Question for Catholics about the 4 Marian dogmas

pilgrim

Well-known member
How do you know? Were you there?

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



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

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



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.
You just explained away your own sacrament. Look how easy it is to cancel something with one's own interpretation of Scripture.
 

Nondenom40

Well-known member
"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. :)
Sure, although it wasn't papal succession but bishops in general. And i have another one after that which deals with Newman's 'acorn to oak tree' deception. But here is Tertullian on his two tests for what is apostolic;

Tertullian-Anti-Marcion: The Prescription Against Heretics: Ch 32

But if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men,—a man, moreover, who continued stedfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. In exactly the same way the other churches likewise exhibit (their several worthies), whom, as having been appointed to their episcopal places by apostles, they regard as transmitters of the apostolic seed. Let the heretics contrive something of the same kind. For after their blasphemy, what is there that is unlawful for them (to attempt)? But should they even effect the contrivance, they will not advance a step. For their very doctrine, after comparison with that of the apostles, will declare, by its own diversity and contrariety, that it had for its author neither an apostle nor an apostolic man; because, as the apostles would never have taught things which were self-contradictory, so the apostolic men would not have inculcated teaching different from the apostles, unless they who received their instruction from the apostles went and preached in a contrary manner. To this test, therefore will they be submitted for proof by those churches, who, although they derive not their founder from apostles or apostolic men (as being of much later date, for they are in fact being founded daily), yet, since they agree in the same faith, they are accounted as not less apostolic because they are akin in doctrine. Then let all the heresies, when challenged to these two tests by our apostolic church, offer their proof of how they deem themselves to be apostolic. But in truth they neither are so, nor are they able to prove themselves to be what they are not. Nor are they admitted to peaceful relations and communion by such churches as are in any way connected with apostles, inasmuch as they are in no sense themselves apostolic because of their diversity as to the mysteries of the faith.
 

Bonnie

Super Member
You just explained away your own sacrament. Look how easy it is to cancel something with one's own interpretation of Scripture.
No, I did not. I have repeatedly stated on here my beliefs about the Real Presence in Communion. Did you miss that? Here is one such place:


Post 573. And there are others. Like here:


Post 299. Both these posts were in response to YOUR posts.

I cannot go into more detail as this is the Catholic board, not the Lutheran board.
 
Last edited:

RiJoRi

Well-known member
So, there are two tests, and the first has an exception:
churches, who, although they derive not their founder from apostles or apostolic men (as being of much later date, for they are in fact being founded daily), yet, since they agree in the same faith, they are accounted as not less apostolic because they are akin in doctrine.

I find this similar to the OT test of a prophet (Deut 18 & 13) which basically states that, whether or not the prophesied thing comes to pass, if the prophet says "Let us follow other gods" (false doctrine) the prophet was not sent by God . 😲

--Rich
"Esse quam videri"
 

Nondenom40

Well-known member
So, there are two tests, and the first has an exception:
churches, who, although they derive not their founder from apostles or apostolic men (as being of much later date, for they are in fact being founded daily), yet, since they agree in the same faith, they are accounted as not less apostolic because they are akin in doctrine.

I find this similar to the OT test of a prophet (Deut 18 & 13) which basically states that, whether or not the prophesied thing comes to pass, if the prophet says "Let us follow other gods" (false doctrine) the prophet was not sent by God . 😲

--Rich
"Esse quam videri"
Bingo! "Even if" this thing comes to pass and they say let us follow other gods....Sounds like the rcc with their fake eucharistic 'miracles'. They are not apostolic because their teachings are not derived from the apostles.
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
"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. :)
No wonder--he wound up breaking union with the Church, eventually becoming a heretic---edit per mod
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Nondenom40

Well-known member
No wonder--he wound up breaking union with the Church, eventually becoming a heretic---edit per mod
Thats the typical response when we cite Tertullian. But when catholics do it, hey hes a good guy right? He partially agrees with you that bishops should be able to trace their ordination. But catholics don't want to even look at the fact that teaching is also a major factor. If your teaching is off base or unbiblical then its not apostolic. Catholics can't deal with that aspect of his 'tests'.
 

Bonnie

Super Member
No wonder--he wound up breaking union with the Church, eventually becoming a heretic---edit per mod
Yes, I know he threw in his lot with the Montanists, which were a hetetical group.. But he still gave us the terminogy to describe God's three-in-oneness, which most Christians use to this day.
 
Yes to both.

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.

"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.
My dad had left the CC before I was born, but wasn't a BAC until years later. His whole family is RC so whenever I would spend a Saturday night at my cousin's house I was expected to attend Our Lady Of Fatima on Sunday with the family.
They use to say a prayer or chant to Mary at that Church and I knew it wasn't right.
I was always taught all the glory goes to our Lord and Savior..
Isaiah 42:8
8 I am the Lord, that is My name;
And My glory I will not give to another,
Nor My praise to carved images.
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
Yes, I know he threw in his lot with the Montanists, which were a hetetical group.. But he still gave us the terminogy to describe God's three-in-oneness, which most Christians use to this day.
I didn't say Tertullian didn't have his strong points and strengthens.

Luther certainly had a lot of good points, he was a great theologian, a great Scripture scholar. Just like Tertullian he had his strong points. The reforms he was supporting were good reforms that need to happen. For all we know, had he stayed in union with the Church and everything calmed down----maybe the Church would have been more receptive to talking about Faith alone and hammering out a compromise. Remember--in the initial stages, none of the powers that be really cared about it. They saw it as a debate between theologians and had no interest in getting involved. In those debates, I think the emotions running high on both sides prevented each side from hearing the other.

But like Tertullian---all of those good points were lost becasue he broke union with the Church. Had Luther remained in the Church, he may have been canonized. The work of many of our greatest saints and reformers---often goes unrecognized and even unsupported during their life times. Often times, it isn't until well after their deaths, the Church comes to recognize their greatness.

Even Aquinas was condemned during his life time. But Aquinas never broke union with the Church--and later, his brilliance became recognized--and his works became the gold standard of theology---until Vatican II. My opinion is that they still should be considered the gold standard---but Vatican II was all about presenting Church teaching in new hip, cool new ways--and Aquinas isn't hip enough to speak to a modern Church.
 
Last edited:

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
My dad had left the CC before I was born, but wasn't a BAC until years later. His whole family is RC so whenever I would spend a Saturday night at my cousin's house I was expected to attend Our Lady Of Fatima on Sunday with the family.
They use to say a prayer or chant to Mary at that Church and I knew it wasn't right.
I was always taught all the glory goes to our Lord and Savior..
Isaiah 42:8
8 I am the Lord, that is My name;
And My glory I will not give to another,
Nor My praise to carved images.
Even as a child--I never had a problem with honoring Mary. I knew the difference between her and her son. The devotions to Mary never once confused me---as to her importance vs. that of Christ.

Despite the elevated, exaggerated language of the devotions to Mary, I always knew Christ is what is truly important--and that to him alone belongs true glory, laud and honor.
 

pilgrim

Well-known member
No, I did not. I have repeatedly stated on here my beliefs about the Real Presence in Communion. Did you miss that? Here is one such place:


Post 573. And there are others. Like here:


Post 299. Both these posts were in response to YOUR posts.

I cannot go into more detail as this is the Catholic board, not the Lutheran board.
What you believe about the Eucharist Jesus didn't say. "This is My body. This is My blood" is very specific. We believe exactly as Jesus said. Your church adds to what He said. And yet you have been beating the drum against the dogmas on Mary because the verses we point out to you don't seem to spell out the teachings explicitly. How can you have it both ways?
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
Don't you refer to her as "co-redemptrix," the gate to heaven?
You are confusing two different things here.

The doctrine of "co-redemptrix" is currently a theological theory. This doctrine has neither been condemned, nor affirmed. Catholics are free, currently, to reject or believe the doctrine as they wish. Pope Francis and Pope Benedict have not spoken in favor of the doctrine, however. They both are against formally defining the doctrine.

In reading their statements, however, my personal opinion is that they are condemning caricatures of the doctrine--that is--what they are actually condemning is not the doctrine itself, but misstatements of the doctrine. In other words--I am not sure they actually know what is and is not being asserted with regard to the doctrine. That is just my opinion. Either way, currently, Catholics are free to accept or reject the doctrine as they see fit. The doctrine has the same status as the doctrine of Limbo. Though the trend of the Magesterium with regard to Limbo--has been to move away from the doctrine.

"Gate of Heaven" is a title of Mary that is completely true. Jesus joined heaven and earth in himself---and he came to earth to do this through Mary. Put simply: Jesus is heaven come to earth---but he did so by passing through Mary. So Mary is the Gate of Heaven. If she is not the Gate of Heaven, I do not know what is. This by the way is part of the doctrine of co-redemptrix. Mary is the second Eve. Her "yes" paves the way for the Second Adam. Just as the fall of humanity happened with a woman and a man, so also the redemption of humanity happens in an analogous manner. When Paul refers to Jesus as the Second Adam, implicit in that is Mary is the second Eve. If there is a Second Adam, there has to be a second Eve.

In the Old Testament, the Ark was the Gate of Heaven. It was the means by which God was present to his people. The Ark bore the presence of God on the Mercy Seat.
If so that contradicts 1 Timothy 2:5, which says, "For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus." Jesus is the Mediator. There is no mediator between man and Jesus.
Now you are conflating mediation and the title "Gate of Heaven."

1) When Scripture talks about there being one mediator between God and mankind, Scripture means between God the Father and mankind. Jesus is the mediator between God the Father and mankind. And of course this is affirmed in passages all over the New Testament. Jesus is the sole way to the Father. No one comes to the Father but by Him.

2) With, through, and in Christ, however, we are all mediators. We can all boldly approach the throne of Christ. Thus, the meditation being talked about with regard to Mary is her mediation not before the throne of the Father, but before the throne of Christ. As we are all mediators before the throne of Christ, as we can all boldly approach the throne of Grace, it is difficult to understand why Protestants have such difficulty with the idea of Mary as mediator.
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
Thats the typical response when we cite Tertullian. But when catholics do it, hey hes a good guy right? He partially agrees with you that bishops should be able to trace their ordination. But catholics don't want to even look at the fact that teaching is also a major factor. If your teaching is off base or unbiblical then its not apostolic. Catholics can't deal with that aspect of his 'tests'.
The fact that Tertullian became a heretic does not mean everything he said is now suspect. What does become suspect is his teachings after breaking union with the Church, especially with regard to his Montanist sympathies.
 

Bonnie

Super Member
What you believe about the Eucharist Jesus didn't say. "This is My body. This is My blood" is very specific. We believe exactly as Jesus said. Your church adds to what He said. And yet you have been beating the drum against the dogmas on Mary because the verses we point out to you don't seem to spell out the teachings explicitly. How can you have it both ways?
So do we. But we also believe Him when He called the contents of the cup the "fruit of the vine" AFTER He gave thanks and distributed the cup among His disciples. Don't you believe Jesus THEN?

And why cannot the bread and wine be BOTH bread and wine AND Jesus' body and blood at the same time? Jesus has two natures at the same time--why not the elements after consecration?

God gave us our senses of taste and smell. They tell us the bread and wine are still bread and wine after consecration.
What would happen if one of your priests drank ALL the communion wine after consecrating it? Would he feel the effects--or not?

NOW--As for the 4 Marian dogmas, they are NOWHERE in Scripture, not even hinted at. THAT is what this thread is about--NOT the Lord's Supper. If you want to discuss that in particular, kindly start your own thread on here about that.
 
Last edited:

pilgrim

Well-known member
So do we. But we also believe Him when He called the contents of the cup the "fruit of the vine" AFTER He gave thanks and distributed the cup among His disciples. Don't you believe Jesus THEN?

And why cannot the bread and wine be BOTH bread and wine AND Jesus' body and blood at the same time? Jesus has two natures at the same time--why not the elements after consecration?

God gave us our senses of taste and smell. They tell us the bread and wine are still bread and wine after consecration.
What would happen if one of your priests drank ALL the communion wine after consecrating it? Would he feel the effects--or not?

NOW--As for the 4 Marian dogmas, they are NOWHERE in Scripture, not even hinted at. THAT is what this thread is about--NOT the Lord's Supper. If you want to discuss that in particular, kindly start your own thread on here about that.
Our senses don't help much in matters of faith. In fact they can be a hindrance.
 
Top