The Goddess Man Has Made

[Axehead]

Immaculate Conception - Sinless Life

If one undertakes a thorough study of the Old and New Testament they will find not find any information about Mary's birth, her parents, her childhood and most anything else. The Early Church Apostles and Saints knew nothing of Mary's origins, mainly because there are no such references in any of their writings. The very first known appearance of the idea that Mary was sinless is traced to the 4th century when Augustine was bishop of Hippo. (This is a matter of historical fact) A sect known as the Pelagians, whose chief spokesman was Julian of Eclanum, believed that Mary the mother of Jesus had been born without sin and was, therefore, free from the power of the "demons. Augustine defended the clear Biblical doctrine that all mankind inherits a sin nature from the original sin of Adam. Augustine further pointed out to the heretic Julian of Eclanum that if Mary the mother of Jesus had been freed from the power of the demons, it was not the result of her natural birth, but the result of her being born-again by the grace of God (John's Gospel, 3rd chapter). That should have put to rest for all time any suggestions that Mary's conception was in some way special or different. (Augustine Through the Ages, an Encyclopedia, p. 516)

However, in the 13th century, 800 or so years after Augustine, the Immaculate Conception matter was to enjoy a renewal of support. But this "support" would not come from Thomas Aquinas, (the famous doctor of the Roman Catholic Church). Aquinas emphatically declared that Mary (the mother of Jesus) was conceived with the stain of original sin, as are all descendants of Adam and Eve. Aquinas addressed the matter this way

"Certainly Mary was conceived with original sin, as is natural. If she would have been not been born with original sin, she would not have needed to be redeemed by Christ, and, this being so, Christ would not be the universal Redeemer of men, which would abolish the dignity of Christ." (Holy Teaching: Introducing the Summa Theologiae of St. Thomas Aquinas, p. 204)

You will notice if you look at the Catholic Catechism that not a single early Church father is cited as a reference for the Immaculate Conception doctrine. Neither are there any scriptures cited to support it. There are some quotes of early Church patriarchs, but none of these quotes have anything to do with Mary's supposed Immaculate Conception.

Many less than astute Catholic faithful can be led to believe that this is a very old doctrine and one that has come down through the ages as an accepted "Tradition," even one that can be traced back to apostolic times. But if it is, in fact church "Tradition," founded on the doctrines held by the early Church, all evidence for this is conspicuous by its absence from the 1994 Catechism. What is found in the 1994 Catechism are the conclusions of pope's and councils, all of which are far removed from the Christian Church founded by Jesus.

With no record of support for it in Scripture or among the early Church fathers and with very strong opposition to it on the part of Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas, how could the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception ever have become an article of faith of the Roman Catholic Church?

Axehead

 

[Foreigner]

Axehead, you make very valid points.
That will not, however, sway those that have chosen to believe it even though there is nothing to indicate it is true.

You are 100% correct when you point out that Thomas Aquinas agrees that Mary was born with original sin like the rest of us.
Poor Thomas is sited frequently by Catholics when he agrees, but when he disagrees he is conveniently forgotten, his opinion suddenly irrelevant.

I guess my point is that if someone is going to choose to believe something that has absolutely no supporting evidence, there is little you are going to be able to say to dissuade them.

 

[aspen]

sort of like 'trickle down economics' I suppose.

 

[Episkopos]

This goddess has been around for many "venerations"!

 

[neophyte]

John the cousin of our Lord was also "born' sinless ,because he accepted Jesus as his Savior while in his mother's womb [ Luke 1: 15 ]

 

[Foreigner]

sort of like 'trickle down economics' I suppose.

-- Or "the rich aren't paying their fair share."

 

[Episkopos]

John the cousin of our Lord was also "born' sinless ,because he accepted Jesus as his Savior while in his mother's womb [ Luke 1: 15 ]

Pretty smart kid...er...fetus!!!

 

[Axehead]

In Roman Catholicism, Mary rather than Christ is "the supreme Minister of the distribution of graces." [sub]Pope Pius X, Ad Diem Illum Laetissimum, no 12. [/sub]

"And from this community of will and suffering between Christ and Mary she merited to become most worthily the Reparatrix of the lost world and Dispensatrix of all the gifts that Our Saviour purchased for us by His Death and by His Blood." [sub]Ad Diem, no 14.[/sub]

The Second Vatican Council said that Mary's role as co-mediator was that her mediation "...does not hinder in any way the immediate union of the faithful with Christ but on the contrary fosters it." [sub]Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution of the Church, no 60.[/sub]

"God has committed to her the treasury of all good things, in order that everyone may know that through her are obtained every hope, every grace and all salvation. For this is His will, that we obtain everything through Mary." Pope Pius IX, Ubi Primum

Really no comments are needed, just Roman Catholic quotes about Mary should suffice for those who love God's Word.

"Every grace granted to men has three successive steps: By God is is communicated to Christ, from Christ it passes to the Virgin, and from the Virgin it descends to us." [sub]Pope Leo XIII, Jucunda Semper [/sub]

Did you Christians know that all graces come to you via Mary?

Christ is the source of blessing, but Mary is the channel: "...every blessing that comes to us from the Almighty God comes to us through the hands of Our Lady" [sub]Pope Pius XI, Ingracescentibus Malis.[/sub] This includes salvation. Mary is said to be the "Mediatrix of our salvation" [sub]Pope Leo XIII Jucunda Semper,[/sub] and the "instrument and guardian of our salvation" [sub]Pope Leo XIII, Parta Humano Generi. [/sub]

Pope Leo XIII prayed:

"O Virgin most holy, none abounds in the knowledge of God except through thee; none, O Mother of God, obtains salvation except through thee, none receives a gift from the throne of mercy except through thee." [sub]Pope Leo XIII , Adiutricem Populi[/sub]

Pope Leo's prayer would have been accurate if he had been speaking about the Lord Jesus Christ. (John 1:18, John 14:6, Heb 4:14-16). It is "through Him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father (Eph 2:18). This is the biblical way to approach God through the Son, in the Spirit to the Father. Christ taught His disciples to pray in the name of the Son directly to the Father (John 16:26,27). That is why Biblical Christians pray in the name of Jesus, not Mary (John 14:13,14).

It is the privilege of those redeemed by the blood of Christ to have direct contact with Christ. The RCC's teaching that the "faithful" must go through Mary destroys this privilege.

Axehead

 

[aspen]

sorry to interrupt your anticatholic rant, but we are all called to dispense Christ's grace to each other - as the body of Christ we are all instruments of God and called to be 'little Christs', not just Mary. Every time you attack Mary, you are attacking the work of Christ in her.

 

[Axehead]

sorry to interrupt your anticatholic rant, but we are all called to dispense Christ's grace to each other - as the body of Christ we are all instruments of God and called to be 'little Christs', not just Mary. Every time you attack Mary, you are attacking the work of Christ in her.

Hi Aspen,

I know who Mary is, and am not attacking Mary of the Bible. I am just posting what your Popes have said about Mary. Would you mind telling me how I have attacked the Mary of the Bible? The Mary of the Bible is probably happy I am writing this, but unfortunately she doesn't know what is going on everywhere on earth. Which is probably a good thing or else she would be extremely grieved. But, do you believe these things that the Pope said about Mary of the Bible?

And where is your concern for the Lord Jesus Christ and the damage that is being done to Him by the Catholic Mary?

Did you know that one of your Pope's has stated that Jesus is the Head of the Body and that Mary is the neck? And everything below the neck must come through her? Do you believe that?

Do you see what a horrible injustice to Jesus Christ is being done by the Roman Catholic Church?

"...the connecting portion the function of which is to join the body to the head and to transmit to the body the influences and volitions of the head -- We mean the neck.Yes, says St. Bernardine of Sienna, "she is the neck of Our Head, by which He communicates to His mystical body all spiritual gifts." [sub]Pope Pius X, Ad Diem Illum Laetissimum, no 13.[/sub]

Where is the Biblical support for Mary to function as the neck of the Body of Christ? Between God and men there is one mediator, not two (1 Tim 2:5). Does your Bible say that Mary is the dispenser of all biblical gifts? I don't see Mary at all in the below verses.

1Co 12:4 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.
1Co 12:5 And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.
1Co 12:6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.
1Co 12:7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.
1Co 12:8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;
1Co 12:9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;
1Co 12:10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:

1Co 12:11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

If you take God's Word seriously these kinds of things should alarm you.

In Jesus' earthly ministry, He never taught that Mary was to receive special honor. Once, someone came to Him and said, "Blessed is the womb that bore you and the breasts at which you nursed." (Luke 11:27). But Jesus deflected such honor ascribed to Mary saying, "Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it" (Luke 11:28).

and...

Mat 12:48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?
Mat 12:49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
Mat 12:50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

Jesus was asserting his independence from human relationships. He communicated that a personal spiritual relationship with Him stemming from submission to God the Father was far greater than physical kinship based upon the flesh.

Paul adds, "Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more." (2 Cor 5:16)

Why does the RCC take every opportunity to exalt Mary (in contrast to Jesus' example)?

Let's consider the biblical meaning of idolatry, next.

Axehead

 

[aspen]

I will not follow your insecure Christ, Axehead. I am a follower of Christ of the Bible - the same Christ who redeems humanity - His word does not go out in vain. His work is completed within all of His children, including Mary. I am not interested in reading anymore of your attempts to take away from Christ's work in us. Apparently your Christ is too insecure to redeem His children or you are unwilling to give Him the credit He deserves.

 

[Foreigner]

sorry to interrupt your anticatholic rant, but we are all called to dispense Christ's grace to each other - as the body of Christ we are all instruments of God and called to be 'little Christs', not just Mary. Every time you attack Mary, you are attacking the work of Christ in her.

-- That's something new. Now, even directly quoting past Catholic Popes and specific Catholic doctrine is an "anti-Catholic rant."
Axehead is not "attacking Mary." He is pointing out how almost heretical the position the Catholic churchs holds on Mary is.


"O Virgin most holy, none abounds in the knowledge of God except through thee; none, O Mother of God, obtains salvation except through thee, none receives a gift from the throne of mercy except through thee." [sub]Pope Leo XIII , Adiutricem Populi[/sub]

-- You have more of an issue with Axehead pointing out this quote, than the ridiculousness of the quote itelf.

I am not interested in reading anymore of your attempts to take away from Christ's work in us. Apparently your Christ is too insecure to redeem His children or you are unwilling to give Him the credit He deserves.

-- That first sentence is always said by you when you cannot defend your position and simply want things to stop.
Your second sentence is incredible in that it ignores that the very Papal quotes and Catholic doctrine that Axehead post show that by putting such an emphasis on Mary - to the point of saying that all good is filtered through her - you take away from Christ the credit He deserves.




.

 

[Axehead]

When you cannot substantiate a belief as from God (Scriptures) and forcing men to believe something because other men say so (Pope) does not seem to work, the frustration makes one revert to emotional language.

 

[Mungo]

Immaculate Conception - Sinless Life

If one undertakes a thorough study of the Old and New Testament they will find not find any information about Mary's birth, her parents, her childhood and most anything else. The Early Church Apostles and Saints knew nothing of Mary's origins, mainly because there are no such references in any of their writings. The very first known appearance of the idea that Mary was sinless is traced to the 4th century when Augustine was bishop of Hippo. (This is a matter of historical fact) A sect known as the Pelagians, whose chief spokesman was Julian of Eclanum, believed that Mary the mother of Jesus had been born without sin and was, therefore, free from the power of the "demons. Augustine defended the clear Biblical doctrine that all mankind inherits a sin nature from the original sin of Adam. Augustine further pointed out to the heretic Julian of Eclanum that if Mary the mother of Jesus had been freed from the power of the demons, it was not the result of her natural birth, but the result of her being born-again by the grace of God (John's Gospel, 3rd chapter). That should have put to rest for all time any suggestions that Mary's conception was in some way special or different. (Augustine Through the Ages, an Encyclopedia, p. 516)

However, in the 13th century, 800 or so years after Augustine, the Immaculate Conception matter was to enjoy a renewal of support. But this "support" would not come from Thomas Aquinas, (the famous doctor of the Roman Catholic Church). Aquinas emphatically declared that Mary (the mother of Jesus) was conceived with the stain of original sin, as are all descendants of Adam and Eve. Aquinas addressed the matter this way

"Certainly Mary was conceived with original sin, as is natural. If she would have been not been born with original sin, she would not have needed to be redeemed by Christ, and, this being so, Christ would not be the universal Redeemer of men, which would abolish the dignity of Christ." (Holy Teaching: Introducing the Summa Theologiae of St. Thomas Aquinas, p. 204)

You will notice if you look at the Catholic Catechism that not a single early Church father is cited as a reference for the Immaculate Conception doctrine. Neither are there any scriptures cited to support it. There are some quotes of early Church patriarchs, but none of these quotes have anything to do with Mary's supposed Immaculate Conception.

Many less than astute Catholic faithful can be led to believe that this is a very old doctrine and one that has come down through the ages as an accepted "Tradition," even one that can be traced back to apostolic times. But if it is, in fact church "Tradition," founded on the doctrines held by the early Church, all evidence for this is conspicuous by its absence from the 1994 Catechism. What is found in the 1994 Catechism are the conclusions of pope's and councils, all of which are far removed from the Christian Church founded by Jesus.

With no record of support for it in Scripture or among the early Church fathers and with very strong opposition to it on the part of Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas, how could the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception ever have become an article of faith of the Roman Catholic Church?

Axehead

Jesus didn’t write a detailed theology manual, neither did the apostles. Instead they left a body of teaching , some of which was written down and later canonised as inspired writing.

The Church taught from this “Deposit of Faith”. As heresies arose they had to be countered and much effort of the early Church was spent on countering heresies, especially those on the nature of Christ (Adoptionism, Appolinarism, Arianism, Docetism, Nestorianism, Sabellianism and more).

In the second century two great apologists wrote extensively against heresy. St. Irenaeus write a five volume “Against Heresies” and Justin Martyr wrote two “Apologies” and Dialogue with Trypho (A Jew).

When the Church was no longer persecuted the bishops of the Church could get together in great councils and began to formally define many doctrines but mostly in opposition to heresy, particularly about the nature of God, and Jesus in particular.

Quotes below in blue taken from the Catholic Encycloedia.

The First Ecumenical Council (Nicea, 325)
To this council we owe The Creed (Symbolum) of Nicaea, defining against Arius the true Divinity of the Son of God (homoousios)

The Second Ecumenical Council (Constantinople I, 381)
It was directed against the followers of Macedonius, who impugned the Divinity of the Holy Ghost. To the above-mentioned Nicene Creed it added the clauses referring to the Holy Ghost (qui simul adoratur) and all that follows to the end.

The Third Ecumenical Council (Ephesus 431)
….. defined the true personal unity of Christ, declared Mary the Mother of God (theotokos) against Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople, and renewed the condemnation of Pelagius.
Even though the Church defined Mary as the Mother of God, this was not the main purpose of the Council. The letter that Cyril wrote to Nestorius, approved by the Council, contained 12 anathemas for Nestorius to agree with, all about Christ. Only one mentioned Mary as the mother of God


The Fourth Ecumenical Council (Chalcedon (451)
…. defined the two natures (Divine and human) in Christ against Eutyches

The Fifth Ecumenical Council (Constantinople II, 553)
Condemned various writings and … confirmed the first four general councils, especially that of Chalcedon whose authority was contested by some heretics.

The Sixth Ecumenical Council (Constantinople III, 680-681)
It put an end to Monothelitism by defining two wills in Christ, the Divine and the human, as two distinct principles of operation. It anathematized Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, Macarius, and all their followers.

So well into the 7[sup]th[/sup] century the Church was still fighting heresy about the nature of God and Christ. It is not surprising therefore that other topics such as original sin and Mary took time to develop in understanding and formal definitions.

Moreover an understanding of Mary as immaculately conceived could not be formulated until original sin was properly understood. This was not finalised until the 16[sup]th[/sup] century.

It is untrue to say that Thomas Aquinas strongly opposed the idea of Mary being immaculately conceived. The Catholic Encyclopaedia says about this:
St. Thomas at first pronounced in favour of the doctrine in his treatise on the "Sentences" (in I. Sent. c. 44, q. I ad 3), yet in his "Summa Theologica" he concluded against it. Much discussion has arisen as to whether St. Thomas did or did not deny that the Blessed Virgin was immaculate at the instant of her animation, and learned books have been written to vindicate him from having actually drawn the negative conclusion. Yet it is hard to say that St. Thomas did not require an instant at least, after the animation of Mary, before her sanctification. His great difficulty appears to have arisen from the doubt as to how she could have been redeemed if she had not sinned. This difficulty he raised in no fewer than ten passages in his writings (see, e.g., Summa III:27:2, ad 2). But while St. Thomas thus held back from the essential point of the doctrine, he himself laid down the principles which, after they had been drawn together and worked out, enabled other minds to furnish the true solution of this difficulty from his own premises.

The early fathers did not use the term immaculate conception about Mary but they did write about many points that would lead to this – her sinlessness, her being the New Eve and the Ark of the New Covenant. All these were mentioned in Ineffabilis Deus.

I can give you quotations from the early fathers if you want them if you want them.

 

[neophyte]

Immaculate Conception - Sinless Life

If one undertakes a thorough study of the Old and New Testament they will find not find any information about Mary's birth, her parents, her childhood and most anything else. The Early Church Apostles and Saints knew nothing of Mary's origins, mainly because there are no such references in any of their writings. The very first known appearance of the idea that Mary was sinless is traced to the 4th century when Augustine was bishop of Hippo. (This is a matter of historical fact) A sect known as the Pelagians, whose chief spokesman was Julian of Eclanum, believed that Mary the mother of Jesus had been born without sin and was, therefore, free from the power of the "demons. Augustine defended the clear Biblical doctrine that all mankind inherits a sin nature from the original sin of Adam. Augustine further pointed out to the heretic Julian of Eclanum that if Mary the mother of Jesus had been freed from the power of the demons, it was not the result of her natural birth, but the result of her being born-again by the grace of God (John's Gospel, 3rd chapter). That should have put to rest for all time any suggestions that Mary's conception was in some way special or different. (Augustine Through the Ages, an Encyclopedia, p. 516)

However, in the 13th century, 800 or so years after Augustine, the Immaculate Conception matter was to enjoy a renewal of support. But this "support" would not come from Thomas Aquinas, (the famous doctor of the Roman Catholic Church). Aquinas emphatically declared that Mary (the mother of Jesus) was conceived with the stain of original sin, as are all descendants of Adam and Eve. Aquinas addressed the matter this way

"Certainly Mary was conceived with original sin, as is natural. If she would have been not been born with original sin, she would not have needed to be redeemed by Christ, and, this being so, Christ would not be the universal Redeemer of men, which would abolish the dignity of Christ." (Holy Teaching: Introducing the Summa Theologiae of St. Thomas Aquinas, p. 204)

You will notice if you look at the Catholic Catechism that not a single early Church father is cited as a reference for the Immaculate Conception doctrine. Neither are there any scriptures cited to support it. There are some quotes of early Church patriarchs, but none of these quotes have anything to do with Mary's supposed Immaculate Conception.

Many less than astute Catholic faithful can be led to believe that this is a very old doctrine and one that has come down through the ages as an accepted "Tradition," even one that can be traced back to apostolic times. But if it is, in fact church "Tradition," founded on the doctrines held by the early Church, all evidence for this is conspicuous by its absence from the 1994 Catechism. What is found in the 1994 Catechism are the conclusions of pope's and councils, all of which are far removed from the Christian Church founded by Jesus.

With no record of support for it in Scripture or among the early Church fathers and with very strong opposition to it on the part of Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas, how could the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception ever have become an article of faith of the Roman Catholic Church?

Axehead

Axehead,looks as if you forgot this writing from "Augustine"-

"Her virginity also itself was on this account more pleasing and accepted, in that it was not that Christ being conceived in her, rescued it beforehand from a husband who would violate it, Himself to preserve it; but, before He was conceived, chose it, already dedicated to God, as that from which to be born. This is shown by the words which Mary spake in answer to the Angel announcing to her conception; How,' saith she, shall this be, seeing I know not a man?' Which assuredly she would not say, unless she had before vowed herself unto God as a virgin. But, because the habits of the Israelites as yet refused this, she was espoused to a just man, who would not take from her by violence, but rather guard against violent persons, what she had already vowed. Although, even if she had said this only, How shall this take place ?' and had not added, seeing I know not a man,' certainly she would not have asked, how, being a female, she should give birth to her promised Son, if she had married with purpose of sexual intercourse. She might have been bidden also to continue a virgin, that in her by fitting miracle the Son of God should receive the form of a servant, but, being to be a pattern to holy virgins, lest it should be thought that she alone needed to be a virgin, who had obtained to conceive a child even without sexual intercourse, she dedicated her virginity to God, when as yet she knew not what she should conceive, in order that the imitation of a heavenly life in an earthly and mortal body should take place of vow, not of command; through love of choosing, not through necessity of doing service. Thus Christ by being born of a virgin, who, before she knew Who was to be born of her, had determined to continue a virgin, chose rather to approve, than to command, holy virginity. And thus, even in the female herself, in whom He took the form of a servant, He willed that virginity should be free." Augustine, Of Holy Virginity, 4 (A.D. 401). From the "Early Church Fathers"

 

[dragonfly]

Of course Mary was a virgin after Jesus had been born, but only until her marriage to Joseph was consummated.

Matthew 1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.... 24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: 25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

Mark 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

Matthew 12:46 While he yet talked to the people, behold, [his] mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him. 47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.

Luke 8:19 Then came to him [his] mother and his brethren, and could not come at him for the press. 20 And it was told him [by certain] which said, Thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to see thee.

Mark 3:32 And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee.


There is no doubt in the disciples minds, that Jesus had brothers and sisters.

 

[Axehead]

Axehead,looks as if you forgot this writing from "Augustine"-

"Her virginity also itself was on this account more pleasing and accepted, in that it was not that Christ being conceived in her, rescued it beforehand from a husband who would violate it, Himself to preserve it; but, before He was conceived, chose it, already dedicated to God, as that from which to be born. This is shown by the words which Mary spake in answer to the Angel announcing to her conception; How,' saith she, shall this be, seeing I know not a man?' Which assuredly she would not say, unless she had before vowed herself unto God as a virgin. But, because the habits of the Israelites as yet refused this, she was espoused to a just man, who would not take from her by violence, but rather guard against violent persons, what she had already vowed. Although, even if she had said this only, How shall this take place ?' and had not added, seeing I know not a man,' certainly she would not have asked, how, being a female, she should give birth to her promised Son, if she had married with purpose of sexual intercourse. She might have been bidden also to continue a virgin, that in her by fitting miracle the Son of God should receive the form of a servant, but, being to be a pattern to holy virgins, lest it should be thought that she alone needed to be a virgin, who had obtained to conceive a child even without sexual intercourse, she dedicated her virginity to God, when as yet she knew not what she should conceive, in order that the imitation of a heavenly life in an earthly and mortal body should take place of vow, not of command; through love of choosing, not through necessity of doing service. Thus Christ by being born of a virgin, who, before she knew Who was to be born of her, had determined to continue a virgin, chose rather to approve, than to command, holy virginity. And thus, even in the female herself, in whom He took the form of a servant, He willed that virginity should be free." Augustine, Of Holy Virginity, 4 (A.D. 401). From the "Early Church Fathers"

That is just his opinion. You should reveal to the good folks reading this thread that the Roman Catholic Church does not consider the teaching of the Church Doctors to be infallible or binding upon the Church.

In addition, the Popes and Bishops found no support from the Church Doctors for the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary (there are 32 Doctors of the church, major and minor, today including 2 women, both mystics - Catherine of Siena and Terese of Avila).

It seems, only what the Popes say, count!

Axehead

 

[aspen]

You forgot Therese of Lisieux

 

[justaname]

I suppose I look at this matter in the opinion of Mary like this:

God's only begotten Son was nurtured there and she was/is a holy instrument of God's peace and reign. May she be blessed forever. She too lives in Christ. As an integral piece of God's plan she received God's will with grace. I love her in Christ, and I believe God allows her to know prayers addressed to her. She is not a part of the trinity or Godhead by any means but a fellow servant of the Lord Most High none the less. Where her physical body resides the LORD knows, men speculate.

 

[Foreigner]

Of course Mary was a virgin after Jesus had been born, but only until her marriage to Joseph was consummated.

Mark 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

-- That is the one verse that Catholics have to either attack or ignore.

Especially when you research and find out that the word "brothers" actually translates to "brothers" and not "cousins" as is sometimes used elsewhere.





Those same people have also chosen not to provide feedback, either supporting or refuting these quotes that Axehead provided:


-- In Roman Catholicism, Mary rather than Christ is "the supreme Minister of the distribution of graces." [sub]Pope Pius X, Ad Diem Illum Laetissimum, no 12. [/sub]

-- "And from this community of will and suffering between Christ and Mary she merited to become most worthily the Reparatrix of the lost world and Dispensatrix of all the gifts that Our Saviour purchased for us by His Death and by His Blood." [sub]Ad Diem, no 14.[/sub]

-- The Second Vatican Council said that Mary's role as co-mediator was that her mediation "...does not hinder in any way the immediate union of the faithful with Christ but on the contrary fosters it." [sub]Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution of the Church, no 60.[/sub]

-- "God has committed to her the treasury of all good things, in order that everyone may know that through her are obtained every hope, every grace and all salvation. For this is His will, that we obtain everything through Mary." Pope Pius IX, Ubi Primum

-- "Every grace granted to men has three successive steps: By God is is communicated to Christ, from Christ it passes to the Virgin, and from the Virgin it descends to us." [sub]Pope Leo XIII, Jucunda Semper [/sub]

-- Christ is the source of blessing, but Mary is the channel: "...every blessing that comes to us from the Almighty God comes to us through the hands of Our Lady" [sub]Pope Pius XI, Ingracescentibus Malis.[/sub] This includes salvation. Mary is said to be the "Mediatrix of our salvation" [sub]Pope Leo XIII Jucunda Semper,[/sub] and the "instrument and guardian of our salvation" [sub]Pope Leo XIII, Parta Humano Generi. [/sub]

-- "O Virgin most holy, none abounds in the knowledge of God except through thee; none, O Mother of God, obtains salvation except through thee, none receives a gift from the throne of mercy except through thee." [sub]Pope Leo XIII , Adiutricem Populi[/sub]