The Goddess Man Has Made

[Brother James]

I have not criticized your so-called three dimensional artistic depiction of Jesus or Mary. If you can point out a lie I've told, I'll confess and repent. If you cannot then you need to confess and repent for calling me a liar.

You don't strike me as soneone for whom thoughtful discussion is either possible or even desireable.

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

There are many beliefs about Mary that cause me to cringe. Greatest among them is the label "Mother of God". I understand how it came about, the heresies that were being put forth about Christ, and so forth that caused this to become an issue. We can debate whether Jesus has two natures or one, two substances or one, and all the other things that have gone on over the centuries until the cows come home. To the ears of a non-catholic that term "Mother of God" seems to elevate Mary to the status of "God creator". Mother of Jesus does not have that same conotation, and yes, Jesus is God. It's a semantic thing, but I cringe when I hear it. I know that Catholics do not believe Mary brought God into existence. I know they do not worship her as a deity. It's just how it hits my (and other non-catholic) ears.

Catholic friends, let me describe a scene for you and tell me how it strikes you. Let's say I invite you to the little country church I attend and you accept my invitation as a gesture of good neighborliness. When you arrive, you are alarmed to see at the front of my church a large golden calf. You are horrified when everyone in the church gathers around the calf and begins to pray and worship. Later on, you wonder how in the world we could engage in a clear act of idolitry. Then I explain to you what the calf represents and what we were praying. Our prayer is, "Oh Lord our God, our forefathers created idols to worship and so offended you. Keep us from the worship of idols. Let this golden calf remind us of the sins of our forefathers so that we never fail to recognize and worship you, our Lord and Creator, in Jesus' Name". I explain that the calf is not an object of our worship, but a reminder that idolitry is offensive to God. The calf keeps this in the forefront of our thinking.

Now, that might strike you as bizzarre, but would it give you a different view of my church than your initial impression? See, praying to saints and to Mary and all the statues and all the rest is just as shocking to non-catholics. That's why you get the horrified responses.

Thank you James .... your description mirrors many of my own feelings.

I am neither anti-Catholic , nor anti-Mary but my concern is that many (Catholics) know very little about anything except Mary.

I have dear friends who define themselves as "Old School Catholics" (pre-Vatican 2) .... they are devout and sincere and upstanding members of our community.

I admire them because they are intelligent people who are always willing to discuss Church matters.

My concern is that about every second sentence they speak refers to Mary , the other sentences refer to the Pope. There is nothing else apparent in their "religion"

When I drift the conversation towards Jesus as Savior .... I get blank stares ... this concept appears foreign to them.

When the discussion turns to the catholic Church being "The only One" .... I ask them about the 7 very different churches in different locations mentioned in Revelation ...... I get blank stares .... they have never heard of them.

Sometimes I pose the scenario that if the Pope , Rome , and every single Catholic building and church system was removed today .... would they still feel they could get to heaven .... ?? .... I get blank stares ....

But if the subject is Mary or the Pope .... they can talk for hours .

It is at that moment I am angered by what they don't know.

And I think to myself ...... who is responsible for what these wonderful people do not know and do not understand ?

What organization has given them this mindset ?

And should I even care?

 

[Brother James]

The more secure a person is in understanding their own beliefs the less threatened they are about what other people think or say. People who understand Catholic theology extremely well offer well thought out defenses for things that strike non-catholics as wrong or "unchristian". I consider my Catholic brother and sisters in Christ to be my brothers and sisters in Christ, and many of them extend the same consideration to me. I don't have to believe that Mary intercedes with Christ on my behalf to have Christian fellowship with Catholic believers. Some people just can't seem to fellowship with people who don't believe exactly what they believe, as if any of us has perfect understanding.

Now, Catholics are in a difficult spot in considering doctrines that differ from their Church's position. Catholics have less lattitude to consider error than, say, a Presbyterian. That's because their church tells them it is the repository for God's truths. Nevertheless, if we can allow that some degree of error on the part of others does not erase the grace of God and salvation to those of other denominations, then fellowship is possible and enjoyable. When people can't do that, the result is nothing but conflict.

 

[neophyte]

Brother James, if i was a betting man, I would say that in Luke 1: 39-43 when Elizabeth greeted Mary with the salutation of "mother of my Lord " that would in itself convince me that Marywas born sinless and remained sinless, Mary the blessed virgin being the mother of the Savior of all mankind did indeed live a sinless life.How could you as a Christian while proclaiming to follow, honoring and praying to Jesus. ever have the idea that Joseph,who understood his duty as guardian/stepfather could ever' touch' the sacred Jewish tabernackle /womb of Mary the mother of our Lord and Savior, is your faith that weak ? If your faith is that weak it doesn't mean that Joseph's faith was weak , Joseph knew and understood the real deal .All the early first Christians understood that Mary was ever sinless , only latter day people invented that Mary lived a normal married life.

 

[Brother James]

You seem to be drawing some picture of my beliefs that is false so you can criticize it. I believe Jesus to be born of a virgin. That is not what the immaculate conception is referring to, however. It is not a matter of my faith being weak, I believe it is more a matter of you misunderstanding.

Mary is never said, however, to have lived a sinless life. She needed a savior as much as I do. That has nothing to do with Jesus being born miraculously of a virgin. And the notion that Mary was born without original sin is unnecessary and unsupportable in my view, but I don't mind if others believe that. God allows for some amout of error in the details, after all.

 

[epostle1]

Forgive me for being harsh with your analogy, is saw it as a conclusion that did not follow from its premise. You were just trying to show me, through the eyes of an iconoclast, the repugnancy of religious statuary, which can be proven to be unfounded.

You are right, Mary's perpetual virginity and the Immaculate Conception (IC) should be dealt with separately, but should never be separated from their Christological grounding. In other words, discussion about Marian teaching should be Christ centered, as that is what sound Mariology is all about.

Maybe you can help me out with a problem I am having. It can be demonstrated that no ECF questioned Mary's sinlessness, and NONE of the early reformers taught in opposition to it, so my problem is locating the time frame and the persons who first taught that Mary ever sinned, or had sin. Searching for the first Protestant theologian who came up with this notion has been fruitless. Maybe you can locate the time frame and the person responsible for this gross deviation from Protestant thought.

This video best explains, from strictly a scriptural point of view, most of the teachings about Mary. I hope you find it as informative as I have.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aU18v-tl8I

 

[aspen]

Thank you James .... your description mirrors many of my own feelings.

I am neither anti-Catholic , nor anti-Mary but my concern is that many (Catholics) know very little about anything except Mary.

I have dear friends who define themselves as "Old School Catholics" (pre-Vatican 2) .... they are devout and sincere and upstanding members of our community.

I admire them because they are intelligent people who are always willing to discuss Church matters.

My concern is that about every second sentence they speak refers to Mary , the other sentences refer to the Pope. There is nothing else apparent in their "religion"

When I drift the conversation towards Jesus as Savior .... I get blank stares ... this concept appears foreign to them.

When the discussion turns to the catholic Church being "The only One" .... I ask them about the 7 very different churches in different locations mentioned in Revelation ...... I get blank stares .... they have never heard of them.

Sometimes I pose the scenario that if the Pope , Rome , and every single Catholic building and church system was removed today .... would they still feel they could get to heaven .... ?? .... I get blank stares ....

But if the subject is Mary or the Pope .... they can talk for hours .

It is at that moment I am angered by what they don't know.

And I think to myself ...... who is responsible for what these wonderful people do not know and do not understand ?

What organization has given them this mindset ?

And should I even care?

I am Catholic and I do not have that mindset.

 

[dragonfly]

Hi neophyte,

I would say that in Luke 1: 39-43 when Elizabeth greeted Mary with the salutation of "mother of my Lord " that would in itself convince me that Marywas born sinless and remained sinless, Mary the blessed virgin being the mother of the Savior of all mankind did indeed live a sinless life.How could you as a Christian while proclaiming to follow, honoring and praying to Jesus. ever have the idea that Joseph,who understood his duty as guardian/stepfather could ever' touch' the sacred Jewish tabernackle /womb of Mary the mother of our Lord and Savior, is your faith that weak ? If your faith is that weak it doesn't mean that Joseph's faith was weak , Joseph knew and understood the real deal .All the early first Christians understood that Mary was ever sinless

You show yourself to have no understanding whatever of what 'the early Christians' (who were baptised in the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost - over three thousand of them - amongst whom Mary was one of the women) understood of Adam's sin and its effect on all his descendants, including Mary. Mary herself, (and they all), understood there has only ever been one sinless person - Christ Jesus our Lord.

only latter day people invented that Mary lived a normal married life.

Again you show yourself ignorant of scripture. The gospel writers knew Mary personally, and they both give account of her life, and testify of others who knew her and Joseph, and Jesus, James, Joses, and His sisters. Please see p1 of this thread, post #16, for some of those verses.

Hatred of all the truth laid out clearly in God's word makes you easy prey for those who lead you to love a lie.

2 Thess 2:10b because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.



Hi kepha31,

so my problem is locating the time frame and the persons who first taught that Mary ever sinned, or had sin.

I have to hand it to you kepha31, that you have made Mary's natural humanity - which has everything to do with Messiah's credentials as Saviour of the world - a matter of philosphical confusion, rather than of the obvious fact that she is descended from Adam.

This means she is automatically included when the apostle Paul wrote:

Romans 3:9 What then? are we [Jews] better [than they] [Gentiles]? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin.... 23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.

Romans 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

8 But God commends His love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
9 Much more then, being now justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him.
10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. 11 And not only [so], but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the at-one-ment.

12 '... as by one man [Adam] sin entered into the world, and death by sin; ... so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:


No-one needed to teach that Mary 'ever sinned, or had sin', because only our Lord Jesus Christ was without sin.

This fact is clearly taught by Peter,

1 Peter 2
:21 For even hereto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow His steps:
22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth:
23 Who, when He was reviled, reviled not again; when He suffered, he threatened not; but committed to Him that judges righteously.


And the author of the epistle to the Hebrews.

Hebrews 4:14 Seeing then that we have a great High Priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast [our] profession. 15 For we have not an High Priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as [we are, yet] without sin. 16 Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

Hebrews 7:19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope [did]; by the which we draw nigh to God.
20 And inasmuch as not without an oath [He was made priest]:
21 (For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by Him that said unto Him,
The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou [art] a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec
22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.
23 And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death:
24 But this [man], because He continues ever, has an unchangeable priesthood.

25 Wherefore He is able also to save them to the uttermost that come to God by Him, seeing He ever lives to make intercession for them.

26 For such an High Priest became us, [who is] holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;


The salvation of Christians is not affected by Mary's natural sinfulness, nor by the teaching of Early Church Fathers.

Each individual's own heart is tested against the teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, to know the Truth which makes free from bondage to sin.

John 8:31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on Him, If ye continue in my word, ye are my disciples indeed;
32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
33 They answered Him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?
34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever commits sin is the servant of sin.
35 And the servant abides not in the house for ever: [but] the Son abides ever.
36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.

37 I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.
38 I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father.
39 They answered and said to Him, Abraham is our father. Jesus said to them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham.
40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.


Acts 13:38 Be it known to you therefore, men [and] brethren, that through this man is preached to you the forgiveness of sins:
39 And by Him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.

 

[Brother James]

I'll just share my thoughts on this, attempting not to become contentious about it.

Silence of the early church fathers indicates only that there was no controversy about it, not whether they believed one way or the other. Theologically, the idea is that for Christ not to have original sin, His mother also had to not have original sin. That does not address how Mary avoided original sin if her mother had it. There seems to be a problem of endless regression that is not resolved by the notion of the Immaculate Conception. Luke 1:38 refers to Mary as the “maidservant of the Lord”. That is very different than the "Mother of God" that came about later. Mary is indeed the most blessed of all women who ever lived. She was chosen. That is an awe-inspiring thing. It does not elevate her to non-human status, and it does not mean that she did not need a Savior. If she never sinned and had no original sin, what need did she have for a Savior? If God would do such a thing for one person, why not for all people?

The video posted was nicely done, but I don't draw the same parallels in the scriptures referenced. For example, God moving over the face of the waters in Genesis is merely a description of the early state of the earth, when God was beginning His creation of a life-supporting system. There is no connection between that and John 1:32-33 other than the words "spirit" and "water" appear in both places. That in itself has not particular meaning or relevance. Similarly, I see no connection between John 2:4 and Genesis 2:23. There is no exegesis to be done with these comparisons that I can see. The Church draws many parallels that I cannot follow, such as Mary being the new Ark of the Covenant. I don't condemn or criticize thinking of her in that way. I simply don't follow the flow of thinking that supports it, nor do I subscribe to it myself.

As a Protestant, I find no need to exalt Mary to more than I plainly read in Sciptures, but at the same time I'm not critical of Catholics who want to honor the mother of Jesus, as He certainly did, so long as their worship is Christ-centered and they don't ritualistically begin to worship Mary or make her their main focus. To us non-catholics it can look that way from the outside. I know that devout Catholics don't do that. Those who just follow form out of ignorance can get very misguided, but then so can Protestants who do the same thing.

 

[epostle1]

Thank you James .... your description mirrors many of my own feelings.

I am neither anti-Catholic , nor anti-Mary but my concern is that many (Catholics) know very little about anything except Mary.

I have dear friends who define themselves as "Old School Catholics" (pre-Vatican 2) .... they are devout and sincere and upstanding members of our community.

I admire them because they are intelligent people who are always willing to discuss Church matters.

My concern is that about every second sentence they speak refers to Mary , the other sentences refer to the Pope. There is nothing else apparent in their "religion"

When I drift the conversation towards Jesus as Savior .... I get blank stares ... this concept appears foreign to them.

When the discussion turns to the catholic Church being "The only One" .... I ask them about the 7 very different churches in different locations mentioned in Revelation ...... I get blank stares .... they have never heard of them.

Sometimes I pose the scenario that if the Pope , Rome , and every single Catholic building and church system was removed today .... would they still feel they could get to heaven .... ?? .... I get blank stares ....

But if the subject is Mary or the Pope .... they can talk for hours .

It is at that moment I am angered by what they don't know.

And I think to myself ...... who is responsible for what these wonderful people do not know and do not understand ?

What organization has given them this mindset ?

And should I even care?

If your Catholic friends are that sincere, intelligent, upstanding members of the community, it is highly unlikely they are going to discuss issues in front of non-Catholics that make them uncomfortable, unless asked. It would be rude. Your complaint that Catholics know little about anything except Mary simply indicates you don't understand just how Christ-centered Marian teachings are. Having a strong devotion to Mary results in having a closer relationship with Jesus, that is what it is all about. But no Catholic is obligated to have a devotion to any saint, it's done because it is effective. I would suggest you attend Mass with your friends and find out how much YOU don't know.

Like aspen2, I do not have the mindset you describe. When I go to Mass, the only time Mary is mentioned is in the recitation of the Apostles Creed, and that is most of the time. It seems to me that non-Catholics are obsessed with Mary more than Catholics, at least in discussion boards. It doesn't matter what the topic is about, (apostolic succession, the Eucharist, the Pope, etc.) some non-Catholic will throw Mary into it. My first visit hear confirms what I am saying. I don't think you have any idea how insulting a topic title like "The goddess Man as Made" is. It's offensive to me and it is offensive to her Son. I feel obligated to step in and clarify the matter, and it is very hard to do so with charity and patience in the face of such bigotry. Then you tell me that Catholics know little of anything except Mary. Gimme a break.

I'll just share my thoughts on this, attempting not to become contentious about it.

Silence of the early church fathers indicates only that there was no controversy about it, not whether they believed one way or the other.

The ECF were not silent on the perpetual virginity of Mary or the IC. I'll spare you 5 miles of text.

Theologically, the idea is that for Christ not to have original sin, His mother also had to not have original sin.

It's not a good idea and Catholics should avoid that argument because its dumb. The IC rests largely on Mary being "Full of Grace", which is a title and a description. And of course, the typology of the Ark of the Covenant.

That does not address how Mary avoided original sin if her mother had it.

I agree. Mary avoided original sin by God's intervention, which had nothing to so with her parents having original sin. The merits of the cross is not limited to forward linear time. That is why her spirit rejoiced in God her savior.

There seems to be a problem of endless regression that is not resolved by the notion of the Immaculate Conception. Luke 1:38 refers to Mary as the “maidservant of the Lord”. That is very different than the "Mother of God" that came about later.

I don't know what you mean by "endless regression". Remember that in Luke 1:42, Elizabeth is filled with the Holy Spirit. She is not about to proclaim an opinion. Luke 1:43 - Elizabeth's use of "Mother of my Lord" (in Hebrew, Elizabeth used "Adonai" which means Lord God) is the equivalent of "Mother of God". The formula is simple: Jesus is a divine person, and this person is God. Mary is Jesus' Mother, so Mary is the mother of God (Mary is not just the Mother of Jesus' human nature - mothers are mothers of persons, not natures). Thus, "Mother of God" is rooted in scripture, and it's usage predates the Council of Ephesus.

Mary is indeed the most blessed of all women who ever lived. She was chosen. That is an awe-inspiring thing. It does not elevate her to non-human status, and it does not mean that she did not need a Savior. If she never sinned and had no original sin, what need did she have for a Savior? If God would do such a thing for one person, why not for all people?

He does. Anyone who does the will of God is His mother and brother. Mary is a perfect model of faith.

The video posted was nicely done, but I don't draw the same parallels in the scriptures referenced. For example, God moving over the face of the waters in Genesis is merely a description of the early state of the earth, when God was beginning His creation of a life-supporting system. There is no connection between that and John 1:32-33 other than the words "spirit" and "water" appear in both places.

That isn't enough?

That in itself has not particular meaning or relevance. Similarly, I see no connection between John 2:4 and Genesis 2:23. There is no exegesis to be done with these comparisons that I can see.

[sup]John 2:4 [/sup]Jesus said to her, “Woman, what does your concern have to do with Me? My hour has not yet come.

Gen. 2:23 And Adam said:“This is now bone of my bones And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man.”

Adam calls Eve "woman"
The New Adam calls the New Eve "woman", and you fail to see the connection.

The Church draws many parallels that I cannot follow, such as Mary being the new Ark of the Covenant. I don't condemn or criticize thinking of her in that way. I simply don't follow the flow of thinking that supports it, nor do I subscribe to it myself.

Is there any Old Testament typology that you subscribe to?

As a Protestant, I find no need to exalt Mary to more than I plainly read in Sciptures, but at the same time I'm not critical of Catholics who want to honor the mother of Jesus, as He certainly did, so long as their worship is Christ-centered and they don't ritualistically begin to worship Mary or make her their main focus. To us non-catholics it can look that way from the outside. I know that devout Catholics don't do that. Those who just follow form out of ignorance can get very misguided, but then so can Protestants who do the same thing.

Worship of Mary or making her the main focus is contrary to Catholic teaching. All true devotion to Mary gives us a clearer picture of Jesus. That why her soul magnifies the Lord. It is true that in some cultures, Mary is the main focus on certain days, but those are cultural practices that are rooted in scripture, but they have a rather bizarre external appearance.
Those who just follow form out of ignorance can get very misguided, but then so can Protestants who do the same thing.
Yup. Every family tree has its sap!

 

[Axehead]

As stated before, my opinion and the opinion of many Catholics is that Mary will eventually be crowned Co-Mediator with Christ. The reason that I think this is, is because the Catholic doctrine and dogma has continued to evolve over the centuries like a quilt, adding patches here and there.

Let's look at how the Bodily Assumption of Mary evolved within the Catholic Church.

Pope Pius XII served as Pope during World War II and promoted devotion to Mary. Catholics had already been petitioning the Roman Catholic Church for over 100 years to press them to formally declare that Mary had been "assumed" bodily into heaven. In his encyclical "Deiparae Virginis Mariae" of 1946, the Pope sends out a query to all the Bishops:

...We wish to know if you, Venerable Brethren, with your learning and prudence consider that the bodily Assumption of the Immaculate Blessed Virgin can be proposed and defined as a dogma of faith, and whether in addition to your own wishes this is desired by your clergy and people."

Petitions to declare the Assumption of Mary, came in from all over the world in response to his letter asking and desiring confirmation that it can be proposed and defined as a dogma of faith.

But in order to do this, some groundwork would have to be laid. Pope Pius XII sent out another letter (Humani Generis).

"...God has given to His Church a living Teaching Authority to elucidate and explain what is contained in the deposit of faith only obscurely and implicitly. The deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church." August 12, 1950

Pope Pius XII was preparing to "elucidate and explain" how the Assumption of Mary, was indeed fact, although it was "obscurely and implicitly" defined in the Bible.

On November 1, 1950, Pope Pius XII signed the document titled, "Munificentissimus Deus" which is "Most Bountiful God".

Munificentissimus Deus, concluded with this:

"By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory."

This is one of hundreds of examples why millions in the Catholic Church (6 million faithful along with bishops and cardinals have signed the petition for Co-Mediator) and many Protestants who follow the evolving dogma of the RCC believe that it is only a matter of time before Mary is officially given the title of Co-Mediator. In many ways she is already elevated to that principle in writings about here and more subtle titles of Redemtrix and Mediatrix.

With this evidence of progressively defined dogma, it is only normal and natural for people to hold this opinion of Mary, someday being crowned, Co-Mediator, especially since in Catholic writings she is ALREADY fulfilling various "mediation roles". Not to mention that the internal process of petition has been going on.

Axehead

 

[epostle1]

Axehead,

Enoch: Gen. 5:24, Heb. 11:5 - was bodily assumed into heaven without dying, same with Elijah: 2 Kings 2:11-12; 1 Mac 2:58

There is scriptural precedence for such a great honor. Would you suggest that Enoch and Elijah played a greater role in God's plan of salvation than Our Lord's own mother?

 

[aspen]

As stated before, my opinion and the opinion of many Catholics is that Mary will eventually be crowned Co-Mediator with Christ. The reason that I think this is, is because the Catholic doctrine and dogma has continued to evolve over the centuries like a quilt, adding patches here and there.

First, I disagree.

Second, why are you judging the Catholic Church based on your private prediction? Would you like someone to put you in a box based on their prediction of your behavior or fear of what you might do? I know a few parents who do that with their kids with grave consequences for the kids and the future relationship between the two of them

 

[Axehead]

Axehead,

Enoch: Gen. 5:24, Heb. 11:5 - was bodily assumed into heaven without dying, same with Elijah: 2 Kings 2:11-12; 1 Mac 2:58

There is scriptural precedence for such a great honor. Would you suggest that Enoch and Elijah played a greater role in God's plan of salvation than Our Lord's own mother?

I'm sorry, I did not see that scriptural reference for Mary being bodily assumed. You used two scriptural references for Enoch and Elijah but then cannot use anything from the Scriptures for Mary. Instead, you revert to human logic and reasoning for Mary. In fact, for all the many wonderful things about Mary that the RCC has proclaimed, there are no scriptural references. Seems odd, doesn't it, that God would not put such major doctrines in His word?

I can only echo what dragonfly stated, earlier.

Hello aspen,

Doesn't it bother you, seriously, that you seem to have accepted a mountain of doctrine which is insupportable from scripture, when right at the end of a passage where Jesus has been speaking for the whole chapter, He states how important it is for the individual to build their lives on His word? He doesn't accommodate any other object on which we are to build our lives - only His word (logos).

If the Catholic Magisterium and Tradition were not elevated to the same authority of the Scriptures, you would take God's Word and your soul more seriously. But, in fact what has happened is that the Catholic Magisterium and RCC Tradition has replaced God's Word in many, many ways.

Eternal things are not a game.

Axehead

 

[epostle1]

I'm sorry, I did not see that scriptural reference for Mary being bodily assumed. You used two scriptural references for Enoch and Elijah but then cannot use anything from the Scriptures for Mary. Instead, you revert to human logic and reasoning for Mary. In fact, for all the many wonderful things about Mary that the RCC has proclaimed, there are no scriptural references. Seems odd, doesn't it, that God would not put such major doctrines in His word?

"you revert to human logic and reasoning" is the real issue here. Any final ruling of the Church on faith and morals has the superintendence of the Holy Spirit.
Can heaven bind an error???

If the Catholic Magisterium and Tradition were not elevated to the same authority of the Scriptures, you would take God's Word and your soul more seriously. But, in fact what has happened is that the Catholic Magisterium and RCC Tradition has replaced God's Word in many, many ways.

2 Timothy 3: [12] Indeed all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted,
[13] while evil men and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceivers and deceived.
[14] But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, (Tradition)
knowing from whom you learned it (Magisterium)
[15] and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. (Scriptures)
[16] All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
[17] that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

Note verse 14. It admonishes Timothy to do three things:

1) Remember what you have learned and firmly believed (Tradition)
2) Know from whom you learned it (Magisterium)
3) Know you have the Scriptures

The Bible on St. Paul's list comes in third, not first. He actually gives here the traditional Catholic teaching on the three sources of sound teaching.

In verse 15 he goes into an excursus on the Bible. This brief excursus emphasizes the value of the Bible and recommends a fourfold method of exegesis. This verse was used in the pre-Reformation Church as a proof text for the Quadriga which was the standard Catholic approach to the Bible. The Quadriga method used the following four categories:

Literal/Literary (teaching) - the text as it is written
Analogical (reproof) - matters of faith
Anagogical (correction) - matters of hope/prophecy
Moral (training in righteousness) - matters of charity

The analogical, anagogical and moral senses of the Bible were known collectively as the spiritual senses.
The 'reformers' rejected the BIBLICAL fourfold method of exegesis in favor of a more literal approach, and ignored 2 Tim 3:16.

 

[Brother James]

If the Catholic Magisterium and Tradition were not elevated to the same authority of the Scriptures, you would take God's Word and your soul more seriously.

On what scriptural authority do you judge the souls of others?

 

[epostle1]

Good question, Br. James. Anyone who admits to being fallible has no right to bind anyone to any heresy or any false teaching. Axehead is not judging souls here, he is making himself authority over and above the three fold means of how Divine Revelation is presented to us, as St. Paul describes to Timothy in 1 Tim. 3: 14-15. He is judging the harmony of Tradition, the Magisterium, together with Scripture. It's like a three legged stool. Remove one leg, and the stool falls down. It's up to Axehead to defend his one legged stool, which no sola scripturist can do. In the final analysis, he must reject 1 Tim. 3:16

 

[dragonfly]

Hi kepha,

In the final analysis, he must reject 1 Tim. 3:16

Why would Axehead have to do that?​

Isn't a better statement more like.... In the final analysis, anyone whose doctrine does not respond to 2 Tim 3:16 (because the doctrine's not in scripture, 'must reject' that dodgy doctrine in favour of the word of God Himself?

1 Timothy 6:3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words - the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; 4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof come envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, 5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself. 6 But godliness with contentment is great gain.

​

 

[Brother James]

Well, Kepha, I agree with Axehead that the Bible, and not the Magesterium or Sacred Tradition, are the way God has communicated His truths to us. What I was questioning was something that sounded offensive even to my Protestant ears, which was the statement that those who disagree with me don't take God's Word or their souls seriously. That seems unnecessarily offensive to me. I believe Catholics take all things of God seriously. I simply disagree with them on what those things are. I have good reasons for why I believe what I believe, and I'm always happy to share them when appropriate, but I try to do it without saying things like "if you weren't so inferior, you'd see it my way too". That's kinda how that statement struck me, which is why I commented on it. I really do only want to participate in thoughtful and respectful discussions. I was on the verge of leaving this site because I couldn't find any, but perhaps if we just point out to one another (in love) how we are coming across, things could change.

 

[epostle1]

Hi kepha,

Why would Axehead have to do that?​

It's not that he has to reject it, (I take that back) it's that he ends up ignoring 1Tim. 3:16 in favor of a more literal approach to the scriptures, just like all sola scripturists. See post #116 for the explanation.

Isn't a better statement more like.... In the final analysis, anyone whose doctrine does not respond to 2 Tim 3:16 (because the doctrine's not in scripture, 'must reject' that dodgy doctrine in favour of the word of God Himself?

It's not a matter of doctrine, its a matter of sound biblical exegesis that cannot be done apart from 1Tim 3:14. When you separate the Bible from the Church, it's no longer an inspired book. It makes for good inspirational reading, but it loses its power when it is reduced to an opinion reference manual. (Protestant Principle of Private Judgement)

1 Timothy 6:3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words - the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; 4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof come envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, 5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself. 6 But godliness with contentment is great gain.

I don't understand the relevance of this serious verse. Paul is talking about excommunicating ungodly men, and shun them for their refusal to repent. Nowhere does Paul or in any verse in scripture say that wholesome words, or the words of Jesus Christ are confined to scripture. Nowhere in the Bible is "word of God" used to refer to just the written word of God. That is the premise of sola scriptura and it is unscriptural. On the other hand, are you suggesting that I am ungodly by quoting this verse as a rebuttal?

Well, Kepha, I agree with Axehead that the Bible, and not the Magesterium or Sacred Tradition, are the way God has communicated His truths to us. What I was questioning was something that sounded offensive even to my Protestant ears, which was the statement that those who disagree with me don't take God's Word or their souls seriously. That seems unnecessarily offensive to me. I believe Catholics take all things of God seriously. I simply disagree with them on what those things are. I have good reasons for why I believe what I believe, and I'm always happy to share them when appropriate, but I try to do it without saying things like "if you weren't so inferior, you'd see it my way too". That's kinda how that statement struck me, which is why I commented on it. I really do only want to participate in thoughtful and respectful discussions. I was on the verge of leaving this site because I couldn't find any, but perhaps if we just point out to one another (in love) how we are coming across, things could change.

I don't mean to be offensive, Br. James. But by ignoring the importance of 1Tim 3:14 (Tradition and Magisterium), you are left with thousands of opinions of what the Bible means. Sola scriptura is the Achilles heel of Protestantism. And I never said you were inferior. Being born into a faith tradition different than mine does not make you any more or less Christian.