Is it wrong to honor the Virgin Mary? (evolution, priest, Solomon)

[Alt Thinker]

Originally Posted by steeps

STILL, The greatest division between simpler non-Liturgical Churches and Catholicism and Anglican somewhere in between ? Is Mariology, especially Mary as Co-Redemptrix and Her Assumption as Sacred Tradition teaches, with also Immaculate Conception, though that is the lessor of the 3 to argue over and Veneration. When the dead become declared Intercessors, whether Mary or declared Beautified Saints? Is it Validated anywhere in Scripture? Other then Christ, clearly called such and ONLY in Scripture?
The ultimate question is, lacking Sacred Traditions? Basically meaning accepted truths not found in Scripture? Are they Necessary to have True Faith and Salvation? Did not God give us all sufficient truths necessary? To Know him, and He know us? In the final Spiritually assembled Bible we have completed? Apparently LDS Christians say no. Adding the Book of Mormon and Catholicism also with added Sacred Traditions, that are then part of Truth, Faith and Salvation? Being not merely traditions for a Worship Service we assemble for. But as if part of the Bible now.
Could that mean there is more left to add? No Church added the so called, left out Gospels? But a large part of Christianity did see the Apocryphal as not sacred scripture. But don't deny it as truths.

There are various other Catholic traditions about Mary. These are not Articles of Faith and no Catholic is under any obligation to believe them. One is that praying to Mary to intercede with Jesus makes good sense because he would find it harder to refuse his mother. Another - and this one is quite clever - is that when Jesus rose from the dead, the reason they found the tomb empty and Jesus gone is that he first went to tell his heartbroken mother that he was OK. Like I said nobody is required to believe these things.

[steeps]

Originally Posted by Alt Thinker

There are various other Catholic traditions about Mary. These are not Articles of Faith and no Catholic is under any obligation to believe them. One is that praying to Mary to intercede with Jesus makes good sense because he would find it harder to refuse his mother. Another - and this one is quite clever - is that when Jesus rose from the dead, the reason they found the tomb empty and Jesus gone is that he first went to tell his heartbroken mother that he was OK. Like I said nobody is required to believe these things.

Yes I know? The Rosary is less an less prevalent among the young? As far as NOT REQUIRED TO BELIEVE? AS A BAPTISED CATHOLIC WHO HAD CONFIRMATION AND CONFESSIONS? SURELY YOU DONT SAY YOU CAN BE NO BETTER THEN A PROTESANT? BELIEVE WHAT YOU WANT IN CATHOLICISM?

---It is just no requirement-TO MUST DO THE ROSARY? But BELIEVE ALL SACRED TRADITION ON MARY??YES OF COURSE

Also the tomb empty has nothing to do with SACRED TRADITION ON MARY?? HER ASSUMPTION? EVER VIIRGINITY? SO JOSEPH HAD TO BE CELIBATE? MARY AS Intercessor to Jesus WHO IS STILL CALLED GOD. MOTHER OF GOD. ARE....AS SACED TRADITION????A CATHOLIC MUST BELIEVE.
Still my Bible says Jesus is the ONLY MEDIATOR TO GOD. It don't in scripture open the door in even prophecy to? ANY ONE ELSE??

[Alt Thinker]

Originally Posted by steeps

Yes I know? The Rosary is less an less prevalent among the young? As far as NOT REQUIRED TO BELIEVE? AS A BAPTISED CATHOLIC WHO HAD CONFIRMATION AND CONFESSIONS? SURELY YOU DONT SAY YOU CAN BE NO BETTER THEN A PROTESANT? BELIEVE WHAT YOU WANT IN CATHOLICISM?

---It is just no requirement-TO MUST DO THE ROSARY? But BELIEVE ALL SACRED TRADITION ON MARY??YES OF COURSE

Also the tomb empty has nothing to do with SACRED TRADITION ON MARY?? HER ASSUMPTION? EVER VIIRGINITY? SO JOSEPH HAD TO BE CELIBATE? MARY AS Intercessor to Jesus WHO IS STILL CALLED GOD. MOTHER OF GOD. ARE....AS SACED TRADITION????A CATHOLIC MUST BELIEVE.
Still my Bible says Jesus is the ONLY MEDIATOR TO GOD. It don't in scripture open the door in even prophecy to? ANY ONE ELSE??

There are specific doctrines and articles of faith that Catholics are required to believe. But they are not required to believe every story that makes the rounds. Please read posts carefully before commenting. Especially in CAPS.

[steeps]

Originally Posted by Alt Thinker

There are specific doctrines and articles of faith that Catholics are required to believe. But they are not required to believe every story that makes the rounds. Please read posts carefully before commenting. Especially in CAPS.

I merely point out Catholics say it is Protestants that believe what they want even with no central authority? The fact teachings of Mary, mother of Jesus from her ASSUMPTION to EMMACULATE CONCEPTION or belief she remained after Jesus birth a virgin to Joseph? Being they are direct teachings for centuries by Authority of Church Hierarchy as SACRED TRADITION. Would they truly still be of good standing, living their Faith of a Christian in Catholicism? If they believed and told others, they deny Mary's Assumption and being a Ever Virgin?
Perhaps in name and membership by Baptism and Confirmation, yes? But to deny SACRED TRADITION? To me would be protesting as Protestants deny? Just seems someone denying Sacred Tradition as if a mere option? Would be a form of disobedience then?
As a Protestant , for membership of the Church past Baptism and some basic articles of Faith professed? I can question some common teachings understood as by faith, are truths taught ? Like perhaps a coming Rapture of saints or Jesus literal return to the earth for a Millennial Reign 1000 years. Yes I could? But at some point my unity with them is questionable I'd say? You could say I lack the CENTRAL AUTHORITY that's why? But Catholicism claims full Central Authority? They proclaim Sacred Tradition is Sacred Truths?
Do you believe Sacred Tradition on Mary I mentioned, for centuries taught? Is as merely a story that made the rounds? As you called it then?
Sorry if I ruffled feathers

[Alt Thinker]

Originally Posted by steeps

I merely point out Catholics say it is Protestants that believe what they want even with no central authority? The fact teachings of Mary, mother of Jesus from her ASSUMPTION to EMMACULATE CONCEPTION or belief she remained after Jesus birth a virgin to Joseph? Being they are direct teachings for centuries by Authority of Church Hierarchy as SACRED TRADITION. Would they truly still be of good standing, living their Faith of a Christian in Catholicism? If they believed and told others, they deny Mary's Assumption and being a Ever Virgin?
Perhaps in name and membership by Baptism and Confirmation, yes? But to deny SACRED TRADITION? To me would be protesting as Protestants deny? Just seems someone denying Sacred Tradition as if a mere option? Would be a form of disobedience then?
As a Protestant , for membership of the Church past Baptism and some basic articles of Faith professed? I can question some common teachings understood as by faith, are truths taught ? Like perhaps a coming Rapture of saints or Jesus literal return to the earth for a Millennial Reign 1000 years. Yes I could? But at some point my unity with them is questionable I'd say? You could say I lack the CENTRAL AUTHORITY that's why? But Catholicism claims full Central Authority? They proclaim Sacred Tradition is Sacred Truths?
Do you believe Sacred Tradition on Mary I mentioned, for centuries taught? Is as merely a story that made the rounds? As you called it then?
Sorry if I ruffled feathers

There are Four Marian Dogmas that are Articles of Faith and are to be accepted by all Roman Catholics. There are some additional teachings concerning Mary but these have not been made formal Articles of Faith, despite being mentioned by several Popes. These include Cooperation in the Redemption and Mediatrix of All Graces. There is a fine line between mandatory Article of Faith declared ex cathedra and a teaching stated by a Pope.

Then there are just stories, like Jesus first went to visit his mother after the Resurrection. Or that on the trip to Egypt, a sick baby was bathed in the same water that Mary had used for the infant Jesus and the sick baby was cured. There is no requirement to believe any of those 'just stories' like the last two.

[steeps]

Originally Posted by Alt Thinker

There are Four Marian Dogmas that are Articles of Faith and are to be accepted by all Roman Catholics. There are some additional teachings concerning Mary but these have not been made formal Articles of Faith, despite being mentioned by several Popes. These include Cooperation in the Redemption and Mediatrix of All Graces. There is a fine line between mandatory Article of Faith declared ex cathedra and a teaching stated by a Pope. Then there are just stories, like Jesus first went to visit his mother after the Resurrection. Or that on the trip to Egypt, a sick baby was bathed in the same water that Mary had used for the infant Jesus and the sick baby was cured. There is no requirement to believe any of those 'just stories' like the last two.

Thanks for replying. I fully respect your knowledge on all aspects of faith in Catholicism. My father was Catholic. But I was not raised in that Church. Though I knew Sacred Tradition on Mary, had to be part of mandatory Articles of Faith as its called. Your other post seemed to say maybe not that required? You didn't say above? It is,but I think you infer it is a yes for... the Assumption and Emmaculate Conception for Catholics?
But Catholics do generally believe traditions in the Faith are? Like no meat on Friday was for centuries and confession before Priest weekly, then monthly, now at least yearly. I know Catholics who sincerely felt sinning if the ate meat any Friday. The tradition was just so presumed as required. I knew those who would never set foot in Protestant Church even for a wedding ? The taint of perceived sinning was so strong from traditional teachings alone. My Italian neighbor, who was my God Mother. Though my Baptism was in a Orthodox Church, she partook. But for my wedding in a Protestant one. She said. She could not attend.
Also my Cousin who married 20 some years ago. Did not want to take a rose to honor Mary, when the statue was up front in her Church. (now the Mary statues seem to be elsewhere in the Church)? The Priest said she must though, or no wedding. My wife was to be her Maid of Honor. She was again told she could not as a non-Catholic. Her wedding was in one of the last in 3 Consolidated Churches closed. In my state of PA 1/3 of Catholic Churches were closed. To make things even more stressed. The Priest told us of course we should not partake in Communion during the wedding. But added if we came up he would act as he didn't know? My Fathers Church was one closed. Though originally not supposed to be? The Diocese sold it for $71.000.to Moslems to make into a Mosque. Today its basically abandoned.

I surely understand you know Catholicism in detail. But most Catholic's. Ant least older ones, did accept all the "just stories" traditional aspects in the Faith, as truths not to be questioned.

Also, my Father being divorced after a couple months before my mother. Lost years in the Church. He was not happy my mother chose a Protestant Church to take us to as children. Till one Sunday he partook in their Communion service. From that day on he could not deny that Church.

[godofthunder9010]

Originally Posted by Alt Thinker

There are Four Marian Dogmas that are Articles of Faith and are to be accepted by all Roman Catholics. There are some additional teachings concerning Mary but these have not been made formal Articles of Faith, despite being mentioned by several Popes. These include Cooperation in the Redemption and Mediatrix of All Graces. There is a fine line between mandatory Article of Faith declared ex cathedra and a teaching stated by a Pope.

Then there are just stories, like Jesus first went to visit his mother after the Resurrection. Or that on the trip to Egypt, a sick baby was bathed in the same water that Mary had used for the infant Jesus and the sick baby was cured. There is no requirement to believe any of those 'just stories' like the last two.

By all means, correct me if I'm wrong on any of these, but the four dogmas that all Catholics must accept are:

1) Divine Motherhood - That Mary was not just a surrogate but was the actual mother of Christ.
2) Perpetual Virginity - Mary was a virgin for the rest of her life.
3) Immaculate Conception - That Mary was conceived in born in a miraculous manner that kept her free from the stain of original sin.
4) The Assumption - Rather than dying like the rest of us, Mary was taken up into heaven, something similar to Elijah from what I've read.

Resposne:
1.) Some Protestants will disagree, but I've got no problem with it.
2.) Nobody who actually knew or interacted with Mary makes any such claim or even hints at this notion of perpetual virginity. This is a case of paganism rewriting Christian doctrine. In Rome, Vestal Virgins were tremendously important. Claiming that Mary was a perpetual virgin would have helped all who respected and revered Vestal Virgins to better connect with the Christian message. There is so much wrong with this dogma it's just crazy. A married Jewish woman refusing to raise up posterity in Israel? Refusing to multiply and replenish the earth? There is no Jewish tradition of sacred virgins. None. Mary's perpetual virginity would have resulted in significant public ridicule. So in order to accept the perpetual virginity of Mary, one must accept that she lived in direct violation to the Law (which was still in effect), and therefore sinned against God's Law. Then you must also get creative when the Biblical record mentions Jesus' brothers and sisters.
3.) There is no reason to infer that there was anything special about Mary's conception and birth. She appears to have been a Jewish girl of not great significance living in a Jewish town of no great significance. Again, if this concept were true then somebody would have mentioned it somewhere in the New Testament -- probably several someones in several places actually. But the NT never says anything about it.
4.) This one is about as made up as you get. If Mary had been taken up into heaven, then that is a very significant event. One of the apostles or other New Testament writers would have mentioned it. There is no conceivable way they would have missed it.

I've got no problem respecting Mary. I've got no problem honoring her. But IMHO, the real Mary is being disrespected via all the completely made up myths that the RCC has invented about her over the centuries. It is far more impressive to me to realize that Mary was just an ordinary woman who did so many extraordinary things.

[Alt Thinker]

Originally Posted by steeps

Thanks for replying. I fully respect your knowledge on all aspects of faith in Catholicism. My father was Catholic. But I was not raised in that Church. Though I knew Sacred Tradition on Mary, had to be part of mandatory Articles of Faith as its called. Your other post seemed to say maybe not that required? You didn't say above? It is,but I think you infer it is a yes for... the Assumption and Emmaculate Conception for Catholics?
But Catholics do generally believe traditions in the Faith are? Like no meat on Friday was for centuries and confession before Priest weekly, then monthly, now at least yearly. I know Catholics who sincerely felt sinning if the ate meat any Friday. The tradition was just so presumed as required. I knew those who would never set foot in Protestant Church even for a wedding ? The taint of perceived sinning was so strong from traditional teachings alone. My Italian neighbor, who was my God Mother. Though my Baptism was in a Orthodox Church, she partook. But for my wedding in a Protestant one. She said. She could not attend.
Also me Cousin who married 20 some years ago. Did not want to take a rose to honor Mary, when the statue was up front in her Church. (now the Mary statues seem to be elsewhere in the Church)? The Priest said she must though, or no wedding. My wife was to be her Maid of Honor. She was again told she could not as a non-Catholic. Her wedding was in one of the last in 3 Consolidated Churches closed. In my state of PA 1/3 of Catholic Churches were closed. To make things even more stressed. The Priest told us of course we should not partake in Communion during the wedding. But added if we came up he would act as he didn't know? My Fathers Church was one closed. Though originally not supposed to be? The Diocese sold it for $71.000.to Moslems to make into a Mosque. Today its basically abandoned.

I surely understand you know Catholicism in detail. But most Catholic's. Ant least older ones, did accept all the "just stories" traditional aspects in the Faith, as truths not to be questioned.

The Immaculate Conception and the Assumption are mandatory Articles of Faith declared as such ex cathedra. So are Mary as the Mother of God and Perpetual Virginity. These Four Marian Dogmas must be believed by Roman Catholics. As mentioned above there are other teachings about Mary that are not strictly speaking required beliefs. But I would advise any Catholic against publicly denying them since Popes have stated them – but NOT ex cathedra. There are Catholics who believe all sorts of other stories about Mary and get quite upset if anyone contradicts them. But they do not have any Church authority behind them.

In addition to dogmas, there are also practices that can be changed by the appropriate authority. Eating meat on any Friday used to be forbidden. But local archbishops had the authority to suspend the requirement for suitable occasions, e.g., the day after Thanksgiving, which will always be a Friday. When I was young, our Archbishop was petitioned each year to do that but he always refused. Currently eating meat is only forbidden on Fridays in Lent and Ash Wednesday. But most Catholics are not aware (or choose to ‘forget’) that eating meat on other Fridays requires that some other act of penance be performed.

There is no obligation for all of the wedding party to be Catholic. However the Best Man and Maid of Honor must be Catholic since they are considered participants in the ceremony. And there is no
rule about roses and Mary. This was just a priest saying, “My church, my rules”. Which he can get away with. Tradition has it that the marriage takes place in the bride’s church but it is not mandatory.

This was a Wedding Mass, I presume. Otherwise there would be no communion. For non-Catholic Christians to receive communion requires the prior permission of the bishop of the diocese. So the priest was willing to bend the rules, probably to avoid embarrassing questions about why certain people did not receive communion.

Orthodox churches are Catholic and so a great deal of cross participation is allowed. But there is no official Roman Catholic rule against going to a Protestant church for a wedding as long as one does not participate in a religious manner, e.g., receive communion. I am not sure of Orthodox Church rules.

Catholic churches are getting closed and their parishioners consolidated into other churches quite often. There are just not that many Catholics left in the old parishes. The Catholic churches I know of typically have one mass on Saturday evening and one or two more Sunday morning. Judging by the parking lots, attendance levels are respectable but not overwhelming. By contrast in the mid-1960s, the church in the parish I grew up in had two masses Saturday evening, eight on Sunday morning (the last actually at 12:15) and one more on Sunday evening. The Sunday morning lineup included two 10 AM masses, one in the church and a ‘folk mass’ in the school auditorium. 11 AM was an elaborate High Mass (sung). I never went to the 6 AM or 7 AM masses, but all of the others were heavily attended. 12:15 was standing room only.

[janelle144]

The small laws like no meat on Fridays and not eating so many hours before communion can be changed like the small civil laws we observed in all walks of life.

The law about voting age was changed and driving age and we had to observe them. No big deal. Same with the church.

The church laws that cannot change are the doctrines. Who is Jesus and how He came to earth to bring us salvation, etc.

[Alt Thinker]

Originally Posted by godofthunder9010

By all means, correct me if I'm wrong on any of these, but the four dogmas that all Catholics must accept are:

Response:
1.) Some Protestants will disagree, but I've got no problem with it.

The dogma that Mary is the Mother of God simply means that Mary is the sole author of the physical form of Jesus. (Assuming Jesus is God of course. And also a miraculous chromosome modification.) This is tied into the concept of Jesus being fully human and simultaneously fully divine. This is as opposed to several heresies, especially Docetism, which said that Jesus only appeared to be physical but was really a sprit clothed in illusion.

2.) Nobody who actually knew or interacted with Mary makes any such claim or even hints at this notion of perpetual virginity. This is a case of paganism rewriting Christian doctrine. In Rome, Vestal Virgins were tremendously important. Claiming that Mary was a perpetual virgin would have helped all who respected and revered Vestal Virgins to better connect with the Christian message. There is so much wrong with this dogma it's just crazy. A married Jewish woman refusing to raise up posterity in Israel? Refusing to multiply and replenish the earth? There is no Jewish tradition of sacred virgins. None. Mary's perpetual virginity would have resulted in significant public ridicule. So in order to accept the perpetual virginity of Mary, one must accept that she lived in direct violation to the Law (which was still in effect), and therefore sinned against God's Law. Then you must also get creative when the Biblical record mentions Jesus' brothers and sisters.

First recall that the sources of Catholic beliefs are not limited to canonical scriptures but also include documented traditions. The Protoevangelium of James, a non-canonical 2nd century work, is very explicit about Mary being a virgin before, during and after the birth of Jesus. That birth is held to have been without pain, since the pain of childbirth is one of the effects of Original Sin, which Mary was not subject to. The brothers and sisters of Jesus were the children of Joseph from a previous marriage.

Stepping outside of Catholic viewpoint now and assuming my own: Matthew’s story of Mary being a virgin arises from merging several influences: the already existing tradition of calling Jesus ‘Son of God’ that Matthew makes literal, the use of the word parthenos (virgin) in the Greek Septuagint version of scriptures that Matthew used, the tradition of the Messiah as coming down from heaven as per Daniel 7, and last but not least Philo’s On the Cherubim, which talks of women conceiving certain important figures in Jewish history by the power of God. Philo also talks about virginity and contact with God.

3.) There is no reason to infer that there was anything special about Mary's conception and birth. She appears to have been a Jewish girl of not great significance living in a Jewish town of no great significance. Again, if this concept were true then somebody would have mentioned it somewhere in the New Testament -- probably several someones in several places actually. But the NT never says anything about it.

The Immaculate conception did not become an official dogma until the 19th century. There are references to Mary being sinless as early as the 4th century (Ref) but it is unclear whether any of those references imagined freedom from Original Sin. But leading a sinless life as was claimed in those early would seem to suggest not being under the influence of Original Sin. Again, Catholic sources ae not limited to canonical scripture. In Luke, Gabriel addressing Mary as ‘full of grace” is taken to imply this. Mary’s reference to a Redeemer is taken to mean she was already deemed of Original Sin. As with various other concepts, a tradition is found to be justifiable by interpretation of scripture.

4.) This one is about as made up as you get. If Mary had been taken up into heaven, then that is a very significant event. One of the apostles or other New Testament writers would have mentioned it. There is no conceivable way they would have missed it.

The Assumption did not become official dogma until 1950. I remember hearing about it when I was a kid and was mystified by it. Again there are traditions going back to the 4th century. (Ref)

I've got no problem respecting Mary. I've got no problem honoring her. But IMHO, the real Mary is being disrespected via all the completely made up myths that the RCC has invented about her over the centuries. It is far more impressive to me to realize that Mary was just an ordinary woman who did so many extraordinary things.

Mary gave birth to a baby and raised him. She once called him crazy. She nagged him into performing a miracle when he was not ready. She mourned at his death and went to his tomb to perform the rituals for the dead. A typical mother and there is nothing wrong with that. But what were the extraordinary things she did? (Other than that mothers are often extraordinary of course.) Perhaps the absence of the extraordinary once Jesus was born in someone so important to the story was the impetus behind the dogmas, teachings and ‘just stories’.