What is Mariology?

[farouk]

Scripture is God's Word, some have said it is like a Verbal Incarnation of Christ and an icon of God in this way, nothing can overrule that. It is simply the sense that Scripture is interpreted in must be in the context God gave for it. That was what the St. Vincent quote means. We are to reject those who come up with novel interpretations of Scripture and hold fast to what was handed to us by the Apostles.

...but the apostles' doctrine (Acts 2.42) is not authoritatively found in an ecclesiastical body...

 

[Abaxvahl]

...but the apostles' doctrine (Acts 2.42) is not authoritatively found in an ecclesiastical body...

Why would it not be found in a body like that? The Apostles established Churches with Bishops, presbyters, deacons, they wrote to them and instructed them, and here I even include the 72 that went into the whole empire. Their doctrine was received and passed down, even the Scriptures themselves, in these bodies, which then went on to confirm their teaching (which is what a Ecumenical Council does, it confirms but does not create, what the Apostles and Jesus taught).

 

[farouk]

Why would it not be found in a body like that? The Apostles established Churches with Bishops, presbyters, deacons, they wrote to them and instructed them, and here I even include the 72 that went into the whole empire. Their doctrine was received and passed down, even the Scriptures themselves, in these bodies, which then went on to confirm their teaching (which is what a Ecumenical Council does, it confirms but does not create, what the Apostles and Jesus taught).

The self-authenticating Word needs to be prayerfully ingested by every local church, as led by the Spirit, Who will not teach different doctrines to different people.

I don't think we agree on this, @Abaxvahl .

 

[Abaxvahl]

The self-authenticating Word needs to be prayerfully ingested by every local church, as led by the Spirit, Who will not teach different doctrines to different people.

I don't think we agree on this, @Abaxvahl .

I do agree although we probably disagree about Church structure and authority. Ultimately if the Spirit is in it then the doctrine will be exactly the same, but I do think God has made an authoritative body that will always be in the world until He comes again and one should attach themselves to it.

 

[farouk]

I do agree although we probably disagree about Church structure and authority. Ultimately if the Spirit is in it then the doctrine will be exactly the same, but I do think God has made an authoritative body that will always be in the world until He comes again and one should attach themselves to it.

@Abaxvahl I totally disagree because the believer's Great High Priest is passed into the heavens (Hebrews 4.14); He is
"the head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all." (Ephesians 1.22-23).

 

[Abaxvahl]

@Abaxvahl I totally disagree because the believer's Great High Priest is passed into the heavens (Hebrews 4.14); He is
"the head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all." (Ephesians 1.22-23).

I'd agree with that (I do not disagree or contend any single verse in the Scriptures for God inspired them and like I said, they are as a Verbal Incarnation of Christ, being all about Him and revealing Him), although it is not inconsistent with structures in the Church, as seen from the Pastoral letters about establishing Bishops, or how Christ established Apostles and gave them immense authority. Christ despite doing these things remained our sole High Priest in the Heavens and our only Head.

 

[Desire Of All Nations]

Here are some 4th century quotes that show you are wrong.
From This Rock, December 1991

Athanasius
"Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that he took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary" (Discourses Against the Arians 2:70 [inter A.D. 358-362]).

Epiphanius
"We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things, both visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of God the Father, only- begotten, that is, of the substance of the Father; . . . who for us men and for our salvation came down and took flesh, that is, was born perfectly of the holy ever-virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit." (The Man Well-Anchored 120 [A.D. 374]).

Epiphanius
"And to holy Mary 'Virgin' is invariably added, for that holy woman remains undefiled" (Panacea Against All Heresies 78:6 [A.D. 374/377]).

Didymus the Blind
"It helps us to understand the terms 'first-born' and 'only-begotten' when the Evangelist tells that Mary remained a virgin 'until she brought forth her first-born son' [Matt. 1:25]; for neither did Mary, who is to be honored and praised above all others, marry anyone else, nor did she ever become the Mother of anyone else, but even after childbirth she remained always and forever an immaculate virgin" (The Trinity 3:4 [A.D. 381-392]).

Jerome
"We believe that God was born of a virgin, because we read it. We do not believe that Mary was married after she brought forth her Son, because we do not read it. Nor do we say this in order to condemn marriage: for virginity itself is the fruit of marriage. . . . You say that Mary did not remain a virgin. As for myself, I claim that Joseph himself was a virgin, through Mary, so that a Virgin Son might be born of a virginal wedlock" (Against Helvidius: The Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary 19 {al. 21} [A.D. 383]).

The obvious problem with this argument is that there isn't a single passage of scripture that is quoted to support this belief. These quotes are nothing more than the theological ramblings of men who were trying to pass their own traditions/beliefs off as Christian dogma in the same way the Pharisees tried to pass their own doctrines off as scriptural. That's not how it works. The words of uninspired men aren't more authoritative than the words of those that were written by divinely inspired men, no matter how well they dress their pagan theology up with righteous-sounding language.

Mary never sinned.

The Bible disagrees with you:

"for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," - Rom. 3:23

That includes Mary.

"And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior." - Luk. 1:47

"But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman under the law," - Gal. 4:4

The second and third passages are certainly of extreme import to this thread. A logical person would ask themselves how Mary could have possibly been sinless when she addressed Jesus as such. Jesus can only be somebody's Savior if they acknowledge a) the fact that they have sinned and b)they needed Him to save them from sin.

The third passage shows Christ was born to a woman who "was under the law". In other words, Mary has committed sin prior to giving birth to Jesus. There are prophecies that says the Messiah was supposed to be born of a virgin woman, but there isn't a single one of them that says the virgin woman would be sinless. Mary was no different than any other human being around her other than the fact she was chosen to be the woman who would give birth to Christ. Christ certainly didn't look at her as being important enough to be treated like a deity.

 

[Illuminator]

The obvious problem with this argument is that there isn't a single passage of scripture that is quoted to support this belief.

The problem with your argument is two-fold. First, none of the quotes contradict scripture. Second, nowhere does scripture teach that all authentic beliefs and practices must be explicit in scripture to be valid. That is your man made tradition. It's nowhere to be found in scripture. Thus we reject "sola scriptura".

These quotes are nothing more than the theological ramblings of men who were trying to pass their own traditions/beliefs off as Christian dogma in the same way the Pharisees tried to pass their own doctrines off as scriptural. That's not how it works.

Wrong. You have no concept of doctrinal development. Theologically speaking, you have divorced yourself from the early church whose language and culture was much closer to the Apostles than your 21st century opinions.

The words of uninspired men aren't more authoritative than the words of those that were written by divinely inspired men, no matter how well they dress their pagan theology up with righteous-sounding language.

Nobody is claiming the ante-Nicene Fathers were inspired, but they are authoritive. You don't like them because they show no evidence of Protestantism. Not only that, Marian theology is rooted in Judaism, which you are also divorced from.

The Bible disagrees with you:

"for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," - Rom. 3:23

That includes Mary.
"And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior." - Luk. 1:47

Mary was preserved from Original Sin by the power of God, so your man made traditions insult God's power. None of the reformers denied the PVM or her sinlessness which proves your assertions are man made, going back a mere 200 years.

Rom. 3:23 – Some Protestants use this verse “all have sinned” in an attempt to prove that Mary was also with sin. But “all have sinned ” only means that all are subject to original sin. Mary was spared from original sin by God, not herself. The popular analogy is God let us fall in the mud puddle, and cleaned us up afterward through baptism. In Mary’s case, God did not let her enter the mud puddle.

Rom. 3:23 – “all have sinned” also refers only to those able to commit sin. This is not everyone. For example, infants, the retarded, and the senile cannot sin.

Rom. 3:23 – finally, “all have sinned,” but Jesus must be an exception to this rule. This means that Mary can be an exception as well. Note that the Greek word for all is “pantes.”

1 Cor. 15:22 – in Adam all (“pantes”) have died, and in Christ all (“pantes”) shall live. This proves that “all” does not mean “every single one.” This is because not all have died (such as Enoch and Elijah who were taken up to heaven), and not all will go to heaven (because Jesus said so).

Rom. 5:12 – Paul says that death spread to all (“pantes”) men. Again, this proves that “all” does not mean “every single one” because death did not spread to all men (as we have seen with Enoch and Elijah).

Rom. 5:19 – here Paul says “many (not all) were made sinners.” Paul uses “polloi,” not “pantes.” Is Paul contradicting what he said in Rom. 3:23? Of course not. Paul means that all are subject to original sin, but not all reject God.

Rom. 3:10-11 – Protestants also use this verse to prove that all human beings are sinful and thus Mary must be sinful. But see Psalm 14 which is the basis of the verse.

Psalm 14 – this psalm does not teach that all humans are sinful.(Calvinism) It only teaches that, among the wicked, all are sinful. The righteous continue to seek God.

Psalm 53:1-3 – “there is none that does good” expressly refers to those who have fallen away. Those who remain faithful do good, and Jesus calls such faithful people “good.”

Luke 18:19 – Jesus says, “No one is good but God alone.” But then in Matt. 12:35, Jesus also says “The good man out of his good treasure…” So Jesus says no one is good but God, and then calls another person good.

Rom. 9:11 – God distinguished between Jacob and Esau in the womb, before they sinned. Mary was also distinguished from the rest of humanity in the womb by being spared by God from original sin.

Luke 1:47 – Mary calls God her Savior. Some Protestants use this to denigrate Mary. Why? Of course God is Mary’s Savior! She was freed from original sin in the womb (unlike us who are freed from sin outside of the womb), but needed a Savior as much as the rest of humanity.

Luke 1:48 – Mary calls herself lowly. But any creature is lowly compared to God. For example, in Matt. 11:29, even Jesus says He is lowly in heart. Lowliness is a sign of humility, which is the greatest virtue of holiness, because it allows us to empty ourselves and receive the grace of God to change our sinful lives.

Your near-sighted argument of Rom. 3:23 fails.

"But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman under the law," - Gal. 4:4

The second and third passages are certainly of extreme import to this thread. A logical person would ask themselves how Mary could have possibly been sinless when she addressed Jesus as such. Jesus can only be somebody's Savior if they acknowledge a) the fact that they have sinned and b)they needed Him to save them from sin.

Luke 1:47 and Galatians 4:4 does not prove Mary sinned.

The third passage shows Christ was born to a woman who "was under the law". In other words, Mary has committed sin prior to giving birth to Jesus.

Yes, according to early church heretics and 18th century modernists.

There are prophecies that says the Messiah was supposed to be born of a virgin woman, but there isn't a single one of them that says the virgin woman would be sinless.

That is not what prophecies are for. At the same time, you reject the foreshadowing of Mary's sinlessness by rejecting the sanctity of the Ark of the Covenant. Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant and has been explained repeatedly in this board. It's unfortunate you don't know your Bible.

was no different than any other human being around her other than the fact she was chosen to be the woman who would give birth to Christ.

the woman who would give birth to Christ is not that important???

Christ certainly didn't look at her as being important enough to be treated like a deity.

You couldn't resist a stupid anti-Catholic dig.

 

[Illuminator]

 

[face2face]

I gave the Scriptural support for the title on post #6
1. The Catholic Church does not believe in Scripture alone. Scripture itself is quite clear that the teaching of Jesus and the apostles was handed down both in writing and orally. The latter is called Sacred Tradition. Both are God's word.

So you agree your denomination firmly aligns itself with the Pharisaical model of Jesus' day? When you say "quite clear" do you refer to Scripture to prove this doctrine?

 

[Truman]

I still think I prefer to talk about Mario-ology!

 

[Mungo]

So you agree your denomination firmly aligns itself with the Pharisaical model of Jesus' day?

I haven't agreed any such thing. For a start I don't know what you mean by "The Pharisaical model of Jesus' day"

When you say "quite clear" do you refer to Scripture to prove this doctrine?

Paul puts Tradition and Scripture on an equal basis:
So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth [Tradition] or by letter [Scripture]. (2Thess 2:15)

And
and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. (2Tim 2:2)
Timothy has been instructed orally (what you have heard from me) to pass that on orally himself.

And
I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you. (1Cor 11:2))

The first Christians "devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching" (Acts 2:42) long before there was a New Testament. From the very beginning, the fullness of Christian teaching was found in the Church as the living embodiment of Christ, not in a book

 

[face2face]

I haven't agreed any such thing. For a start I don't know what you mean by "The Pharisaical model of Jesus' day"



Paul puts Tradition and Scripture on an equal basis:
So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth [Tradition] or by letter [Scripture]. (2Thess 2:15)

And
and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. (2Tim 2:2)
Timothy has been instructed orally (what you have heard from me) to pass that on orally himself.

And
I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you. (1Cor 11:2))

The first Christians "devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching" (Acts 2:42) long before there was a New Testament. From the very beginning, the fullness of Christian teaching was found in the Church as the living embodiment of Christ, not in a book

You understand Jesus condemned the Pharisees for their oral traditions right?

Paul said, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works” (2 Tim. 3:16, 17).

The terms “perfect” (Greek artios, “complete”) and “throughly furnished” (Greek exartizo, from the same root, with an intensive prefix) emphasize that the Scripture is sufficient to equip the man of God completely for all the work of the ministry as it is described in verse 16. In the entire area covered by the words doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness—i.e., the entirety of Christian faith and practice—we need nothing more than Scripture.

This text and others leaves no place for Tradition or popes as additional sources of authority.

Extremely clear is the text and very weak is your above argument. The words fitly spoken (core doctrines) have all been recorded for us in the Scripture. It cant be broken, cant be added to... and to believe such comes with a serious warning from the Lord...one you should head Mungo.

 

[face2face]

I still think I prefer to talk about Mario-ology!

At least Mario hasn't been transformed into the unthinkable...

 

[Mungo]

You understand Jesus condemned the Pharisees for their oral traditions right?

Wrong!
Jesus did not condemn the Pharisees for their oral traditions. He condemned them for misusing them to nullify the word of God.

Firstly we need to distinguish between what the Catholic Church calls Sacred Tradition or just Tradition with a capital "T". These are the words of God handed down orally and not written in Scripture.

St Paul put Tradition and Scripture on an equal basis:
So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth [Tradition] or by letter [Scripture]. (2Thess 2:15)

Paul commends Tradition
I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you. (1Cor 11:2)
Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us. (2Thess 3:6)
And I can give you many more examples.

Paul writes to Timothy "Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us." (2Tim 1:13-14).
Timothy learn orally from Paul.
Paul then instructs Timothy later in the same letter "and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also." (2Tim 2:2). Timothy is to pass Paul's teaching on orally not in writing.

The other traditions (small "t") mean those human customs and practices that arise and may change or disappear over time

Paul said, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works” (2 Tim. 3:16, 17).

The terms “perfect” (Greek artios, “complete”) and “throughly furnished” (Greek exartizo, from the same root, with an intensive prefix) emphasize that the Scripture is sufficient to equip the man of God completely for all the work of the ministry as it is described in verse 16. In the entire area covered by the words doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness—i.e., the entirety of Christian faith and practice—we need nothing more than Scripture.

This text and others leaves no place for Tradition or popes as additional sources of authority.

That text doesn't say that "Scripture is sufficient" or "we need nothing more than Scripture".
It says we need Scripture and without it we are not equipped and complete. It does not say we need nothing more.
We need both Scripture and Tradition to be complete. Without either we are not fully equipped.

Extremely clear is the text and very weak is your above argument. The words fitly spoken (core doctrines) have all been recorded for us in the Scripture. It cant be broken, cant be added to... and to believe such comes with a serious warning from the Lord...one you should head Mungo.

It is not clear in the text you quote. In fact, as I have shown, your arguments are false.

As to your claim "The words fitly spoken (core doctrines) have all been recorded for us in the Scripture." where does Scripture say that?

Moreover your reference to "core doctrines" is nonsense. There are much dispute over what is "core" and what those actually doctrines are. There are disputes over atonement, salvation, Eucharist and the Incarnation to name just four.

 

[face2face]

Wrong!
Jesus did not condemn the Pharisees for their oral traditions. He condemned them for misusing them to nullify the word of God.

No Mungo, it is you who is wrong.

Mariology and many other Catholic dogma's fit the spirit of Paul's word here in Col 2:21.

Col 2:21 “Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!” 2:22 These are all destined to perish with use, founded as they are on human commands and teachings. 2:23 Even though they have the appearance of wisdom with their self-imposed worship and false humility achieved by an unsparing treatment of the body—a wisdom with no true value—they in reality result in fleshly indulgence.

Advice in dealing with RCC dogma ‘Do not handle, nor taste, nor touch’

As Jesus so aptly said...

‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. They worship me in vain, teaching as doctrine the commandments of men.’...and neglecting the doctrines of God.

As you said in your post your doctrines are "developed over time"...one falsehood upon another until you have Mariology.

The condemnation Mungo is seen in Jesus' very clear teaching that the religious elite (like that of the RCC) teach as doctrines the precepts of men. That is, you teach that your interpretations and rules are equal to Scripture. But you neglect the commandment of God you hold to your tradition (Mariology etc). In other words, you set aside the commandment of God to keep your commandments.

By this it will be shown to the RCC that they invalidate the Word of God by their tradition, which the patristic fathers have handed down, adding and changing to over time and you continue in their traditions.

The truth is Jesus did not condemn all tradition, only that which had been elevated in authority to a position of equality with the Word of God and which invalidated Scripture.

The Bereans a fine example: "The Bereans were more noble-minded than the Thessalonians, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were true" (note; word spoken, word received but tested via Scripture)

The important principle: what Jesus is saying is that tradition is not inspired and therefore not inherently authoritative. The ultimate standard for determining the lightness or wrongness of any teaching or tradition is the Word of God.

If you believe your religious body is 100% free from error with 1700 years of man tampering, not only with what you call oral tradition, but that of the very Word of God itself, its either a willing delusion or a proud arrogance. It would be nice to see you treat the Word of God with a little reverence and respect. Defending your traditions over upholding the Word of God only places you squarely in camp Pharisee.

 

[Mungo]

No Mungo, it is you who is wrong.
Mariology and many other Catholic dogma's fit the spirit of Paul's word here in Col 2:21.

Col 2:21 “Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!” 2:22 These are all destined to perish with use, founded as they are on human commands and teachings. 2:23 Even though they have the appearance of wisdom with their self-imposed worship and false humility achieved by an unsparing treatment of the body—a wisdom with no true value—they in reality result in fleshly indulgence.

Advice in dealing with RCC dogma ‘Do not handle, nor taste, nor touch’

That's your opinion. And you are misusing Scripture.

Suppose I said the opinions of face2face fit the spirit of Paul's word here in Col 2:21.

Col 2:21 “Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!” 2:22 These are all destined to perish with use, founded as they are on human commands and teachings. 2:23 Even though they have the appearance of wisdom with their self-imposed worship and false humility achieved by an unsparing treatment of the body—a wisdom with no true value—they in reality result in fleshly.

Advice in dealing with face2face opinions ‘Do not handle, nor taste, nor touch’

Would you consider that a valid argument.

Your approach is typical of Protestants who cannot accept they can be wrong. They make a claim and provide Scripture. But when that use of Scripture is thoroughly refuted they resort to abuse and to misusing Scripture in that abuse.

As Jesus so aptly said...

‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. They worship me in vain, teaching as doctrine the commandments of men.’...and neglecting the doctrines of God.

As Jesus so aptly said...

‘This people [abusive Protestants] honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. They worship me in vain, teaching as doctrine the commandments of men.’...and neglecting the doctrines of God.

As you said in your post your doctrines are "developed over time"...one falsehood upon another until you have Mariology.

Doctrines develop over time not changing but in a deeper understanding.

Someone gave me this example. You go into a very dim room. At first you can see some objects and the outlines of them. but as you eyes become accustomed to the gloom you see more and more detail. The objects are the same but your understanding of them has developed.

As Vincent Lerins (5th century) wrote
“Is there to be no development of Doctrine in Christ’s Church? Certainly there should be great development.

Who could be so grudging towards his fellow-men and so hostile to God as to try to prevent it? But care should be taken to ensure that it is development of the faith and not alteration. Development implies that each point of doctrine is expanded within itself, while alteration suggests that a thing has been changed from what it was into something different…….

The limbs of infants are tiny, while those of young men are large, but they are the same limbs. The man has no more parts to his body than the little child…as a result it can be said that nothing new is produced in old men that was not already present in an undeveloped form when they were boys…..”

The condemnation Mungo is seen in Jesus' very clear teaching that the religious elite (like that of the RCC) teach as doctrines the precepts of men. That is, you teach that your interpretations and rules are equal to Scripture. But you neglect the commandment of God you hold to your tradition (Mariology etc). In other words, you set aside the commandment of God to keep your commandments.

Untrue. And you provide no evidence for that false opinion

By this it will be shown to the RCC that they invalidate the Word of God by their tradition, which the patristic fathers have handed down, adding and changing to over time and you continue in their traditions.

More opinions unsupported by evidence.

The truth is Jesus did not condemn all tradition, only that which had been elevated in authority to a position of equality with the Word of God and which invalidated Scripture.

Sacred Tradition does not, and cannot, contradict the word of God because it IS the word of God.

No Catholic doctrine (properly understood) contradicts Scripture (properly interpreted)

The Bereans a fine example: "The Bereans were more noble-minded than the Thessalonians, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were true" (note; word spoken, word received but tested via Scripture)

Actually the Berans are a poor example. It was the Thessalonians who were Sola Scriptura. The Bereans listened to Paul's new teaching and accepted it.. Scripture does not say that the Bearans went by Scripture alone.

Paul was teaching something new. Sure he would quote scripture to demonstrate something that would point to Jesus, probably using a formula like "it is written" or "Scripture says". The Bereans would then search the scripture to see if Scripture did say what Paul claimed it said.

The important principle: what Jesus is saying is that tradition is not inspired and therefore not inherently authoritative.

Man made traditions may or may not be inspired. Sacred Tradition is the word of God and therefore authoritative

The ultimate standard for determining the lightness or wrongness of any teaching or tradition is the Word of God.

And the word of God is both Scripture and Tradition

If you believe your religious body is 100% free from error with 1700 years of man tampering, not only with what you call oral tradition, but that of the very Word of God itself, its either a willing delusion or a proud arrogance. It would be nice to see you treat the Word of God with a little reverence and respect. Defending your traditions over upholding the Word of God only places you squarely in camp Pharisee.

More (insulting) opinions made without evidence.

In your OP you said "I am looking to have an amicable discussion with those who venerate Mary the mother of Jesus."
It is obvious that you do not want an amiable discussion.
“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.(Mt 7:15)

 

[Illuminator]

No Mungo, it is you who is wrong.

Mariology and many other Catholic dogma's fit the spirit of Paul's word here in Col 2:21.

Col 2:21 “Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!” 2:22 These are all destined to perish with use, founded as they are on human commands and teachings. 2:23 Even though they have the appearance of wisdom with their self-imposed worship and false humility achieved by an unsparing treatment of the body—a wisdom with no true value—they in reality result in fleshly indulgence.

Advice in dealing with RCC dogma ‘Do not handle, nor taste, nor touch’

As Jesus so aptly said...

The study of Mary, which is what Mariology means, has nothing to do with "the spirit of Paul's word here in Col 2:21."

‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. They worship me in vain, teaching as doctrine the commandments of men.’...and neglecting the doctrines of God.

Your tone is mean, hostile, and uncharitable.

As you said in your post your doctrines are "developed over time"...one falsehood upon another until you have Mariology.

Not only do you deny development, you change its meaning.

In the Christian era, doctrines continue to develop. The Church especially pondered more deeply the doctrine of Christ in response to heretics; for example, at the council of Chalcedon in 451, which decreed the notion of the Two Natures of Christ or Hypostatic Union: Jesus is both God and Man. That was in response to the Monophysite heresy, which held that Jesus had one nature. Other doctrines which clearly developed were the afterlife, the Holy Spirit, the equality of Jews and Gentiles, bodily resurrection, Christ's sacrifice as a development of the sacrifice of lambs, etc. No doctrine emerges in the Bible complete with no further need of development.
read more here
and here

The condemnation Mungo is seen in Jesus' very clear teaching that the religious elite (like that of the RCC) teach as doctrines the precepts of men. That is, you teach that your interpretations and rules are equal to Scripture. But you neglect the commandment of God you hold to your tradition (Mariology etc). In other words, you set aside the commandment of God to keep your commandments.

Your definition of tradition is a false, dishonest premise.

By this it will be shown to the RCC that they invalidate the Word of God by their tradition, which the patristic fathers have handed down, adding and changing to over time and you continue in their traditions.

But you haven't named any tradition that stands alone from scripture (because they don't exist). Just thoughtless knee jerk assertions.

The truth is Jesus did not condemn all tradition, only that which had been elevated in authority to a position of equality with the Word of God and which invalidated Scripture.

There are no Sacred Traditions that invalidate Scripture. That's just divisive fear mongering.

The Bereans a fine example: "The Bereans were more noble-minded than the Thessalonians, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were true" (note; word spoken, word received but tested via Scripture)

The Bereans accepted Paul's oral preaching BEFORE searching the Scriptures. You have it backwards.

The important principle: what Jesus is saying is that tradition is not inspired and therefore not inherently authoritative. The ultimate standard for determining the lightness or wrongness of any teaching or tradition is the Word of God.

And the written Word of God has to be harmonious with Apostolic Tradition, or it's a fake scripture.
It is true that any proposed tradition which contradicts Apostolic Scripture is a false tradition and must be rejected, but this does not make Apostolic Tradition inferior to Scripture for that reason. It is also true that any proposed scripture which contradicts Apostolic Tradition is a false scripture and must be rejected.

This was, in fact, one of the ways in which the canon of the New Testament was selected. Any scriptures which contained doctrines which were contrary to the Traditions the apostles had handed down to the Church Fathers were rejected. Between the Gnostic gospels (like the Gospel of Thomas) or Marcion's edited version of Luke and Paul's epistles, there were a lot of heretical writings that different groups wanted to see in the New Testament. But the Fathers said, "No, this contradicts the faith that was handed down to us from the apostles. Thus it must be a forged writing."

So while tradition must be tested against Scripture to see if the tradition is apostolic, it is also true that scripture must be tested against Tradition to see if the scripture is apostolic. There is complementarity here, and one mode of teaching is not automatically inferior to the other.

If you believe your religious body is 100% free from error with 1700 years of man tampering, not only with what you call oral tradition, but that of the very Word of God itself, its either a willing delusion or a proud arrogance. It would be nice to see you treat the Word of God with a little reverence and respect. Defending your traditions over upholding the Word of God only places you squarely in camp Pharisee.

Tradition complements Scripture, it doesn't contradict it because both come from the same Source.

At the time the Marian doctrines were developing, so were things like the canon of Scripture and Christology and the Trinity. If those things could develop many centuries after Christ, why is it objectionable for the Marian doctrines or eucharistic theology to also do so? The Church decided what was a true development and what wasn't.

 

[face2face]

Man made traditions may or may not be inspired. Sacred Tradition is the word of God and therefore authoritative

I seemed to have struct a nerve with that last post.

It really comes down to what you have written above. Your doctrine on Mary is the weakest of all Catholic teaching and without question or doubt is the traditions of men. Mary statues with toes worn away from the kissing declares the basis of your religion as idolatrous. This of course does not mean your worship is insincere, far from it! It's just founded on man-made dogma's all of which will be revealed in the day of his coming.

 

[face2face]

As Vincent Lerins (5th century) wrote
“Is there to be no development of Doctrine in Christ’s Church? Certainly there should be great development.

Who could be so grudging towards his fellow-men and so hostile to God as to try to prevent it? But care should be taken to ensure that it is development of the faith and not alteration. Development implies that each point of doctrine is expanded within itself, while alteration suggests that a thing has been changed from what it was into something different…….

The limbs of infants are tiny, while those of young men are large, but they are the same limbs. The man has no more parts to his body than the little child…as a result it can be said that nothing new is produced in old men that was not already present in an undeveloped form when they were boys…..”

Thank you for this reference.

From what I have seen your body has been easily swayed into error by weak analogous examples which have no bearing on the fundamental truths of Scripture.

Paul’s question, “What saith the Scripture?” is not merely rhetorical. It expresses the truth of sola scriptura that only what may be established from Scripture has any claim to a place in Christian Faith. You have not been able to prove from Scripture the 4 RCC doctrines concerning Mary, therefore it holds no place in Christian Faith and is reduced to the mere philosophical ramblings of men.

You have accepted the words of men and failed to examine them against the only authority available to you.