Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: papertyger
First, I wasn't insulting Mary. And you don't need to quote scripture to me, I already know what verse you will quote. Yes, she was "blessed" in the sense that God found favor with her and she agreed to bear the Messiah. This is wonderful, and I have no doubt the Lord's mother was a wonderful and girl and woman and did the Lord's will in bearing and raising her son. I can't imagine her pain, at the cross. I am not attacking or insulting the Lord's mother, but I am arguing that the Catholic notion of Mary is far beyond what and who Mary really was, and that most of Catholic doctrine about her is a later invention. (And virtually no modern translation translates Gabriel's words to her as "full of grace", either.)

But after Mary's death there is nothing in scripture (the words of the apostles or their followers), or early church tradition, or the writings of the earliest church fathers to indicate in any way that she was "assumed" into heaven, or that she was granted some special place in heaven or special status (co-redemptrix, queen of heaven, distributor of "graces", etc). Now, I am not opposed to these notions completely, if there were some basis for any of it, but in my own search I find no basis for any of it.

Luther's "Here I Stand" defense was based upon his conscience, reason, and scripture, and for myself it comes down to the same three things. Scripture and the early church father's writings make no case for the Catholic claims about Mary, reason tells me that this is because there was no special status (apart from being honored as the Lord's mother - there's a big gap between honoring or venerating her for her cooperation with the Lord, and praying to her). In good conscience, then, I could not join the Catholic Church and accept their doctrines which I believe to be invented. That's not an insult, but if you take it that way, then I'm afraid there's nothing I can do about that.

128 posted on 04/20/2008 8:26:05 AM PDT by Boagenes (I'm your huckleberry, that's just my game.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies ]


To: Boagenes
First, I wasn't insulting Mary.

I never thought you were; I think you are insulting Catholics that accept the Church's teaching and reasoning for the Marian dogmas.

And you don't need to quote scripture to me, I already know what verse you will quote.

The Proverbs tell us answering a matter before hearing it is shame and folly.

That is not the Scripture I was going to quote, but even so, your comment:

Yes, she was "blessed" in the sense that God found favor with her and she agreed to bear the Messiah. This is wonderful, and I have no doubt the Lord's mother was a wonderful and girl and woman and did the Lord's will in bearing and raising her son. I can't imagine her pain, at the cross. I am not attacking or insulting the Lord's mother, but I am arguing that the Catholic notion of Mary is far beyond what and who Mary really was, and that most of Catholic doctrine about her is a later invention.
shows you either have only the barest awareness of Catholic teaching on the matter, or are determined to find reason to undermine the teaching.

(And virtually no modern translation translates Gabriel's words to her as "full of grace", either.)

Why is that significant? I thought "older was better" in previous argumentation?

But after Mary's death there is nothing in scripture (the words of the apostles or their followers), or early church tradition, or the writings of the earliest church fathers to indicate in any way that she was "assumed" into heaven...

Not so. It is at least debatable that Mary is the woman of Rev 12. Furthermore, this woman is not referred to as a "soul" like the martyrs crying out to God.

You may not find such things convincing, but they are certainly not "nothing."

Now, I am not opposed to these notions completely, if there were some basis for any of it, but in my own search I find no basis for any of it.

What Catholic sources have you availed yourself of?

In good conscience, then, I could not join the Catholic Church and accept their doctrines which I believe to be invented. That's not an insult, but if you take it that way, then I'm afraid there's nothing I can do about that.

You are familiar with the "New Eve" and "New Ark of the Covenant" teachings? My understanding is much of it comes from Irenieus (sp?) in the second century.

135 posted on 04/20/2008 9:10:00 AM PDT by papertyger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson