Well, that settles it. I’m a heretic and anathema.

[JCrawf]

That's what I was saying. Because that's the argument in comparing Trinitarian doctrine to Marian doctrine. But Trinitarian doctrine has considerably more scriptural support overall than Marian doctrine. Mainly of course because the theological roles and attributes of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are mentioned and elaborated on so much. Whereas there's no theological aspect to Mary at all in scripture. Probably the closest scripture comes to that is Revelation 12:1-7, but that's questionable.

What about the passages in Luke, which inspired both the the prayers of the Ave Maria and Magnifcat?

 

[JCrawf]

But if you say that Mary had to be conceived immaculately in order to give birth to Jesus Christ, then she would also have needed to continue living sinlessly. Yet she said:

“46 My soul magnifies the Lord, 47 And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior.” (Lu 1:46-47 NKJV)

If she was sinless, why did she need a Saviour? And for her to have been immaculately conceived, her mother would need to be entirely sinless too.

That's the Protestant Manichaean conundrum.

Original Sin has more to do with the condition of the fallen nature after our first parents were exiled from the Garden of Eden. It does not mean that one has committed sin. It is, however, why Purgatory and Limbo exist, with regards to whether one died baptized and in a state of grace, and whether they have committed, but confessed sins that are still needing time to be purged before going to heaven. Limbo, however, is for those not baptized, yet lived a life of virtue, or, in the case of the unborn, did not commit sin, but died not being baptized, and thus still under Original Sin.

Mary, like Abraham, Moses, and David, who were set apart, and thus made holy for God's purposes, so too was why Mary was Immaculately Conceived. You can ask God why Mary above all others, but I would dare not be so belligerent to mock God, and certainly not His mother! If you think some men are scary when fighting for their mother's honor, God's wrath is not something you casually want to put to the test.

Besides, is not Mary saved from the negative effects of Original Sin by being immaculately conceived? Therefore God is her savior, even as He prepares her to bear forth the Savior of the world, our Lord Jesus Christ. He is still very much Mary's Lord, Savior, King, and God, even as He is also her son, while also being the Son of God.

 

[David Lamb]

That's the Protestant Manichaean conundrum.

Original Sin has more to do with the condition of the fallen nature after our first parents were exiled from the Garden of Eden. It does not mean that one has committed sin. It is, however, why Purgatory and Limbo exist, with regards to whether one died baptized and in a state of grace, and whether they have committed, but confessed sins that are still needing time to be purged before going to heaven. Limbo, however, is for those not baptized, yet lived a life of virtue, or, in the case of the unborn, did not commit sin, but died not being baptized, and thus still under Original Sin.

Mary, like Abraham, Moses, and David, who were set apart, and thus made holy for God's purposes, so too was why Mary was Immaculately Conceived. You can ask God why Mary above all others, but I would dare not be so belligerent to mock God, and certainly not His mother! If you think some men are scary when fighting for their mother's honor, God's wrath is not something you casually want to put to the test.

Besides, is not Mary saved from the negative effects of Original Sin by being immaculately conceived? Therefore God is her savior, even as He prepares her to bear forth the Savior of the world, our Lord Jesus Christ. He is still very much Mary's Lord, Savior, King, and God, even as He is also her son, while also being the Son of God.

Whether or not it's the Protestant Manichaean conundrum, it certainly puzzled me. No, you haven't convinced me that Mary had to be conceived immaculately, especially as rather than seeking to show me its truth from God's Word, you invoke belief in purgatory and limbo, neither of which are taught in the bible.

 

[Servus]

Oh, and you were there to see how it did?

As it was, while the Apostles were alive, the faith grew and reached many parts of the known world. at the same time, you had gnostics, along with the Jews and pagan authorities who all wanted to snuff out the faith. But to reach as far as they did, it was quite a feat that would not be surpassed until missionaries reaching the New Word of the Americas. To believe the faith was not communicated and passed down is to believe a lie. Some might call it a developed lie that adapts to whatever gnostic, agnostic, or atheist heresy the world fancies for the moment.

But the truth does not develop through lies. The truth is revealed. And it's the very reason a true Catholic holds on tight to both Scripture and Tradition, and has a very focused interest on the condition of the Magisterium of the Church. For we believe in the promises of Christ that the gates of Hell shall not prevail. There may be the Great Apostacy when the faithless fakes will either finally leave the Church, or keep pushing to infiltrate her to try and fashion our Lord's Bride into the mode of the heresies of the day, like the French did during the Enlightenment, setting up their blatant mockery of the faith while executing both the monarchy and the clergy with the guillotine. That's the real development - the mechanisms that the world's evil turns to, each time trying more elaborate techniques to destroy the Church. And yet, the Church continues to survive and prevail over the attacks from within and without. What government or organization do you know that has been around anywhere close to as long as the Church, and the only other is the Jews, who are still under a promise made by God until the completion of this world, and until the New Heavens and Earth have come to be. You cannot develop what God binds or creates. You can only improve your lot in life, and where you find yourself when all has come to pass and all is revealed.

None of us was there for any of it. Therefore we have to go by what is written. Eyewitness accounts and recorded history. The Apostles, Apostolic Fathers and the Chuch Fathers who were their direct students and successors did not write most of what's contained in Marian doctrine. That came much later. That doesn't necessarily discredit it. But it can't be said it's something that started from the beginning. It's clear through documentation when the various aspects of the doctrine took form. The start date for virtually all of Roman Catholic dogma and tradition can be pinned down to a start date. Some of it doesn't date back any further than a thousand or more years after the Church began.

My point in this isn't to discredit the doctrine itself. But rather to pont out that most of it is not scriptural. And that most of it didn't exist until centuries after the inception of the Church.

 

[Servus]

What about the passages in Luke, which inspired both the the prayers of the Ave Maria and Magnifcat?

I'm not sure what you're getting at.

 

[JCrawf]

There are a vast majority of Puritans/Reformers who disagreed. So I don’t think they are being dismissed outright.

Puritans and Reformers, were like Libertarians today, about 3% of the population. Considering the world was well under a billion back then, that 3% was like a couple hundred people at most. That's until Henry VIII took over, outlawed Catholicism and stole Church property, all because he wasn't permitted an anullment from the Pope. I would like to believe that it was Pope Clement VII being a strong defender of Holy Matrimony, but there is evidence to suggest he was in a tight spot with being a prisoner to The Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, who was also Catherine of Aragon's nephew. Nepotism politics at its best, or worst. On the positive, the Papal States remained somewhat independent for a few more centuries. But the cost was the turmoil of Henry VIII's hostile takeover of the Church in England and proclaiming it as his own, with him as the head of the Church. Naturally, he could now divorce Catherine and decree that God wills it. And who in England would argue with that, especially if they wanted to keep their heads? So yeah, that's the glory of the Protestant religious terrorism that some still want to pretend was a Reformation, rather than a dismantling of the Church, bringing about the age of modernity and the rise of corrupt state power.

 

[chevyontheriver]

“46 My soul magnifies the Lord, 47 And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior.” (Lu 1:46-47 NKJV)

If she was sinless, why did she need a Saviour? And for her to have been immaculately conceived, her mother would need to be entirely sinless too.

That's not a real objection. Catholics are real big on the Magnificat and know full well that Mary's spirit rejoiced in God her savior. It's not as if it is news. Mary needed a savior to remain sinless. She was saved before falling and we are saved after falling. She would have fallen without a savior who saved her from falling. You have not produced any sort of 'gotcha'. But good try.

 

[JCrawf]

I'm not sure what you're getting at.

The very first parts of the Ave,

"Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus"

Those two are almost verbatim taken from the first chapter of Luke, from the Angel Gabriel greeting Mary to Elizabeth's salutations at Mary's visitation.

The Magnificat is Mary's prayer pretty much straight from Luke's Gospel. Luke is probably the most Marian of the Gospel writers there is. To say there was not reverence among the apostles and early Church is a flat out lie. John made a big deal to emphasize how Jesus put him in charge of Mary's care after His death. None of that was by accident, nor could anyone say that who truly believes Scripture is God's inspired Word.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Still avoiding.

Looking back to the title of this thread, it is you who have claimed you are a heretic and anathema. Who am I to argue with you. I'm not the one who makes that claim. You made the claim. Which is why I asked things that you considered deflection in asking if you have any wiggle room or where your heart is on this. But looking back to the title of the thread, it looks like you actually want to be considered a heretic and anathema. I leave you to it. Own what you want to own. You do you. You don't need my permission to do so.

 

[Hammster]

Puritans and Reformers, were like Libertarians today, about 3% of the population. Considering the world was well under a billion back then, that 3% was like a couple hundred people at most. That's until Henry VIII took over, outlawed Catholicism and stole Church property, all because he wasn't permitted an anullment from the Pope. I would like to believe that it was Pope Clement VII being a strong defender of Holy Matrimony, but there is evidence to suggest he was in a tight spot with being a prisoner to The Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, who was also Catherine of Aragon's nephew. Nepotism politics at its best, or worst. On the positive, the Papal States remained somewhat independent for a few more centuries. But the cost was the turmoil of Henry VIII's hostile takeover of the Church in England and proclaiming it as his own, with him as the head of the Church. Naturally, he could now divorce Catherine and decree that God wills it. And who in England would argue with that, especially if they wanted to keep their heads? So yeah, that's the glory of the Protestant religious terrorism that some still want to pretend was a Reformation, rather than a dismantling of the Church, bringing about the age of modernity and the rise of corrupt state power.

lol.

 

[Hammster]

Looking back to the title of this thread, it is you who have claimed you are a heretic and anathema. Who am I to argue with you. I'm not the one who makes that claim. You made the claim. Which is why I asked things that you considered deflection in asking if you have any wiggle room or where your heart is on this. But looking back to the title of the thread, it looks like you actually want to be considered a heretic and anathema. I leave you to it. Own what you want to own. You do you. You don't need my permission to do so.

And you still haven’t answered.

 

[Servus]

The very first parts of the Ave,

"Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus"

Those two are almost verbatim taken from the first chapter of Luke, from the Angel Gabriel greeting Mary to Elizabeth's salutations at Mary's visitation.

The Magnificat is Mary's prayer pretty much straight from Luke's Gospel. Luke is probably the most Marian of the Gospel writers there is. To say there was not reverence among the apostles and early Church is a flat out lie. John made a big deal to emphasize how Jesus put him in charge of Mary's care after His death. None of that was by accident, nor could anyone say that who truly believes Scripture is God's inspired Word.

That does not cover dogma 2, 3 and 4 in the OP. Nor other parts of Marian dogma/doctrine which are the ones that are actually in dispute

 

[BNR32FAN]

View attachment 353586
Bummer for me.

Eh no matter what you believe somebody is going to call you a heretic. Doesn’t mean anything at all. The only one that can actually be supported is number 1. The rest is all based on imagination.

 

[JCrawf]

My point in this isn't to discredit the doctrine itself. But rather to pont out that most of it is not scriptural. And that most of it didn't exist until centuries after the inception of the Church.

Maybe what we are familiar with seeing. There were times when parts of the Church were not able to be in direct communication with Rome, and even were not known to exist until things like the Holy Wars with the Muslims settled down. Eastern Catholics give us proof of a vibrant Marian tradition. While we 'Roman' or Latin Rite Catholics speak of Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant, most if not all Eastern Rite Catholics speak of Mary as Theotokos, literally the God-bearer, meaning the Mother of God. While we speak on Mary's Assumption, Eastern Catholics speak on her Dormition, or 'falling asleep'. The Byzantine tradition, is very open to the topic of Mary's mortality, that she indeed died, and was resurrected before assumed into Heaven. As Catholic Answers states, the Byzantine church "guards a rich treasury of teaching, iconography, and liturgy concerning the end of Mary’s life." "Mary's Assumption in the Eastern Tradition)

The reality is that the Apostles and early Church took much of this as fact. When people tried to deny Jesus existed back then, the Apostles would say, "You've seen us and our witness to the acts of His life, and here is His mother. What more evidence do you need?" When Simon Magus tried to pretend he was the new and real savior, and was coaxed into essentially being buried alive, Apostles like St. Peter quipped how there are two graves. One that had Jesus in it, but is now empty, and the one with Simon Magus, who is still in there to this present day.

I'm perfectly fine with Scripture and Tradition. I've read early Church writings of Saints that were alive when Jesus was alive. It is true. If your are indeed honest when looking at the early Church history, you don't see a Protestant nor Fundamentalist nor nondenominational church. You see an early church that is decidedly Catholic and Apostolic, just as the Nicene Creed relates. This is not a matter of developing something new, but revelation of what was, is, and always will be.

 

[JCrawf]

Whether or not it's the Protestant Manichaean conundrum, it certainly puzzled me. No, you haven't convinced me that Mary had to be conceived immaculately, especially as rather than seeking to show me its truth from God's Word, you invoke belief in purgatory and limbo, neither of which are taught in the bible.

Hell isn't necessarily in the Bible, But the Scriptures do speak of the pit of Sheol, and Gehenna. Look up Abraham's bosom. I don't care what you personally believe, but what has always been believed and taught for 2000 years. Your opinions don't count when it comes to the truth of Scripture and Tradition and what has been taught everywhere at all times by the one holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

 

[JCrawf]

That does not cover dogma 2, 3 and 4 in the OP. Nor other parts of Marian dogma/doctrine which are the ones that are actually in dispute

Who said I had to cover everything in one post?

Besides, I'm well past needing sleep so I don't slog at work. With that, Going off for a bit of a cat nap, take care!

 

[Servus]

Maybe what we are familiar with seeing. There were times when parts of the Church were not able to be in direct communication with Rome, and even were not known to exist until things like the Holy Wars with the Muslims settled down. Eastern Catholics give us proof of a vibrant Marian tradition. While we 'Roman' or Latin Rite Catholics speak of Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant, most if not all Eastern Rite Catholics speak of Mary as Theotokos, literally the God-bearer, meaning the Mother of God. While we speak on Mary's Assumption, Eastern Catholics speak on her Dormition, or 'falling asleep'. The Byzantine tradition, is very open to the topic of Mary's mortality, that she indeed died, and was resurrected before assumed into Heaven. As Catholic Answers states, the Byzantine church "guards a rich treasury of teaching, iconography, and liturgy concerning the end of Mary’s life." "Mary's Assumption in the Eastern Tradition)

The reality is that the Apostles and early Church took much of this as fact. When people tried to deny Jesus existed back then, the Apostles would say, "You've seen us and our witness to the acts of His life, and here is His mother. What more evidence do you need?" When Simon Magus tried to pretend he was the new and real savior, and was coaxed into essentially being buried alive, Apostles like St. Peter quipped how there are two graves. One that had Jesus in it, but is now empty, and the one with Simon Magus, who is still in there to this present day.

I'm perfectly fine with Scripture and Tradition. I've read early Church writings of Saints that were alive when Jesus was alive. It is true. If your are indeed honest when looking at the early Church history, you don't see a Protestant nor Fundamentalist nor nondenominational church. You see an early church that is decidedly Catholic and Apostolic, just as the Nicene Creed relates. This is not a matter of developing something new, but revelation of what was, is, and always will be.

It's pretty clear what the Church did and didn't teach up to the 5th century.

 

[JCrawf]

It's pretty clear what the Church did and didn't teach up to the 5th century.

I can agree on that, though I might disagree on what was clear and not clear. But 5 centuries is a pretty long run for continuity before any major heresies started to contend with the truth of the Church. It's almost as if the Church was indeed a universal Church, a Catholic Church.

 

[JCrawf]

It’s a lot more beneficial to provide evidence to support your position rather than making false accusations. Can you please provide your evidence supporting numbers 2,3,&4?

You don't even have an argument. You literally have nothing. lol

 

[Servus]

I can agree on that, though I might disagree on what was clear and not clear. But 5 centuries is a pretty long run for continuity before any major heresies started to contend with the truth of the Church. It's almost as if the Church was indeed a universal Church, a Catholic Church.

Some would call it creating heresy to combat heresy.