Question for Catholics about the 4 Marian dogmas

Buzzard

Well-known member
Our senses don't help much in matters of faith. In fact they can be a hindrance.
Pilgrim;
do you never open a Bible ????????????????

Song of Solomon
The song of songs, which is Solomon's.

2 Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth:
(kisses = words of affection)
for thy love is better than wine.

3 Because of the savour of thy good ointments
thy name is as ointment poured forth,
therefore do the virgins love thee​
.​
 

romishpopishorganist

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?
You prove too much in such a case Bonnie. You not only disprove the Catholic position, you disprove the Lutheran position.

If "fruit of the vine" refers to what is in the cup--namely---wine----then it turns out we both got it wrong and the Baptists got it right. Thus the solution is to either reform our theologies of the Eucharist---or leave our sects.
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?
Because you just said it yourself: "fruit of the vine= wine." That means it is a symbol, not both and.
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?
He would likely get drunk. But the Eucharist is not magic, Bonnie. Catholics have always maintained that the physical attributes of bread and wine remain--hence--why a priest would get drunk if he drank too much.

The change takes place in the SUBSTANCE of the bread and wine, not the APPEARENCES. Your objection above shows you do not understand Transubstantiation.
NOW--As for the 4 Marian dogmas, they are NOWHERE in Scripture, not even hinted at.
edit per mod-off topic
 
Last edited by a moderator:

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
Pilgrim;
do you never open a Bible ????????????????

Song of Solomon

The song of songs, which is Solomon's.


2 Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth:

(kisses = words of affection)

for thy love is better than wine.


3 Because of the savour of thy good ointments

thy name is as ointment poured forth,

therefore do the virgins love thee

.​
What is your point?
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
Great question! And by the way the priests I know drink, I'll bet it's happened. Trust me, I've seen some pretty drunk priests at family get togethers.
What is so great about it? What do you THINK would happen?

The priest would get drunk. Catholics have never suggested that the Eucharist is magic.
 

Buzzard

Well-known member
pilgrim said:
Our senses don't help much in matters of faith. In fact they can be a hindrance.
Pilgrim;
do you never open a Bible ????????????????

Song of Solomon

The song of songs, which is Solomon's.

2 Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth:
(kisses = words of affection)
for thy love is better than wine.

3 Because of the savour of thy good ointments
thy name is as ointment poured forth,
therefore do the virgins love thee

What is your point?
Paul speaks to the Bride
Would to God ye could bear with me a little in my folly: and indeed bear with me.​
2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy:​
for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.​
3 But I fear, lest by any means,​
as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty,​
so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.​
4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached,​
or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received,​
or another gospel, which ye have not accepted,​
ye might well bear with him.​
preacheth another Jesus
and the ole Whore and the harlots do just that
and they scoff at the Bride saying

Song of Solomon​
What (why) is thy beloved more than another beloved,
(Bridegroom)
O thou fairest among women?
what is thy beloved more than another beloved,
that thou dost so charge us?
as Peter says
"be always willing (and Able) to give an answer
to those that ask"
 
Last edited:

mica

Well-known member
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--
your beliefs and posts make it clear that the rcc is more important to you than Christ is.

and that to him alone belongs true glory, laud and honor.
that's not what your words (beliefs) claim.
 

balshan

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"
Well RCs have a problem because what they are taught is not akin in doctrine.
 

balshan

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'.
That is typical they have the same attitude to Luther. They seem double minded on these men. It is always better not to follow men.
 

balshan

Well-known member
What is so great about it? What do you THINK would happen?

The priest would get drunk. Catholics have never suggested that the Eucharist is magic.
Really. It is not magic. You wouldn't know that from what RC posts. I mean doesn't each sacrament give an RC grace? In good catholic states:

The Catechism lists three principal fruits of Holy Communion:

  1. Holy Communion augments (or deepens, increases) our union with Christ
  2. Holy Communion separates us from sin
  3. Holy Communion strengthens our charity
If it did these things it would be a miracle because then RCs would come out being very holy indeed. Of course these things do not happen, just look at the examples of your leadership.
 

Bonnie

Super Member
Our senses don't help much in matters of faith. In fact they can be a hindrance.
God gave us our senses. Don't you think He expects us to use them?

Jesus still called the cup of wine AFTER He gave thanks for it, and gave it to His disciples to drink the "fruit of the vine." He did NOT say He would not drink His blood with them again until He drank it new in His Father's Kingdom.

Did He?
 

Bonnie

Super Member
Look Romish, if you want me to go into more depth about what my church believes about Holy Communion we will need to take it to the Lutheran board, because you have a lot of misconceptions about what we believe about it. I already flagged your post and asked mods to move it to that board.

Until then, you can read my beliefs about Communion here, post no. 299.

 
Last edited:

RiJoRi

Well-known member
Of course they do Bonnie. They get to drink the big chalice of wine. ;)
Oh, my. I just remembered that the laity had to be fasting before we took communion. I suppose that went for the priest as well. So there was nothing in the stomach to slow down the absorption of the alcohol, except a small piece of wafer. And maybe (I don't remember) the wine got watered down when the chalice was cleansed afterward?

--Rich
 

Nondenom40

Well-known member
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.

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.
The doctrine of "co-redemptrix" is currently a theological theory.

How many redeemers does the bible say there are? I know of only one. And its not mary.

"Gate of Heaven" is a title of Mary that is completely true.

And yet like all titles and powers given to her by your church, not a shred of evidence from the bible even remotely indicating such. Just another attempt to elevate a creature.

Mary is the second Eve. Her "yes" paves the way for the Second Adam.

Mary is never called the second eve. Her 'yes' was in response to being told what she would do. She was a faithful bond slave.

Just as the fall of humanity happened with a woman and a man, so also the redemption of humanity happens in an analogous manner

You need to re-read Romans 5.

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.

Paul calls Jesus the second man in 1 Cor 15. No mention of mary. Thats you inserting more of your rc theology into the text.

With, through, and in Christ, however, we are all mediators......it is difficult to understand why Protestants have such difficulty with the idea of Mary as mediator.

If we were all mediators the bible would say we were. It doesn't. There is one mediator. That word is used in the n.t. for Jesus alone. The one reference in Gal 3 is regarding Moses which is o.t. not n.t. We aren't mediators. We have such a hard time with it because its nowhere to be found in the bible. We can pray, intercede, petition....but nowhere are we called mediators.
 

balshan

Well-known member
How many redeemers does the bible say there are? I know of only one. And its not mary.



And yet like all titles and powers given to her by your church, not a shred of evidence from the bible even remotely indicating such. Just another attempt to elevate a creature.



Mary is never called the second eve. Her 'yes' was in response to being told what she would do. She was a faithful bond slave.



You need to re-read Romans 5.



Paul calls Jesus the second man in 1 Cor 15. No mention of mary. Thats you inserting more of your rc theology into the text.



If we were all mediators the bible would say we were. It doesn't. There is one mediator. That word is used in the n.t. for Jesus alone. The one reference in Gal 3 is regarding Moses which is o.t. not n.t. We aren't mediators. We have such a hard time with it because its nowhere to be found in the bible. We can pray, intercede, petition....but nowhere are we called mediators.
The RC false claims about Mary get more and more absurd, how many more will they come up with. None of them are scriptural. The RCC Mary could well be gates but it is not to heaven.
 

pilgrim

Well-known member
How many redeemers does the bible say there are? I know of only one. And its not mary.



And yet like all titles and powers given to her by your church, not a shred of evidence from the bible even remotely indicating such. Just another attempt to elevate a creature.



Mary is never called the second eve. Her 'yes' was in response to being told what she would do. She was a faithful bond slave.



You need to re-read Romans 5.



Paul calls Jesus the second man in 1 Cor 15. No mention of mary. Thats you inserting more of your rc theology into the text.



If we were all mediators the bible would say we were. It doesn't. There is one mediator. That word is used in the n.t. for Jesus alone. The one reference in Gal 3 is regarding Moses which is o.t. not n.t. We aren't mediators. We have such a hard time with it because its nowhere to be found in the bible. We can pray, intercede, petition....but nowhere are we called mediators.
For a comparison, do protestants believe that spouses "co-create" new life when they conceive a child? Or is that the wrong thing to say since only God is Creator?
 
Top