Catholics, what exactly do you believe about Mary?

[kepha31]

Well, various doctrines have found their way into the Catholic church which are not found in scripture at all. If the church didn't invent them, who did?

I have no idea what you are talking about. Twice you have asserted "unscriptural doctrines" without a single example. You throw the word "doctrine" around like it was a dirty rag.

The term "doctrine" comes from the Latin word doctrina, which simply means "teaching."

As used today, though, the word means a bit more than that. Ideas developed by a faithful Catholic theologian may represent Catholic theology but that do not make them Catholic doctrine.

For that the intervention of the Magisterium is needed, so a basic definition of the term is that a doctrine is a proposition (or set of propositions) taught by the Magisterium of the Church.

In some cases the term "doctrine" may be used to refer to things that have been infallibly taught by the Magisterium. It may even be used as a synonym for "dogma," but it is easy to show that this is not always the case.

It is authentic Catholic doctrine and it rests on the unchangeable truth of our revealed faith. But it needs to be explained, and the explanation is a classic example of what we call development of doctrine.

By development of doctrine, we mean that some divinely revealed truth has become more deeply understood and more clearly perceived than it had been before. Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, whom Christ promised to send to teach us, the Church comes to see more deeply what she had always believed, and the resulting insights find expression in devotion of the faithful that may have been quite uncommon in the Church's previous history. The whole spectrum of Christology and Mariology has witnessed such dogmatic progress.

The Catholic Church defines doctrinal development as a growth of depth and clarity in the understanding of the truths of divine revelation. It is important to understand that the substantial or essential truths at the core of each doctrine (as part of the one apostolic deposit, given from Christ to the apostles) remain unchanged. The Catholic Church preserves this deposit, and is the Guardian of it. Only the subjective grasp of men increases, without the actual doctrine or dogma changing in an essential way. This is the main distinction to keep in mind when considering development.

This increase is the result of the prayerful reflection of the Church, theological study and research (often occasioned by heretical challenges), practical experience, and the collective wisdom of the Church’s bishops and popes, especially when joined in Ecumenical Councils.

Like many Christian doctrines, the idea of doctrinal development is based on much implicit or indirect scriptural evidence. The best indications are perhaps Mt 5:17, 13:31-32, Jn 14:26, 16:13, 1 Cor 2:9-16, Gal 4:4, Eph 1:10, 4:12-15. Furthermore, doctrine clearly develops within Scripture itself (“progressive revelation”).

Some examples would be: doctrines of the afterlife, the Trinity, the Messiah (eventually revealed as God the Son), the Holy Spirit (a Divine Person in the New Testament), the equality of Jews and Gentiles, bodily resurrection, sacrifice of lambs evolving into the sacrifice of Christ, and so forth. Not a single doctrine emerges in the Bible complete with no further need of development.

In general, whenever Holy Scripture refers to the increasing knowledge and maturity of Christians and the Church, an idea very similar to doctrinal development is present. Holy Scripture, then, is in no way hostile to development.

The Church is called the “Body” of Christ often (e.g., Eph 1:22-3), and is compared to a seed that grows into a tree (Mt 13:31-2). Seeds and bodies grow and expand. Yet Protestants tend to see Church and doctrine as more like a statue, subject to pigeon droppings (i.e., so-called Catholic “corruptions”!). This robs the metaphors of Christ of their essential meaning.

Doctrines agreed upon by all develop, too.
The Divinity or Godhood of Christ was only finalized in 325 at the Council of Nicaea,
and the full doctrine of the Trinity in 381 at the Council of Constantinople.
The dogma of the Two Natures of Christ (God and Man) was proclaimed in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon. These decisions of General Councils of the Church were in response to challenging heresies. Why should Protestants accept these authoritative verdicts, but reject similar proclamations on Church government, the Eucharist, Mary, Purgatory, etc.?

Although understanding increases, the essential elements of doctrines exist from the beginning. Today’s Church shouldn’t be expected to look like the primitive Church if it is a living, vibrant, spiritual organism. But even the early Church looks like a small “Catholic tree.” It doesn’t look like a Protestant “statue,” increasingly corrupted by an encroaching Catholicism, as one common viewpoint would have it.

The idea of doctrinal development is a key, in any case, for understanding why the Catholic Church often appears on the surface as fundamentally different than the early Church. Thoughtful Protestants owe it to themselves and intellectual honesty to ponder this indispensable notion before criticizing the allegedly “unbiblical excesses” of Catholicism.

 

[Tangible]

Maybe the sola scripturist above me can explain it better. (post #444) He seems to think all sola scripturists agree on the Mother of God.

Maybe I should have posted this.

When properly understood, I can't see why any Christian would deny that the BVM is the Theotokos, the God-bearer, the Mother of God. It's not even a statement about Mary, it's a statement about Jesus Christ. Just flip it around - If Mary is NOT the Mother of God, then Jesus Christ must NOT be God.

I chalk it up to Romophobia.

 

[JacksBratt]

My post was not intended to be argumentative but only intended to bring out the dynamics of the public act of Baptism a bit--- that John preached a baptism of repentance (trusting in God) for forgiveness of sins BEFORE Christ's ministry even got started and that Christ APPROPRIATED a ritual that was already in practice and then expanded on it with a "Baptism by Spirit."

So there were people, in the distant past, who were baptized but not Christians. The Bible tells us that some of John's disciplines transferred to Jesus... but then again, some did not. So what about these folks who had public baptisms but never became Christians? I find them an interesting category.

I was not intending to be argumentative either. I was serious. I know that John baptized people before Christ. What would be interesting to know is for how long this was going on and what the basis of the event was.

It should be noted, also, that we, now, baptize people in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I doubt that John the Baptist did this.

Also, the fact that many were baptized and never became Christians only goes to support the fact that baptizing does not save you.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I have no idea what you are talking about. Twice you have asserted "unscriptural doctrines" without a single example. You throw the word "doctrine" around like it was a dirty rag.

The term "doctrine" comes from the Latin word doctrina, which simply means "teaching."

As used today, though, the word means a bit more than that. Ideas developed by a faithful Catholic theologian may represent Catholic theology but that do not make them Catholic doctrine.

For that the intervention of the Magisterium is needed, so a basic definition of the term is that a doctrine is a proposition (or set of propositions) taught by the Magisterium of the Church.

In some cases the term "doctrine" may be used to refer to things that have been infallibly taught by the Magisterium. It may even be used as a synonym for "dogma," but it is easy to show that this is not always the case.

It is authentic Catholic doctrine and it rests on the unchangeable truth of our revealed faith. But it needs to be explained, and the explanation is a classic example of what we call development of doctrine.

By development of doctrine, we mean that some divinely revealed truth has become more deeply understood and more clearly perceived than it had been before. Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, whom Christ promised to send to teach us, the Church comes to see more deeply what she had always believed, and the resulting insights find expression in devotion of the faithful that may have been quite uncommon in the Church's previous history. The whole spectrum of Christology and Mariology has witnessed such dogmatic progress.

The Catholic Church defines doctrinal development as a growth of depth and clarity in the understanding of the truths of divine revelation. It is important to understand that the substantial or essential truths at the core of each doctrine (as part of the one apostolic deposit, given from Christ to the apostles) remain unchanged. The Catholic Church preserves this deposit, and is the Guardian of it. Only the subjective grasp of men increases, without the actual doctrine or dogma changing in an essential way. This is the main distinction to keep in mind when considering development.

This increase is the result of the prayerful reflection of the Church, theological study and research (often occasioned by heretical challenges), practical experience, and the collective wisdom of the Church’s bishops and popes, especially when joined in Ecumenical Councils.

Like many Christian doctrines, the idea of doctrinal development is based on much implicit or indirect scriptural evidence. The best indications are perhaps Mt 5:17, 13:31-32, Jn 14:26, 16:13, 1 Cor 2:9-16, Gal 4:4, Eph 1:10, 4:12-15. Furthermore, doctrine clearly develops within Scripture itself (“progressive revelation”).

Some examples would be: doctrines of the afterlife, the Trinity, the Messiah (eventually revealed as God the Son), the Holy Spirit (a Divine Person in the New Testament), the equality of Jews and Gentiles, bodily resurrection, sacrifice of lambs evolving into the sacrifice of Christ, and so forth. Not a single doctrine emerges in the Bible complete with no further need of development.

In general, whenever Holy Scripture refers to the increasing knowledge and maturity of Christians and the Church, an idea very similar to doctrinal development is present. Holy Scripture, then, is in no way hostile to development.

The Church is called the “Body” of Christ often (e.g., Eph 1:22-3), and is compared to a seed that grows into a tree (Mt 13:31-2). Seeds and bodies grow and expand. Yet Protestants tend to see Church and doctrine as more like a statue, subject to pigeon droppings (i.e., so-called Catholic “corruptions”!). This robs the metaphors of Christ of their essential meaning.

Doctrines agreed upon by all develop, too.
The Divinity or Godhood of Christ was only finalized in 325 at the Council of Nicaea,
and the full doctrine of the Trinity in 381 at the Council of Constantinople.
The dogma of the Two Natures of Christ (God and Man) was proclaimed in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon. These decisions of General Councils of the Church were in response to challenging heresies. Why should Protestants accept these authoritative verdicts, but reject similar proclamations on Church government, the Eucharist, Mary, Purgatory, etc.?

Although understanding increases, the essential elements of doctrines exist from the beginning. Today’s Church shouldn’t be expected to look like the primitive Church if it is a living, vibrant, spiritual organism. But even the early Church looks like a small “Catholic tree.” It doesn’t look like a Protestant “statue,” increasingly corrupted by an encroaching Catholicism, as one common viewpoint would have it.

The idea of doctrinal development is a key, in any case, for understanding why the Catholic Church often appears on the surface as fundamentally different than the early Church. Thoughtful Protestants owe it to themselves and intellectual honesty to ponder this indispensable notion before criticizing the allegedly “unbiblical excesses” of Catholicism.

Actually, i think you are responding to the wrong chap. I have never stated that your church has "non-scriptural doctrines". You can check my posts and correct me if I am wrong.

I simply asked you if these various doctrines, which are not to be found in the Bible, did not originate in your church, where did they originate?

If you wish, I can give you some examples of these doctrines.

 

[bbbbbbb]

That is what you and I believe, but I was surprised that our Catholic friends are asserting that God is His own Father. I have never heard that before.

 

[JacksBratt]

Maybe I should have posted this.

When properly understood, I can't see why any Christian would deny that the BVM is the Theotokos, the God-bearer, the Mother of God. It's not even a statement about Mary, it's a statement about Jesus Christ. Just flip it around - If Mary is NOT the Mother of God, then Jesus Christ must NOT be God.

I chalk it up to Romophobia.

Maybe I can shed some light on this....

Jesus always was and always will be. He was there from the beginning. He created all things and nothing was created that has been created unless by it was created by Him.

So, He existed before Mary. The Triune God existed before all things.

Mary was the mother of the man who was God. She was not the mother of God. She was the woman, chosen by God, to be the human supplier of a human egg which the Holy Spirit brought to be a living human being. The Holy Spirit, also God, created the other half of the necessary things to bring Jesus to be a human.

How could Mary be the mother of something that is the alpha and the omega and was in existence before her and created her.

Mary was blessed among women. She was highly favored. She was not sinless. She was not to be perpetually a virgin. She was to be Jesus mother and care giver. To raise Him and care for Him..

To say she was sinless and comparable to the ark of the covenant is to bring her to the level of a god.

She was the mother of the man, who was Jesus, not the Son who was one third of the trinity.

 

[Tangible]

The Nestorian heresy separates the two natures of Christ - one God, one Man.

As stated in the Athanasian Creed: Who although he is God and Man; yet he is not two, but one Christ. One; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh; but by assumption of the Manhood into God. One altogether; not by confusion of Substance; but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man; so God and Man is one Christ ...

That's also why Jesus is not his own Father. That would be a confusion of the Persons of the Holy Trinity.

 

[Tangible]

Mary was blessed among women. She was highly favored. She was not sinless.

Correct and scriptural.

She was not to be perpetually a virgin.

Neither proven nor disproven in scripture. Optional.

She was to be Jesus mother and care giver. To raise Him and care for Him.

Well, yes. But that would also describe St Joseph. She actually conceived him and carried him in her body, giving birth to a unique individual who is both God and Man.

To deny that the fact that St Mary gave birth to God in Jesus Christ is just very bad, actually historically heretical, christology.

 

[tadoflamb]

Maybe I should have posted this.

When properly understood, I can't see why any Christian would deny that the BVM is the Theotokos, the God-bearer, the Mother of God. It's not even a statement about Mary, it's a statement about Jesus Christ. Just flip it around - If Mary is NOT the Mother of God, then Jesus Christ must NOT be God.

I chalk it up to Romophobia.

That's much better, though I would chalk it up to sola scriptura and the exaltation of the individual over the Church.

 

[Tangible]

I would chalk it up to sola scriptura and the exaltation of the individual over the Church.

Well, there are plenty of Christians who subscribe to Sola Scriptura that confess the Blessed Virgin Mary as Theotokos, the Mother of God. Lutherans and Anglicans do, and together they probably make up the majority of Protestants worldwide.

I think it is far more likely a result of poor catechesis, ignorance of Christian history and doctrine, and bigotry against anything that seems "too Catholic."

 

[Thursday]

If you remember, you accused me of stating that for many Catholics the Reformation is all about Martin Luther. You challenged me to find any Catholic who promotes that view. In response I provided the quote from him where he clearly states that view. I am not accusing him of anything when I provide him as an example of a Catholic whose grasp of history is so feeble that he, like many Catholics, thinks that it is all about Martin Luther.

Now that I have laid this matter to rest for you, shall we resume the topic of the thread?

He did not promote that view.

 

[bbbbbbb]

He did not promote that view.

I noticed that he has yet to respond to my post.

 

[Thursday]

I noticed that he has yet to respond to my post.

Your post was an attempt to add your views to his words.

 

[tadoflamb]

I agree entirely. Baptism, as I stated previously, has no power. It is merely a public profession of faith. If you want me to post any scriptures indicating that baptism has some form of power I confess that I cannot find any, can you?

And the hits keep coming.

@Tangible would you like to clear this one up for your sola scripturist brother here?

I just love it when Lutherans defend the Sacrament of Baptism.

 

[kepha31]

Actually, i think you are responding to the wrong chap. I have never stated that your church has "non-scriptural doctrines". You can check my posts and correct me if I am wrong.

post #451, You said:
"Well, various doctrines have found their way into the Catholic church which are not found in scripture at all. If the church didn't invent them, who did?"
All Catholic doctrines are derived directly or indirectly from scripture, contrary to the psychotic babbling of anti-Catholics.

I simply asked you if these various doctrines, which are not to be found in the Bible, did not originate in your church, where did they originate?

You make a false assumption because that is how you have been brought up. "various doctrines, which are not to be found in the Bible" is an opinion based on propaganda.

If you wish, I can give you some examples of these doctrines.

Impossible, because there aren't any. All doctrines flow from the deposit of faith, (found in scripture in various ways) which you reject. Isolating the Written Word from the Tradition that produced it is a false, man made, unbiblical, unworkable, illogical and contradictory Protestant tradition.

Hopefully, this simple chart will clear up any confusion of the real meaning of Tradition and the Deposit of Faith.

 

[Kenny'sID]

The pertinent parts from the Nicene Creed.

Maybe the sola scripturist above me can explain it better. (post #444) He seems to think all sola scripturists agree on the Mother of God.

I should have realized (sorta) this would get into the Nicene Creed and such, something I don't think we are allowed to disagree with on CF, at least as I understand it. So, unfortunately that pretty well puts an end to the conversation.

 

[Vicomte13]

My post was not intended to be argumentative but only intended to bring out the dynamics of the public act of Baptism a bit--- that John preached a baptism of repentance (trusting in God) for forgiveness of sins BEFORE Christ's ministry even got started and that Christ APPROPRIATED a ritual that was already in practice and then expanded on it with a "Baptism by Spirit."

So there were people, in the distant past, who were baptized but not Christians. The Bible tells us that some of John's disciplines transferred to Jesus... but then again, some did not. So what about these folks who had public baptisms but never became Christians? I find them an interesting category.

There is an ongoing requirement of baptism in Judaism. Under the Torah, after every period a woman had to go and be baptized. One still finds the great baptismal pool in large synagogues. Jewish baptism is a mikvah. The concept is essentially the same - immersion in water to be spiritually cleansed.

The difference, of course, is that Christian baptism is a one-time thing.

 

[PeaceB]

The doctrine of Purgatory is not to be found in any of the books of the Bible, Catholic or Protestant.

While we are on the topic of Purgatory, can you tell me more about it? Old Catholics believe it to be a place of great torment and suffering, for Catholics only, and limited in time until all of the individual's temporal sins have been purged through corporal punishment. However, I have heard many Catholics today, including some priests, state that Purgatory is nothing more than a refreshing shower to cleanse the Catholic of his temporal sins prior to entering heaven and that there is no time element to it.

Which view is the true view?

III. THE FINAL PURIFICATION, OR PURGATORY

1030 All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.

1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.606 The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire:607
As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.608
1032 This teaching is also based on the practice of prayer for the dead, already mentioned in Sacred Scripture: "Therefore [Judas Maccabeus] made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin."609 From the beginning the Church has honored the memory of the dead and offered prayers in suffrage for them, above all the Eucharistic sacrifice, so that, thus purified, they may attain the beatific vision of God.610 The Church also commends almsgiving, indulgences, and works of penance undertaken on behalf of the dead:
Let us help and commemorate them. If Job's sons were purified by their father's sacrifice, why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them.611

 

[PeaceB]

So, maybe this is The problem... Catholics not being limited to scripture. Where, then, does it end.....?

7. In His gracious goodness, God has seen to it that what He had revealed for the salvation of all nations would abide perpetually in its full integrity and be handed on to all generations. Therefore Christ the Lord in whom the full revelation of the supreme God is brought to completion (see Cor. 1:20; 3:13; 4:6), commissioned the Apostles to preach to all men that Gospel which is the source of all saving truth and moral teaching, (1) and to impart to them heavenly gifts. This Gospel had been promised in former times through the prophets, and Christ Himself had fulfilled it and promulgated it with His lips. This commission was faithfully fulfilled by the Apostles who, by their oral preaching, by example, and by observances handed on what they had received from the lips of Christ, from living with Him, and from what He did, or what they had learned through the prompting of the Holy Spirit. The commission was fulfilled, too, by those Apostles and apostolic men who under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit committed the message of salvation to writing. (2)


But in order to keep the Gospel forever whole and alive within the Church, the Apostles left bishops as their successors, "handing over" to them "the authority to teach in their own place."(3) This sacred tradition, therefore, and Sacred Scripture of both the Old and New Testaments are like a mirror in which the pilgrim Church on earth looks at God, from whom she has received everything, until she is brought finally to see Him as He is, face to face (see 1 John 3:2).

8. And so the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved by an unending succession of preachers until the end of time. Therefore the Apostles, handing on what they themselves had received, warn the faithful to hold fast to the traditions which they have learned either by word of mouth or by letter (see 2 Thess. 2:15), and to fight in defense of the faith handed on once and for all (see Jude 1:3) (4) Now what was handed on by the Apostles includes everything which contributes toward the holiness of life and increase in faith of the peoples of God; and so the Church, in her teaching, life and worship, perpetuates and hands on to all generations all that she herself is, all that she believes.

This tradition which comes from the Apostles develop in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. (5) For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts (see Luke, 2:19, 51) through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities which they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through Episcopal succession the sure gift of truth. For as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her.

The words of the holy fathers witness to the presence of this living tradition, whose wealth is poured into the practice and life of the believing and praying Church. Through the same tradition the Church's full canon of the sacred books is known, and the sacred writings themselves are more profoundly understood and unceasingly made active in her; and thus God, who spoke of old, uninterruptedly converses with the bride of His beloved Son; and the Holy Spirit, through whom the living voice of the Gospel resounds in the Church, and through her, in the world, leads unto all truth those who believe and makes the word of Christ dwell abundantly in them (see Col. 3:16).

9. Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence.(6)

10. Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church. Holding fast to this deposit the entire holy people united with their shepherds remain always steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles, in the common life, in the breaking of the bread and in prayers (see Acts 2, 42, Greek text), so that holding to, practicing and professing the heritage of the faith, it becomes on the part of the bishops and faithful a single common effort. (7)

But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, (8) has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, (9) whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.

It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God's most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.

 

[PeaceB]

Well, of course. What good is a religion if you're going to be limited by the Word of God.

That is not what I wrote. I wrote that Catholics are not limited to Scripture.