Question for Catholics about the 4 Marian dogmas

[romishpopishorganist]

Neither is your pope. What he teaches and believes puts him squarely outside of apostolic teaching. Like all previous popes.

Why? Because some random, anonymous, Protestant fundamentalist on some website says so?

Can I invalidate the election of Joe Biden with exactly the same ease?

He does claim it, and he doesn't have the authority.

Thanks for clearing that up for me. Pope Francis does not have such authority--so says--some random Protestant fundamentalist on some website.

Coulda fooled me. He asked if they thought it would be a good thing to make this dogma.

Right. He did. You mean the pope should not consult anyone before he makes a decision?

Once again----you show we can't win. If the pope simply defined the dogma without consulting the Church at large, then you would have complained that the pope does whatever he wants whenever he wants--without regard for the Faithful.

Doesn't sound like its revealed by God at all does it?

Sure it does.

Can you imagine Moses coming down the mountain taking a poll whether the 10 commandments were something they thought was okay?

The difference there is that Moses directly spoke to God and received the Revelation. It was clear that this was divinely revealed; no one questioned it.

People questioned whether the Assumption was divinely revealed. The pope cleared up the uncertainty.

Or did God say here take this and tell the people this is their new standard. No voting allowed. And btw, Pius 9th did the same thing when he sent out Ubi Primum before declaring marys IC.

Yes, he did. Again, it is one thing when things are clear and questions are not being asked. Something altogether different when it isn't clear, and questions are being asked.

Thats precisely why Catholics believe this stuff today. Believe or else right? Gods wrath, Peter and Paul laying into you...Tell us another one.

Well--if I was a Protestant--I better accept Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide or suffer God's wrath, right?

Depends on what that something is right? Reject the gospel, you're lost. Reject Paul went on one of his missionary journeys? Is believing that salvific?

That isn't the point.

The POINT is that once someone KNOWS that something is Biblical, that something is of God, they have a duty to believe it. We are not free to actively reject God's Truth if we know it to be true.

When you're forced to believe it when it has nothing to do with salvation, ya your church is heaping something on you that is 100% unnecessary.

But I am not being forced to believe the Assumption or the IC. I willingly believe it and rejoice in those teachings.

Pope Francis has not put a gun to my head sir--and forcing me to be Catholic.

 

[balshan]

None of these show geocentricity. Would you accuse the U. S. Naval Observatory of being geocentric because it reports the times of "sunrise" and "sunset"? (cf. Eccl 1:5)

Broad-brushing much? I know many Creationists who would scoff at your statement.

Some people are just bound to see mockery everywhere. Tell me honestly, if the RCC – from pope to priest – said that the Earth was the center of the universe (not sure about de fide), would – not could, but would – you disagree?

--Rich
"Esse quam videri"

Sometimes you just wonder when your read their posts.

 

[balshan]

Believing in a geocentric universe won't take you to hell. Comparing that to your marian dogmas is apples and oranges. And its not just some prots that hold that view today. There is some real science behind that theory. Personally i couldn't care less. To me its a petty issue compared to the utter theological falsehoods of all rc dogmas not just those associated with mary.

Amen

 

[RiJoRi]

The bible teaches a geocentric universe. Joshua 10:12-13. Ecclesiastes 1:5. 1 Chronicles 16:30 just to name a few. Even today Protestant creationists hold to this scriptural 'truth'. It just shows that scripture needs interpretation in the light of the times. I think your mockery of Catholicism is hypocritical.

from Wikipedia:
Galileo's championing of Copernican heliocentrism (Earth rotating daily and revolving around the sun) was met with opposition from within the Catholic Church and from some astronomers. The matter was investigated by the Roman Inquisition in 1615, which concluded that heliocentrism was foolish, absurd, and heretical since it contradicted Holy Scripture.

from Britannica:
... the tide in Rome was turning against the Copernican [heliocentric] theory, and in 1615, when the cleric Paolo Antonio Foscarini (c. 1565–1616) published a book arguing that the Copernican theory did not conflict with scripture, Inquisition consultants examined the question and pronounced the Copernican theory heretical.

So your anonymous "Protestant creationists" are simply agreeing with the Roman Catholic Church's Inquisitors (and with Robert Cardinal Bellarmine who told Galileo not to “hold or defend” the Copernican theory).

Unless you are saying that the Inquisition - tasked with discovering heresy - was incapable of correctly interpreting Scripture??

--Rich
"Esse quam videri"

 

[RiJoRi]

Sometimes you just wonder when your read their posts.

I don't know whether to laugh or to cry at the inanities.

--Rich

 

[pilgrim]

So? Jesus still said, AFTER consecrating it, and bidding His disciples "Drink of it, all of you....", that He would not drink the FRUIT OF THE VINE again until He drank it new in His Father's Kingdom (paraphrased).

What is the fruit of the vine, pilgrim?

God gave us scenses of taste and smell and those senses tell us the bread and wine are still bread and wine, even after consecration. But
in some way we cannot understand, this side of heaven, Jesus' true body and blood come to be present in, with, and under the bread and wine. Yet they are still bread and wine.

I believe in the Real Presence as I just defined it, but the RCC goes too far with it, making virtual cannibals out of its members. Paul also calls cup the "cup of blessing", which contained wine, and still called the bread, bread. Our senses tell us that, even after consecration.

The fourth cup remained. It wasn't consecrated as the third one was.

 

[Bonnie]

Funny you should say that. As as child I grew up Protestant and Catholic becasue my family is a mix. I went to Mass Saturday with my mother, Sunday to the Methodist Church with my father.

As much as I liked my fathers Church-----for me------it seemed like something was missing. I didn't realize it then, but what I was missing was the Blessed Sacrament. Methodists, nor any Protestant for that matter has anything analogous.

Au contraire--the WELS and LCMS do. But I will say no more about this. If you like, go to the Lutheran board and we can discuss this further.

"Chant about Mary?" You mean they literally "Chanted" about Mary? What does that even mean? I have never seen a priest "Chant" about Mary.

Funny you should say that also.

One thing I have never had a problem understanding--as a child in Catholicism and now----is that while we honor Mary, even greatly honor Mary, I know the difference between her and Jesus--and I know that ultimate power, might, honor, and glory belong to God and God alone.

Catholics may know the difference intellectually between Mary and Jesus, but they do not act like it. They ascribe powers, Glories, honors, praise and some titles to her that rightfully belong ONLY to her Divine Son. It is shameful the gross caricature the RCC had made out of the gentle, humble maid of Nazareth. Look at what duLiguori did to her in his execrable book The Glories of Mary. Disgusting.

The 4 Marian Dogmas--which are nowhere taught in Scripture--must be believed in order for a Catholic to be saved--for anyone, I imagine. Putting trust and faith in the Son of God, who suffered agony and shed His blood for me so I could have forgiveness of sins and eternal life isn't good enough, complete enough to save me--no, one must believe the 4 Marian Dogmas, or incur the wrath of Almighty God, Paul, and Peter!

I don't know whether to laugh, cry...or vomit. Maybe a mixture of all three...

Calling Mary the "Only hope for sinners" is not giving Jesus the ultimate glory and honor, etc. It is giving to a mere creature what belongs only to Jesus Christ.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

Sometimes you just wonder when your read their posts.

Balshan,

I am not responding to your above post--I just wanted to thank you for the two likes, though I need to point out--that I think you may have accidently hit the like button to my post to Bonnie--that is, I think one of your likes may have been a mistake.

Not that I am not happy for likes, but in that case, I find it hard to believe you would have liked my post to Bonnie!

 

[Nondenom40]

Why? Because some random, anonymous, Protestant fundamentalist on some website says so?

Can I invalidate the election of Joe Biden with exactly the same ease?

Thanks for clearing that up for me. Pope Francis does not have such authority--so says--some random Protestant fundamentalist on some website.

Right. He did. You mean the pope should not consult anyone before he makes a decision?

Once again----you show we can't win. If the pope simply defined the dogma without consulting the Church at large, then you would have complained that the pope does whatever he wants whenever he wants--without regard for the Faithful.

Sure it does.

The difference there is that Moses directly spoke to God and received the Revelation. It was clear that this was divinely revealed; no one questioned it.

People questioned whether the Assumption was divinely revealed. The pope cleared up the uncertainty.

Yes, he did. Again, it is one thing when things are clear and questions are not being asked. Something altogether different when it isn't clear, and questions are being asked.

Well--if I was a Protestant--I better accept Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide or suffer God's wrath, right?

That isn't the point.

The POINT is that once someone KNOWS that something is Biblical, that something is of God, they have a duty to believe it. We are not free to actively reject God's Truth if we know it to be true.

But I am not being forced to believe the Assumption or the IC. I willingly believe it and rejoice in those teachings.

Pope Francis has not put a gun to my head sir--and forcing me to be Catholic.

Why? Because some random, anonymous, Protestant fundamentalist on some website says so?

No, anyone that can read their bible can see there is no rc doctrines or dogmas in it. In fact that was one of Tertullian's tests. Being apostolic meant having a direct line to a bishop AND teaching. If what youre teaching isn't what the apostles taught, its not apostolic. Not rocket surgery.

Can I invalidate the election of Joe Biden with exactly the same ease?

You want to invalidate the election based on what biden believes? Apples and oranges but i'd pay to watch that!

Thanks for clearing that up for me. Pope Francis does not have such authority--so says--some random Protestant fundamentalist on some website.

No problem. Tell him he can step down anytime now. You can all join MF in his little sedevacantist popeless pitty party. The bible nowhere has a papacy, gives humans earthly dominion over the church or has been given authority to make up stuff then bind the faithful to believe it. The papacy being 100% absent from scripture is a tough pill to swallow for catholics, but no papacy, no authority.

Right. He did. You mean the pope should not consult anyone before he makes a decision?

Well if its 'revealed by God' why does he need a popularity poll? He should just tell the faithful, God told me, i'm telling you. Believe this or else. Done! When your boss at work tells you to do something you don't do it right away right? You go and ask a few other people first if they think its okay? You don't do that with your employer but with almighty God its okay?

Once again----you show we can't win. If the pope simply defined the dogma without consulting the Church at large, then you would have complained that the pope does whatever he wants whenever he wants--without regard for the Faithful.

If he did that w/o consulting anyone at least he'd be consistent with the whole i'm the pope i have papal infallibility thing right? I think it'd be members of your own church that would think his chain was too long. Over stepping his bounds.

The difference there is that Moses directly spoke to God and received the Revelation. It was clear that this was divinely revealed; no one questioned it.

So when God divinely reveals some teaching thats not speaking directly to your pope? How does the pope know its divinely revealed as opposed to heartburn?

Well--if I was a Protestant--I better accept Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide or suffer God's wrath, right?

No one binds sola scriptura to anyone. Believe it or don't. Sola fide? If you add works to salvation youre lost. Salvation is by faith alone, through Christ alone. Not me saying this but scripture.

Pope Francis has not put a gun to my head sir--and forcing me to be Catholic.

Francis is too busy worrying about your air conditioning to put a gun to anyones head. But past popes have, figuratively. Ship wrecked faith, wrath of God...hundreds of anathemas...Whats all that if not saying step out of line and youre toast?

 

[romishpopishorganist]

Now, you're making progress!

And you just unwittingly proved my point.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

Does the gospel include the Marion dogmas or is it only Christ who forgives our sin?

Yes to both.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

The four cups contain wine initially. It was the third cup only that Jesus consecrated - the "cup of blessing".
1 Cor 10:16
The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?

You know----I never thought of it that way before.

It never ceases to amaze me how the New Testament takes on greater depth when you understand it through a Jewish perspective. Sure I always knew that the Last Supper could not be truly understood apart from the context of the Passover Celebration----but I never realized what you said above.

We take the cup of Blessing; Jesus takes the cup of God's wrath--which I think was the fourth cup----and something Jesus and the apostles actually--did not drink. They left singing hymns, etc, before taking that cup. It is Scott Hahn who argues Jesus took that cup on the cross.

Thanks for this!

 

[mica]

4givenmuch said:
Does the gospel include the Marion dogmas or is it only Christ who forgives our sin?

Yes to both.

post the gospel and bold whatever words address the Marion dogmas.

 

[Misfit]

Does the gospel include the Marion dogmas or is it only Christ who forgives our sin?

Which dogma says Mary forgives sin?

 

[RayneBeau]

No, anyone that can read their bible can see there is no rc doctrines or dogmas in it. In fact that was one of Tertullian's tests. Being apostolic meant having a direct line to a bishop AND teaching. If what youre teaching isn't what the apostles taught, its not apostolic. Not rocket surgery.

rompop purposely makes comments knowing full well that his comments understate the importance of the written Word of God. Quite the opposite are those who are active followers of the Lord Jesus Christ, who proudly call themselves 'Christians,' and are commanded to meditate on Scripture day and night.

"Be sure that the book of the Law is always read in your worship. Study it day and night, and make sure that you obey everything written in it. Then you will be prosperous and successful." Joshua 1:8

Instead, they find joy in obeying the Law of the Lord, and they study it day and night. Ps.1: 2

 

[Bonnie]

No, anyone that can read their bible can see there is no rc doctrines or dogmas in it. In fact that was one of Tertullian's tests. Being apostolic meant having a direct line to a bishop AND teaching. If what youre teaching isn't what the apostles taught, its not apostolic. Not rocket surgery.



You want to invalidate the election based on what biden believes? Apples and oranges but i'd pay to watch that!



No problem. Tell him he can step down anytime now. You can all join MF in his little sedevacantist popeless pitty party. The bible nowhere has a papacy, gives humans earthly dominion over the church or has been given authority to make up stuff then bind the faithful to believe it. The papacy being 100% absent from scripture is a tough pill to swallow for catholics, but no papacy, no authority.



Well if its 'revealed by God' why does he need a popularity poll? He should just tell the faithful, God told me, i'm telling you. Believe this or else. Done! When your boss at work tells you to do something you don't do it right away right? You go and ask a few other people first if they think its okay? You don't do that with your employer but with almighty God its okay?



If he did that w/o consulting anyone at least he'd be consistent with the whole i'm the pope i have papal infallibility thing right? I think it'd be members of your own church that would think his chain was too long. Over stepping his bounds.



So when God divinely reveals some teaching thats not speaking directly to your pope? How does the pope know its divinely revealed as opposed to heartburn?



No one binds sola scriptura to anyone. Believe it or don't. Sola fide? If you add works to salvation youre lost. Salvation is by faith alone, through Christ alone. Not me saying this but scripture.



Francis is too busy worrying about your air conditioning to put a gun to anyones head. But past popes have, figuratively. Ship wrecked faith, wrath of God...hundreds of anathemas...Whats all that if not saying step out of line and youre toast?

"Rocket surgery"? Mixing your metaphors, Nondenom?

Could you quote what Tertullian said about that papal succession needing to TEACH what the apostles taught? Ol' Tert was my favorite ECF.

 

[Bonnie]

Which dogma says Mary forgives sin?

Or answers prayers?

 

[Bonnie]

Yes to both.

Please post from the Bible where the Gospel includes the 4 Marian Dogmas.

 

[Bonnie]

For Romish--why not go to the Lutheran board and ask all of your questions about my church on that board, where we could discuss them without going off topic for this board?

 

[Bonnie]

The fourth cup remained. It wasn't consecrated as the third one was.

How do you know? Were you there?

But wait--! Which cup Jesus gave in His Last Supper is your communion cup based upon?

17 After taking the cup, He gave thanks and said, “Take this and divide it among you. 18 For I tell you I will not drink again from the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.”

19 And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”

20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

He gave thanks for both cups. Sounds like consecration to me.

But lookee here what Matthew 26 says about the Last Supper:

27 Then He took a cup, and when He had given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 This is my blood of the[b] covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29 I tell you, I will not drink from THIS FRUIT OF THE VINE from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

So, even the cup that is "my blood of the covenant" Jesus called "the fruit of the vine."

Ergo, the wine in communion is still wine. Simple.