Mary - The Mother of Our Lord

[Josiah]

I wrote and posted this at "the-website-that-shall-not-be-named" 10 years ago, part of what make me so hated there (my view on Mary was the basis for why staff was so dismayed by me). It created quite a heated reply from Catholics toward me at the time at that site. I repost it here (10 years later)


Mary - the Mother of Our Lord


What God's Holy Scriptures tell us:

Matthew 1:23/Isaiah 7:14
Mark 3:31-35; 6:1-6
Luke 1:27, 31-33, 39-55
Luke 2:1-24, 49
John 2:4
John 19:26-27
Acts 1:14
That's it. That's all.



Immaculate Conception:

No Scripture remotely confirms it.
No Scripture clearly denies it (although some make it problematic)
Which leaves an unnormed but traditional opinion.
IMHO: Not dogma, not heresy. Permitted opinion.
Recently dogma in the Roman Catholic denomination, but largely embrace by Eastern Orthodox Christians (although not dogma there)


Perpetual Virginity:

No Scripture remotely confirms it.
No Scripture clearly denies it (but some verses may make it problematic)
Which leaves an unnormed but tradtional view.
IMHO: Not dogma, not heresy. Possible opinion.
Dogma in the Catholic Church, official teaching in the EOC. Embraced as pious opinion by some Anglican and Lutheran Christians.


Divine Maternity: ("Matre Dei" "Theodokos")

Scriptural support for the divine nature of Christ is solid. Since Mary is the mother of Jesus and Jesus has a divine nature, in THAT sense, this is normed.
Tradition affirms this interpretation.
IMHO: Accepted as a title but potentially very misleading.
(Not dogma anywhere)
Title is used in the Roman Catholic and Easter Orthodox churches, and at times among Anglicans and Lutherans.


"Queen of Heaven":

Related to above; in ancient Jewish culture, the mother of a king often had this title. It's not dogma but a title for Mary. As such, it is fitting.
IMHO: Accepted, but potentially misleading.
(Not dogma in the CC) Title is found in Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy.


Assumption of Mary:

Nothing in Scripture remotely confirms this.
Nothing in Scripture clearly denies this.
Which leaves an unnormed but traditional opinion.
IMHO: Not dogma, not heresy. Opinion.
Newly dogma in the CC; not dogma but generally embraced in the Eastern Orthodox Church



Coredemptrix:

Nothing in Scripture remotely confirms this.
Nothing in Scripture clearly denied this, although several verses make it problemmatic.
Which leave an unnormed and I think fairly new viewpoint.
IMHO: Not dogma, probably not heresy. Opinion.
(Not dogma in the CC but expected to be declared so soon)


Mediatrix of all Graces:

Nothing in Scripture remotely confirms this.
Nothing in Scripture clearly denies this, although 1 Tim. 2:5 may make this problemmatic.
IMHO: Not dogma, not heresy if property understood. Opinion.
(Not dogma in the CC)




Some quotes:

Pope Pius IX Eneffabilis Deus (1854), "Let the most dear children of the Catholic Church hear these words and with more ardent zeal of piety, religion and love, proceed to worship, invoke and pray to the most Blessed Virgin Mary."


Pope Pius XII Coronation at Fatima (1948), "Mary is indeed worthy to receive honor and might and glory. She is exalted to hypostatic union with the Blessed Trinity. Her Kingdom is as great as her Son's and God's."


While I won't quote them, it's clear that Martin Luther used the titles for Mary of "Mother of God" and "Ever Virgin Mary." Early on anyway, he accepted the Perpetual Virginity of Mary (although not as dogma) and rejected the Immaculate Conception of Mary and Assumption of Mary - then not dogmas as they are now. Of course, for Protestants, Luther was just a student of the Bible - fully accountable and subject to it. His words carry no more authority than any other man's.




Some Misc. thoughts....

1. God focused very little on Mary in His holy written Word to the church - the Scriptures. Like Mary, it's focus is on Christ.


2. While Catholics DO speak of a certain "worship" of Mary, they make it very clear they do not worship her as divine. "Mary belongs to the offspring of Adam and is one with all human beings in their need for salvation" (Vatican II) In modern English, "worship" has taken on that meaning it didn't have until recently. NONE of the current Marian dogmas in any sense or manner embrace Mary as The Lord God or divine in any way; the words often used in relation to her (respect, adore, revere, venerate, worship, esteem) are admittedly all words that (rarely) are applied to the divine but that's not the case with Catholics (or Protestants or any other Christians).


3. At one time, Protestants (especially Lutherans and Anglicans) shared a certain veneration of Mary nearly the same as Catholics. As Catholics have become far more focused on Mary (note the dates of the quotes above, the Immaculate Conception was not declared dogma until 1854, the Assumption of Mary not until 1950), Protestants have moved away - in what I consider foolish and tragic - it seems just so as to not see "Catholic."


4. Even an 18 year old guy cannot help but be amazingly moved by Luke Chapter 1. Here is a woman, probably younger than me, with a humility, faith and devotion that are beyond the ability of words to convey. That she might be considered chief among all saints is something I wouldn't challenge. Luke 1 and the story of Abraham and Issac about to be sacrificed are accounts that immediately spring to my mind when I think of what faith and discipleship mean...


5. IMHO, the DOGMAS that the Roman Catholics have declared (some very recently) have had an unfortunate consequence, they've actually served on REDUCING the esteem Christians have for Mary and meaning that FEWER now regard Her as 'blessed.' The irrelevant and abiblical DOGMAS have become the focus, as as people have so often rejected them, Mary has largely gotten "lost" as a result.


6. In my Catholic days, I saw a FEW (really a tiny percentage) of Catholics who were ... well, let's say WEIRD when it came to Mary, they just seemed to go way overboard. This bothered many Catholics. Unfortunately, what they say and did at times became known to Protestants who THINK such is common among Catholics. There are Mary wackos in the Roman Catholic Church and Catholics often will admit that. I think too a FEW (a tiny percentage) of Catholics have a very emotional relationship to Mary (consider a teen in love, LOL) and this IMHO at times causes them to say and do things that maybe are hard to objectively understand (just like teens in love, LOL). In my Catholic days, I could easily cut these people some slack. On the one hand, if this relationship to Mary gives them comfort and strength - good. On the other hand, if they use it to base some superiority over others or in some divisive way - bad.



- Josiah




.

 

[psalms 91]

Excellent post

 

[Josiah]

Excellent post

You would not believe how much trouble I got in at CF for these views!! (The reaction by CF Staff is largely why I'm here, lol). Some seemed to get get unglued by these views - even though I didn't declare any of them heresies (or even wrong) - unlike many there who actually did!

I questioned the relevance of some of them, too. Their status as DOGMAS (matters of highest importance possible, issues on which our salvation may hinge); the WHY this view matters SO very, very much, what the essential POINT is. Often, my issue was more the STATUS of the teaching than the teaching per se (which, as you can tell, I often permitted). THAT cause a whole lot of staff to come unglued, too. Never really understood that. How do we DOGMATICALLY know this? Why is THIS a matter of highest importance and greatest certainly possible? Why is THIS something on which to divide the church and place personal salvation into question? One way or the other? Those were questions I asked (often resulting in Reports on me and hours spent appealing staff actions about them). Oh well.... that was then. And there.


Bill.... part of the reason this seems important to me - even 10 years later (I wrote those comments a decade ago) - is that I think the REACTION to these DOGMAS is largely why most of Protestantism now largely ignores Mary (we didn't until a couple of centuries ago). And .... well..... I just think if one is going to SHOUT something about someone...... especially SHOUT it as a matter of HIGHEST IMPORTANCE POSSIBLE and GREATEST IMPORTANCE POSSIBLE..... they should have something to show it's true, more than "cuz I now think it's so." BECAUSE Mary is so esteemed, shouldn't that be even MORE the case with her?????


Well, CH is a far more open and mutually respectful site. I'm confident that my views (while NEITHER Roman Catholic or modern "Evangelical") will not cause caustic and flaming results (disagreements, perhaps - but not hate and anger). I suspect that HERE we can have a civil and respectful discussion of the Mother of Our Lord.


Thanks, Bill



Pax Christi



- Josiah

 

[Josiah]

I think something our Catholic brothers and sisters forget......

In Protestantism, central and foundation is our belief that Jesus IS THE Savior. Anything that even seems to detract from that or threaten that.... well..... Protestants react very strongly (as one who is now Protestant, I'm in that 'camp'). I think that some Protestants look at some of these teachings.... and some of the excessive practices of some Catholics (which may be misunderstood)... and what they see as a LOT of emphasis.... and conclude that Jesus is being taken away from. Dogmas like the Co-Redemptrix and Co-Mediator and the Immaculate Conception can have that result. Praying TO Mary and seemingly expecting Mary to answer it (or cause it to be answered). These and other things cause many modern Protestants to get.... well..... very uneasy. If we had a Roman Catholic community here at CH, we could discuss whether that's actually being done in those Dogmas and practices (IMO, it's not) but I think they miss the reason for the "Evangelical" reaction (which, IMO, is often too far). IMO, Catholics would be more helpful if they would (could?) stress the point that Jesus is the Savior (the only and all-sufficient Savior) that would be more helpful than TRY to "prove" these things as matters of highest importance possible and greatest certainties possible - which the attempt only shows the exact opposite, how weak the support is - certainly as De Fide Dogma. As often happens in that denomination, it makes matters worse by constantly moving the 'bar' and by declaring stuff as "DOGMA".


Discussion?



- Josiah

 

[atpollard]

Perpetual Virginity:
No Scripture clearly denies it (but some verses may make it problematic)

Matthew 1:24-25 NASB
24 And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife, 25 but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.

How does Joseph keep her a virgin "until she gave birth" and she remain a virgin forever?
The word in Greek makes it clear that it is saying that Joseph did not "know" her (sexual relations) until after she gave birth.

NKJV and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son.[fn] And he called His name JESUS.
NLT But he did not have sexual relations with her until her son was born. And Joseph named him Jesus.
NIV But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

You get the idea.

 

[Josiah]

Matthew 1:24-25 NASB
24 And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife, 25 but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.

How does Joseph keep her a virgin "until she gave birth" and she remain a virgin forever?
The word in Greek makes it clear that it is saying that Joseph did not "know" her (sexual relations) until after she gave birth.

NKJV and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son.[fn] And he called His name JESUS.
NLT But he did not have sexual relations with her until her son was born. And Joseph named him Jesus.
NIV But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

You get the idea.

I've been instructed, by those who know koine Greek well, that the word we find in the English translation ("until") ONLY looks back and not forward, unlike the only English word available, it doesn't imply that AFTER that they did have relations, it ONLY says they did not so to that point. The word "until" does not in any sense designate cessation of the condition mentioned. In 1 Cor. 15:25 Jesus still reigns after he puts all enemies under his feet. In Phil. 1:10 we will still be blameless after the day of Christ. In 1 Tim. 6:14 we are to still keep the commandments of God after Jesus returns. In Acts 8:40, there's no statement that Philip ceased preaching Christ when he came to Caesarea. The word simply does not indicate cessation.

The "problem" thus is that there is no English word that accurately conveys the Greek, the best English word tends to imply something the original Greek does not but no better English word is available. Thus the Greek is saying that she was a virgin at the time of our Lord's birth while saying nothing about after that. But I cannot so speak from personal knowledge (I've never studied Koine Greek). I'm NOT saying the Dogma of the RC Denomination is true (or confirmed by Scripture) only that it's not clearly and undeniably condemned by Scripture.

I understand that John Calvin accepted this teaching, well aware of the verse you reference but also quite knowledgeable of koine Greek.


Thank you!!!


- Josiah




.

 

[atpollard]

I've been instructed, by those who know koine Greek well, that the word we find in the English translation ("until") ONLY looks back and not forward, unlike the only English word available, it doesn't imply that AFTER that they did have relations, it ONLY says they did not so to that point.

Thank you!!!

- Josiah
.

Please don't take this personally, because I accept everything you posted as potentially 100% true (I don't read Greek either, so I can't really evaluate the statements from a position of knowledge) ... but I REALLY hate that answer.

Not because it means that I am wrong about something as trivial as the potential (not even certain) virginity of Mary, but because it suggests that the Catholic Church was correct that Tindale and others were wrong to translate Scripture into the vernacular because it is impossible for lay people to correctly determine truth from reading scripture.

I do not expect the Bible to tell me every detail, but I expect the details that it does tell to be correct according to the plain and simple reading of the text. When it says Joseph was the husband of Mary, I expect that it means that they were really married, not that they cohabitated but never consummated the marriage. When James says that he is the brother of Jesus, I expect that he means they had some blood relation in common, not that Jesus mother Mary cohabitated with the Father and Mother of James.

When people say "your Mother and Brothers are here", I expect that the people actually meant that his mother and his brothers (or at least half-brothers since they had different fathers).

This sort of "enlightenment" on Greek that completely contradicts the obvious meaning from the surrounding context does harm to faith in the Bible.

That is why I hate it.

Thank you for sharing it.
Arthur

 

[Josiah]

Please don't take this personally, because I accept everything you posted as potentially 100% true (I don't read Greek either, so I can't really evaluate the statements from a position of knowledge) ... but I REALLY hate that answer.

Not because it means that I am wrong about something as trivial as the potential (not even certain) virginity of Mary, but because it suggests that the Catholic Church was correct that Tindale and others were wrong to translate Scripture into the vernacular because it is impossible for lay people to correctly determine truth from reading scripture.

I do not expect the Bible to tell me every detail, but I expect the details that it does tell to be correct according to the plain and simple reading of the text. When it says Joseph was the husband of Mary, I expect that it means that they were really married, not that they cohabitated but never consummated the marriage. When James says that he is the brother of Jesus, I expect that he means they had some blood relation in common, not that Jesus mother Mary cohabitated with the Father and Mother of James.

When people say "your Mother and Brothers are here", I expect that the people actually meant that his mother and his brothers (or at least half-brothers since they had different fathers).

This sort of "enlightenment" on Greek that completely contradicts the obvious meaning from the surrounding context does harm to faith in the Bible.

That is why I hate it.

Thank you for sharing it.
Arthur

You are welcome, Arthur. Thank you.


Some responses, if I may...


1. No, IMO is not wrong to translate the Bible into the vernacular so that the laity can read it, but it is wrong to pronounce DOGMA or HERESY based on a translation (which is why theologians, theology teachers and pastors all work exclusively from the original Hebrew and Greek). "Something gets lost in the translation" is at times exactly what can happen..... or equally so, something gets added in the translation. That seems to be the case here: a very modern implication of an ENGLISH word conveys something that the original Greek word does not (I showed how that's obviously the case with several other places where the same Greek word is found translated into the same English word but obviously does NOT mean that the condition ceased). That's all. A translation has limitations, a simple result that words often don't translate exactly - with all the connotations, etc. fully shared. Luther translated the Bible into the German of his day, for the very reason you suggest. But he also said theology should be based on the original Hebrew and Greek - and took his own advise.


2. No, what I posted certainly does not mean the RC denomination is right to proclaim - as DE FIDE DOGMA - that this verse indicates Mary remained a virgin "perpetually." IMO, it permits such a view but it equally permits the opposite: the Greek word does not mandate a cessation but nor does it mandate a continuation. That something is POSSIBLE is light years away from saying "therefore its a matter of highest importance possible and greatest certainty of fact possible." BTW, learned Catholics won't claim this verse "proves" anything, they simply use it to show the view is not contrary to Scripture (a position I'd yield). They are more likely to point to the Protoevangelium of James and some later "Fathers" and of course to the Ecumenical Council.


3. Arthur, we have a similar situation with the references to Jesus' "brothers" and "sisters." In Koine Greek, these terms are by no means limited to biological siblings (or even relatives at all). Frankly, I think the most obvious sense from the context IS that these are at least relatives (Catholics teach they were older step brothers and sisters) but again, we can't prove OR disprove that from the text itself. You are my brother (we share the same heavenly Father and we are ONE in Christ). We find this use of the Greek words also in several places in the Bible, where all would agree that full blood sibling is NOT meant (in fact, we'd agree that a relative in ANY biological sense is not meant). IF we are going to claim that the Koine Greek word for "brother" means full biological sibling, then we've created quite a mess for ourselves when there are many places where that CLEARLY and UNDENIABLY isn't the case ("Scripture interprets Scripture" includes that we can't limit a word to meanings that obviously aren't always the case).


4. Now, we'll find Protestant who abandon a strict "Sola Scriptura" application as doctrine is evaulated, and insist "Well, Scripture doensn't technically say but I get the SENSE that....." It's a dangerous rubric (and frankly, places us in the same camp as the Catholics).... I don't dismiss it entirely, but personally, I'd be careful basing DOGMA (and equally proclaimations of HERESY) on MY SENSE of what actually isn't said (that rubric can bite you in the _____, lol). Here's MY "take": BIBLICALLY , I think the RCC and EOC view is permissible but not normed. I think the often MODERN (just the past 200 years or so, before that Protestants and Catholics largely agreed on this pov) "Evangelical" view is also permissible but not normed. Thus, BIBLICALLY, neither can proclaim their view as DOGMA and neither can proclaim the other's as "HERESY." This is what Lutherans call "Pious Opinion." A pious opinion is a view PERMITTED by Scripture but not NORMED by Scripture and that has very ancient and very ecumenical ("catholic" with a little 'c') embrace. Such MAY be believed and taught but not as dogma, such may even be disagreed with but not as heresy (dogma and heresy being essential opposites in theology). For Lutherans, a lot of these "Marian" views fall into that category. My Lutheran pastor accepts the PVM but never preaches it and when he presents it (as in Bible class) he stresses that it's not a dogmatic view. Some Lutheran pastors reject the view. Most Lutherans (as I understand it) are like me - simply not taking a firm position either way (in my case because I don't think either view is solid enough biblically AND because, for the life of me, I can't image why it matters or why it's even any of our business, to be overly blunt). YES - I acknowledge the biblical POSSIBILITY (but then I achknowledge the biblical possiblity that She did NOT remain a virgin, too!!!!!) AND I recognize an early formation of the view, AND (most powerfully) I recognize the use of the TITLE "Ever Virgin" by an Ecumenical Council.... I'm not charging anyone with heresy on EITHER side, I'm just "opting out" of an opinion (as I understand is the typical Lutheran stance these days). BTW, my stance caused ENORMOUS trouble for me at ChristianForums, countless Reports and Warnings and suspect even a temporary ban (although I can't confirm that), YEARS after I stopped being active there, staff STILL tells me how much they hate me for my stance on Mary. Years ago, one upper level staffer there told me, "The worse place to be in any WAR is in the no mans land.... both sides will shoot at you and neither will defend you." Even YEARS later.



I hope that helps.


Thanks again!


Pax Christi


- Josiah



.

 

[Glark]

I wrote and posted this at "the-website-that-shall-not-be-named" 10 years ago, part of what make me so hated there (my view on Mary was the basis for why staff was so dismayed by me). It created quite a heated reply from Catholics toward me at the time at that site. I repost it here (10 years later)


Mary - the Mother of Our Lord


What God's Holy Scriptures tell us:

Matthew 1:23/Isaiah 7:14
Mark 3:31-35; 6:1-6
Luke 1:27, 31-33, 39-55
Luke 2:1-24, 49
John 2:4
John 19:26-27
Acts 1:14
That's it. That's all.

Ok, so what? What have you proven? ... a little mustard seed can grow into a big tree.

A lot of Catholics love Mary - as far as I know it's not a sin to love another human being, especially when she is the Mother of God.

 

[Josiah]

A lot of Catholics love Mary - as far as I know it's not a sin to love another human being, especially when she is the Mother of God.

[MENTION=388]Glark[/MENTION]



A lot of non-RCC members do, too. I think everyone agrees that it's good to love and respect all. Many also think it's thus good to respect them and to be truthful about them.


If we truly love someone then IMO it's even more important to tell the truth about them and of course "gossip" would be even more deplorable; and of course, the unique Dogmas of the RCC are divisive so that Mary is used to divide and separate Christian brothers and sisters and I wonder how Mary Herself might feel and view that?


But the thread is not meant to be an "anti-Mary" thing (I'm sure you realize that) but a study of some Dogmas that eventually (as late as 1950) have been declared about/concerning Her by one or two denominations among us. That's the point.


And as is obvious, I don't have an "agenda" to "PROVE" anything, I don 't have anything TO prove since I'm not declaring ANY of these views to be DOGMA or HERESY - thus I obviously have no need to PROVE any of the positions right or wrong. However, some denominations and some Christians DO declare some or all of these things to be DOGMA or HERESY and thus, as you note, the proverbial "ball" is in their court, they DO have something to prove (to the level claimed - de fide Dogma or Heresy).



Thank you!


Welcome to the community!


Pax Christi


- Josiah



.

 

[Glark]

You made the point that there are relatively few scriptures relating to Mary. I' m wondering why this is relevant. Does Mary need to be referred to a certain number of times before she is worthy of consideration?

It's true that Catholic doctrines about Mary are opposed by many Protestants, but the same people oppose many other Catholic doctrines. Anyhow, Mary also attracts many people ... which is why God uses her - to attract sinners to her Son. The Lord also uses her to speak to humanity - just as the Lord used prophets in the OT. Lourdes and Fatima are but two examples.

 

[MoreCoffee]

is it common for Lutherans to be so fixated on Blessed Mary? This thread is like an allergic reaction to someone who isn't even in the house.

 

[Lamb]

is it common for Lutherans to be so fixated on Blessed Mary? This thread is like an allergic reaction to someone who isn't even in the house.

No. She doesn't cross my mind very often.

 

[Josiah]

You made the point that there are relatively few scriptures relating to Mary. I' m wondering why this is relevant. Does Mary need to be referred to a certain number of times before she is worthy of consideration?

It's true that Catholic doctrines about Mary are opposed by many Protestants, but the same people oppose many other Catholic doctrines. Anyhow, Mary also attracts many people ... which is why God uses her - to attract sinners to her Son. The Lord also uses her to speak to humanity - just as the Lord used prophets in the OT. Lourdes and Fatima are but two examples.

Hi,

I invite you to read the opening post (consider all of it). IMO, something that a denomination eventually declares as DOGMA should be shown to be true - unless it doesn't matter what Christians say or believe or do, what Christians use to divide and condemn, what Christians say is a matter of highest importance possible. And IMO, if one is claimed to be loved, isn't it even MORE important that what is dogmatically declared about that one be shown to be true? It follows to me that gossip would be even more wrong and deplorable if the object is one often held in considerable esteem. So.... we have one or two denominations that have a goodly number of DOGMAS about Mary.... does it matter if they are true, is gossip something to be condemned? Or does none of this matter in the singular case of Our Lady?

It IS true that some Protestants disagree with the teaching and/or status of the various Marian views of two denominations (the RCC and EOC), and usually, Catholics feel they should be able to defend their declaration that these views are HERESY. It therefore equally stands that Catholics should be able to substantiate their claims of DE FIDE DOGMA about these same views, both equally and both to the level each claims. Unless your position is that truth about Mary is irrelevant, that Mary shouldn't care what is said about Her - either pro as DOGMA or the opposite as HERESY, Her being exempt from the usual stands about truth and error, Dogma and Heresy (in which case, does THAT bring into question whether She is loved and esteemed and regarded as blessed?).

Yes, I think it's obvious that the reason why many have largely come to ignore Mary in the past 200 - 300 years or so is because of the enormous emphasis and the newly declared DOGMAS of one denomination (the RCC); they see these DOGMAS as wholly unsubstantiated and want to distance themselves from these dogmas. I see that as unfortunate but certainly understandable, thus it seems obvious the reason why Mary is getting less focus now among most denominations is because of what the RCC one has lately done. But I'm sure you disagree.

Again, IF truth matters in the case of the RCC's current list of Marian DOGMAS.... if gossip toward Her is a sin.... then the proverbial "ball" is in your court. And equally to those who claim the RC Denominations' Marian Dogmas are heresy have the "ball" to show that's the case. But as MoreCoffee well knows, many Protestants are in neither "camp" since they don't declare these Marian views to be DE FIDE DOGMA or HERESY - and thus don't need to prove them right or wrong; we hold these views as "pious opinion" rather than DOGMA of highest importance and certainty possible or HERESY; neither in any way salvic.

Again, I invite you to read (in its entirety) the opening post... and if you want to reply to THAT, I'd rejoice!



Pax Christi



- Josiah

 

[Josiah]

This thread is like an allergic reaction to someone who isn't even in the house.

... only if what is true is of no interest or concern to Catholics. Yes, this thread is suggesting that those who claim DOGMA or HERESY equally have a "burden of proof" - and of course, this offends and angers you. Oddly, it seems to me, this Catholic distain for the issue of truth is nowhere more passionate that when the issue is Mary, a point I've found very curious since my days as a Catholic youth. When some Protestant claims "Mary had sex" some Catholics come unglued and scream that She was a Perpetual Virgin and that this is a matter of highest importance possible and greatest certainty possible and what that Protestant said is thus heresy on the most profound level, accompanied by a "PROVE Our Lady did or shut up!!!" Sometimes it's that blatant, sometimes more subtle I "get" it. Seems fair even. Dogma and Heresy are opposites, positions are accountable, gossip (claiming something about a person that is not personally known to be true) is a sin - whether one is claiming that Mary is or is not something, did or didn't do something; those who proclaim things as DOGMA or HERESY are equally accountable and to the level claimed. Thing is..... a lot of Catholics seem to think there's one exception to all this: Mary. Truth doesn't seem to matter when She is the topic..... gossip seems ok in the case of just one person (Our Lady)..... I've found this odd for years. And then you find the Catholic who realize that these new DE FIDE DOGMAS are, well, not as claimed. And so when the issue is raised, then suddenly RUN from them as dogmas. "Well, it's how I feel - and it's okay if you don't." (Which of course is a denounciation of the view as Dogma - and ironically, a rather Lutheran/Anglican view which the RCC condemns as heresy)

 

[MoreCoffee]

The thread is of only minimal interest and no concern to me

:smirk:

 

[Josiah]

The thread is of only minimal interest and no concern to me

As I would predict.

But your singular denomination declares these to be de fide dogmas - issues of highest concern possible and greatest certainty possible. But friend, you are typical of Catholics: The issue of truthfulness in defining dogmas of their denomination appear to be of "no concern" to them; oddly while claiming to be devoted to Mary and hold Her in high esteem, it is of "no concern" to them whether what is dogmatically shouted about Her is true - at all. Just not interested. No concern about that. Odd, IMO. If some denomination officially declared as a matter of highest importance possible and greatest certainty possible, an issue on which to divine His church and people, that the Pope had a wife and 6 kids - you'd likely shout "PROVE IT to the level claimed or take it back!!!!" (and I wouldn't blame you) but when it comes to Mary, well, as you put it, "it's of only minimal interest and of no concern" whether the dogmas are true or not. Mary seems totally exempt from the issue of truthfulness, exempt from the usual prohibition and condemnation of gossip. Oddly, I think a lot of Protestants actually are more respectful of Her than many Catholics, more concerned with respecting Her by respecting truth about Her than many (maybe most) of the Catholics known to me.


And your lack of interest and concern over whether the DOGMAS of your singular denomination are true or not also seems usual.... IF these issues are of no concern, why did your denomination make them DOGMAS (the last one in 1950)?



Curious.....



- Josiah

 

[Glark]

Catholic doctrine on Mary is actually quite complex. If you're interested in the subject you should consult Catholic sources and read up on it.

 

[Lamb]

Catholic doctrine on Mary is actually quite complex. If you're interested in the subject you should consult Catholic sources and read up on it.

He used to be Catholic

 

[MoreCoffee]

He used to be Catholic

He keeps saying that he was a Catholic but the evidence is not there is it; he makes so many mistakes about what the Catholic Church teaches and will not accept any amount of evidence provided as correction for the errors in his claims. I know, I've spent way too much time supplying information from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the documents of the second Vatican council, the canons of the Council of Trent, the Roman Catechism of the council of Trent, and saint Augustine's catechism as well as many other sources both ancient and recent and still he persists in posting the same inaccurate claims. That is one reason why I wondered if it is common for Lutherans to be so fixated on Blessed Mary and observed that no Catholic has raised the topic in here for a very long time yet here is yet another thread created to have a fight about Blessed Mary.