and if you would be a religious leader, be acceptable to God and ordained in the apostolic succession, and dispense those sacraments and anoint the sick - this is what is required to pass final judgment. This is following Christ, in its most basic. Reading is not required, just listening, learning and following.

Reading the Bible is a great blessing of which we moderns can generally avail ourselves, and it is very good. But it is not necessary to salvation. What is offered in the Sacraments is.

 

[Vicomte13]

Ok, but I've learned a few things about that tradition. And it might be too much to hope, but I hope that at least a few learned that at least some people not knowing that tradition are still nonetheless acting in good faith, with real belief in Christ, and following Him. That would be a lot for many internet discussions, but....well, I do know it happens all the time in just ordinary life in person. I have good friends who are Catholics, including one that is extremely well educated in theology. We don't seem to have conflicts at all. I know, having talked with him for hours at a time.

And that's GOOD. I don't see how, if Christians of good will came together and really talked through everything fully, without rancor, everything could not be resolved, or at least agreement could not be reached that the differences are matters of taste, not matters impinging on salvation.

What I see, though, is a lot of fear - fear and anger.

When individuals know each other and get along, it is easier to discuss such things than to do it across the gap of anonymity that is the Internet.

 

[Phil 1:21]

For the first 350 years of Christianity, Bibles did not exist.

For the next 1150 of years of Christianity, Bibles were hand-copied and cost several years salary of a workingman, who could not read it because less than 5% of the people could. And yet for 1500 years the bulk of European humanity was born, baptized, grew up in Christ, died in Christ, and went on to their eternal rewards with Christ, all completely illiterate, without having read, or having any ability to read, a single line.

So yes, that's right, the reading of the Bible is unneccessary to salvation. The only things required, reduced to their fundamental essences, are contained in the Seven Sacraments: be baptized, confess sins, take communion, be chrismated - if you marry, be married, and if you would be a religious leader, be acceptable to God and ordained in the apostolic succession, and dispense those sacraments and anoint the sick - this is what is required to pass final judgment. This is following Christ, in its most basic. Reading is not required, just listening, learning and following.

Reading the Bible is a great blessing of which we moderns can generally avail ourselves, and it is very good. But it is not necessary to salvation. What is offered in the Sacraments is.

Yes, as an ex-Catholic, I know that's exactly what they believe.