Biblical evidence for the Assumption, Coronation, and Immaculate Conception of Mary?
#21
There's plenty of Scripture that applies to these things, as several people have already posted, starting with Genesis 3:15, but only when properly interpreted. Plenty of the Church Fathers, not to mention the liturgy, apply many verses to our Lady and show how she's the new Eve, but Protestants are just going to disagree with those interpretations since the Bible doesn't explictly teach any of them. Of course, it does say that Jesus taught many other things that weren't written down.

It's fine to ask such a question, but to Catholics, particularly traditional Catholics, the question does seem rather Protestant. The correct answer to a Protestant asking "Where is that in the Bible?" is "Where in the Bible does it say what constitutes 'the Bible'?" We believe that there are a particular 73 books in the Bible because the Church says so, we believe that Mary was assumed into heaven because Pope Pius XII declared it to be a dogma of the Church, and we believe he's right because Vatican I said the Pope is infallible in certain circumstances, and the declaration of the Assumption meets the criteria. And we believe Vatican I was right about papal infallibility because Jesus promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church.

People love to be sceptical of authority these days, and often with good reason. But if you asked a question about quantum mechanics, and the reply linked to some articles written by physicists, is that a fallacious appeal to authority, or just recognising that people who have studied a particular field for decades of their lives probably know what they're talking about? Except if you reject those articles, the same people who tell you to question the Church are going to call you 'anti-science' for doing so.

Except, when it comes to the Church, 'because it says so' really is a good reason to accept it. The authority of the Church comes from God, and we know that God is truth. He cannot lie to us. So once one accepts that Jesus is who He said He is, and that He founded the Catholic Church, then 'because Pope Pius XII said so' really means 'because God wouldn't have let him say it if it weren't true', and you trust God. When the authority is God, then, yes, 'because God says so' is enough.
[-] The following 4 users Like Paul's post:
  • Alphonse il Segundo, antiquarian, jovan66102, MagisterMusicae
Reply
#22
(09-02-2019, 03:23 PM)Florus Wrote: There are plenty of verses that support these dogmas but it's not like you're going to find everything plainly spelled out in the Bible.

I think this is a point that is well worth repeating.  Lots of dogmas aren't clearly explained in the Bible, even though they are there.  One won't find a clear explanation of the Trinity, the Incarnation, Redemption, etc., even though numerous verses discuss these dogmas and are used by the Church to explain them.  I've also found significant differences among those Protestants who think everything needs to be explicitly explained by Scripture.  Do we need to baptize infants or only adults?  If adults only, what is an "adult"?  I doubt in the New Testament era it meant the same as today.  While on that question, I've met Protestants who disagree with what baptism even does.  A symbol of rebirth or more, like regeneration?  The more you delve into Sola Scriptura, the more problematic it becomes, as the Protestants seldom seem to agree on what Scripture teaches.

(09-02-2019, 03:37 PM)Paul Wrote: People love to be sceptical of authority these days, and often with good reason. But if you asked a question about quantum mechanics, and the reply linked to some articles written by physicists, is that a fallacious appeal to authority, or just recognising that people who have studied a particular field for decades of their lives probably know what they're talking about? Except if you reject those articles, the same people who tell you to question the Church are going to call you 'anti-science' for doing so.

Indeed.  Appeals to authority aren't always fallacious.  When various experts are in agreement about something, it isn't fallacious to point that out.  Applied to the Church, we can see that appealing to what the Church has consistently taught over the centuries and found in magisterial documents, catechisms, the writings of the Church fathers, respected theologians, etc., isn't a fallacious appeal to authority.
"For the true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries nor innovators, but traditionalists."
- Pope St. Pius X

"For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables."
- 2 Timothy 4:3-4

"Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying: That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity."
- 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12
[-] The following 4 users Like SeekerofChrist's post:
  • Alphonse il Segundo, antiquarian, Florus, MagisterMusicae
Reply
#23
(09-02-2019, 07:21 AM)Porkncheese Wrote: I know the doubts you have because I did as well. I'll go through the Marian dogmas and doctrines and we'll see how much is backed up by scripture.

Except what you have expressed are not "doubts" but your rejection of Catholic Truth. That is not at all the same.

A doubt is where the mind hesitates to accept the truth of a statement because it finds weighty evidence to both accept and reject the conclusion. It cannot see the truth of either, so it does not decide. One has doubts when one cannot decide. It is no longer a doubt when one has taken a position. To have doubts and seek to solve them is fine. To call errors "doubts" to allow one to hold these is not. The latter are not doubts.

What you express here is personal opinion about Scripture and Catholic dogma, not doubts. Hence erroneous, and objectively heretical (since you call into question defined dogmas of the Church) which in order to have the Faith you must accept, such as the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, the Assumption, the Immaculate Conception and her intercessory power.

(09-02-2019, 07:21 AM)Porkncheese Wrote: - The assumption. I could never find anything in the bible to support this.

Since it happened after Our Lord's Ascension it won't be in the Gospels. This notion also treats Scripture as the basis for Faith in the typical Protestant concept, that if it's not in Scripture it cannot be true, and yet where does one find the Canon of Scripture in Scripture? Yet no one doubts that St John wrote the Gospel of St John and this is inspired and part of Scripture. No one accepts that the Protoevangelium of James is inspired, yet we do glean from it the names of Sts Joachim and Anne as parents of the Blessed Virgin. We trust it's accuracy historically, but do not consider it inspired, but that also is not Scriptural.

That same St John writes at the end of his Gospel about the many other things Jesus did, and that records would fill many volumes, so the purpose of his Gospel, but of Scripture in general, is to present basic truths, not the complete Faith.

(09-02-2019, 07:21 AM)Porkncheese Wrote: - Immaculate conception. The claim that Mary was kept free from sin since her conception is also not in the bible. 
Scripture tells us that everyone is born with sin, Jesus was the only one who wasn't.
In fact Mary herself said "My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my savior." Luke 1:46-47. 
She wouldn't have to rejoice in God being her savior if she was free of sin.

The Catholic teaching is that the merits of Christ were applied beforehand to Our Lady to preserve her from sin, hence she is "full of grace". Sin and grace cannot coexist, so if she is "full of grace" she must logically be "empty of sin". Thus the Gospels assert that she is Immaculate.

Mary would rejoice in her Savior if he did preserve her from the beginning in view of the office she would hold as Mother of God and thus the need to be an immaculate tabernacle of Christ.

(09-02-2019, 07:21 AM)Porkncheese Wrote: Perpetual virginity. The claim that Mary was a virgin till death. There are several passages that refer to the brothers of Jesus which already tells us Mary had more children.
"But Joseph did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son." Matthew 1:25. 
This is the definition of consummate "make (a marriage or relationship) complete by having sexual intercourse"
So this passage tells us without a doubt that Joseph had sex with Mary after Jesus was born.

Classic Protestant heresy and lies. "Until" even in common parlance does not require a completion. "You're going to keep scrubbing the floor until I can eat off it." "This meeting is going to last until the end of time!" Sometimes it means that the end will be reached, sometimes not.

Scripture uses the same term "until" in other places where it certainly does not mean that the thing happened after this point
  • 2 Samuel 6.23 : "And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until the day of her death." But your logic after she died she had children.
  • 1 Tim 4.3 : "Until I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching." So Timothy is not to preach, teach or read after St Paul arrives?
  • 1 Cor 15.25: "For Christ must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet." So he will not "reign over the house of Jacob forever"? Only until his enemies are gone?
Even Scriptural language does not demand that "until" means after it was a normal marriage. Another proof is that same Protoevangelium of James. While not part of Scripture, it goes to length to show Mary's Perpetual Virginity as a "walled garden" (Cant 4.12), and the Fathers of the Church accepted this. If the earliest Christians supported it, why should it be doubted now?

Further, those "brethren" can easily be shown to be children of another mother. For instance James is the son of the "other" Mary who was married to Alphaeus Cleophas (who seems to have been one of the disciples on the road to Emmaus). So already "brethren" cannot be taken as a literal brother, but only as some relative. Add to this that in Christian circles and small groups it was not uncommon to call one's companions "brethren". St Paul does this all the time, yet is not speaking to his biological brothers. Add to this even further, that this was not the reading of the early Church as confirmed by the Fathers. So if they, who often knew the first generation of disciples, didn't think this meant Jesus had biological brothers, why should we 2000 years removed?

Two incidents also show that Our Lord did not have brothers or sisters. In the journey to Jerusalem where the 12-year-old Jesus is lost for three days there is no mention of other children. Not definitive, but odd to leave this out, and if James, Simon and Jude were Mary's children, then if Jesus starts his ministry at age 30, if they are not yet born, then they will be teenagers at best when they are called to be Apostles. Hardly reasonable.

Also at the Crucifixion, Mary is entrusted to St John, who was not a relative. If Joseph were alive and Mary had other sons, this makes no sense. If she had no one, it makes total sense.

(09-02-2019, 07:21 AM)Porkncheese Wrote: - Mother of God. Well we know she gave birth to Jesus but to God in heaven... She then would be greater than God but we all know God was around thousands of years before Mary was on earth.

Simple syllogism. 

Major : Jesus is God.
Minor : Mary is the mother of Jesus.
Conclusion : Mary is the Mother of God.

One gives birth to a person, not a nature, so Mary is the mother of the God-Man. Obviously she does not "create" God, and is not prior to God in that sense. Nor does she "create" his human body all by herself without God's help. Yet through the working of the Holy Ghost she is pregnant with the God-Man, Jesus Christ. She gives birth to the God-Man Jesus Christ. She does not give birth to just his human part, because once Incarnate, Jesus' divinity and humanity are united in that one person.

This title has been accorded to Mary since the 5th century. This was about the same time that the Canon of Scripture was settled in most places, so we can have as much confidence that Romans is part of Scripture as Mary is the Mother of God, since the Church has determined each.

(09-02-2019, 07:21 AM)Porkncheese Wrote: - Queen of heaven. I never read in the scriptures that Mary was made the queen of heaven. How could that be given she is a human.

I've never read in Scripture about a computer. They must not exist.

The common understanding is that the test of the Angels is God would create man who would sin and then He would become Incarnate as man to save them. The angels were given the choice to submit to a God-Man and his human mother who would be made superior to the angels. They said no and so fell.

Mary takes the place Satan would have had in Heaven. His pride is replaced by her humility.

(09-02-2019, 07:21 AM)Porkncheese Wrote: Intercession. People will tell you that the words of Hail Mary are in the bible. And although they are correct they fail to tell you that it isn't written as a prayer. No where in the bible does it tell us to pray to Mary.

So reciting the words that God inspired an Angel and Elizabeth to say is bad?

As for intercession, look at the Wedding at Cana.

(09-02-2019, 07:21 AM)Porkncheese Wrote: - Mediatrix. This says that Mary can mediate our prayers to God. The bible clearly tells us that Jesus is the only mediator and never tells us that Mary is.
"For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" 1 Timothy 2:5
"and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel." Hebrews 12:24
 "For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant." Hebrews 9:15
"He is also the mediator of a better covenant" Hebrew 8:6
There isn't one passage like these that tell us Mary is a mediator

Should we not pray and intercede for each other? Seems like James (5:16) suggests we should pray and intercede for each other. So why cannot we ask Mary to do this?

Seeing as Mary brought Christ into the world, and Christ's ministry was catalyzed by Mary at Cana, and she remained with him at the foot of the Cross, why would we doubt that she is not an essential part of His mission and thus the channel through which graces flow, just as He did.

(09-02-2019, 07:21 AM)Porkncheese Wrote: That's my case for not praying to Mary. People will now give you their case which I find to be very weak. 

So already you're pre-judging anything you don't agree with as weak. That's intellectually honest!
[-] The following 4 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • Alphonse il Segundo, antiquarian, Augustinian, jovan66102
Reply
#24
(09-02-2019, 04:08 PM)SeekerofChrist Wrote:
(09-02-2019, 03:23 PM)Florus Wrote: There are plenty of verses that support these dogmas but it's not like you're going to find everything plainly spelled out in the Bible.

I think this is a point that is well worth repeating.  Lots of dogmas aren't clearly explained in the Bible, even though they are there.  One won't find a clear explanation of the Trinity, the Incarnation, Redemption, etc., even though numerous verses discuss these dogmas and are used by the Church to explain them.  I've also found significant differences among those Protestants who think everything needs to be explicitly explained by Scripture.  Do we need to baptize infants or only adults?  If adults only, what is an "adult"?  I doubt in the New Testament era it meant the same as today.  While on that question, I've met Protestants who disagree with what baptism even does.  A symbol of rebirth or more, like regeneration?  The more you delve into Sola Scriptura, the more problematic it becomes, as the Protestants seldom seem to agree on what Scripture teaches.

YUP. It honestly frustrates me how much Protestantism frames Catholic discussions. Trying to prooftext dogmas doesn't work most of the time, Luke 1:28 doesn't necessarily equal Immaculate Conception. We should just speak our own language.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Florus's post:
  • MagisterMusicae
Reply
#25
It’s just plainly against reason to reject Tradition.
The Bible proceeds from the Tradition of the Church.

We’d never take some human author’s bestselling book, read it for ourselves, and then try to explain to the author what his book is “really” about. The author knows what it’s about, despite whatever other private interpretations the readers may have.

Now, take the Church, founded by Christ Himself — of which the gates of Hell will never prevail. How much more should we apply this principle!

Also, remember: Christ told His Apostles to go baptize all nations, NOT to go forward and make sure everyone has read Sacred Scripture.
[-] The following 4 users Like FultonFan's post:
  • Alphonse il Segundo, antiquarian, jovan66102, MagisterMusicae
Reply
#26
MagisterMusicae Wrote:What you express here is personal opinion about Scripture and Catholic dogma, not doubts-

Florus Wrote:It honestly frustrates me how much Protestantism frames Catholic discussions

Hold on you need to put this back into perspective. Read the title again. He is asking for biblical evidence.
This is made clear from the start and he reminds us again on the 2nd page after sensing the anger that it's caused.

whitewash_tomb Wrote:"But are there any specific passages in the Bible that can "prove" these mysteries"

whitewash_tomb Wrote:It wasn't my intention to start a whole flame war over the veneration of Mary or sola scriptura or anything like that. I just wanted to know if those three things I mentioned have any Biblical basis or not. If they don't, then they don't.

I don't know why some of u guys get so hot under the collar. I haven't criticized or judged the church or anyone. U really hate Protestants don't yas. Im not one.
As I've said before I understand both arguments and just accept them. There's is nothing that says I must pray Hail Mary, so I pray Our Father. If u feel like judging me or criticizing me, so be it, but at least understand the context of the thread.

No one was framing the discussion, there are no protestants here. 
I just presented the "best biblical passages that prove these mysteries." and the ones that are contrary to them. There are no personal opinions, just observed quotes from the bible.

I think Florus makes a good point here. I appreciate how he recognized the topic and stuck to it, giving an honest answer.

Florus Wrote:There are plenty of verses that support these dogmas but it's not like you're going to find everything plainly spelled out in the Bible. I think this is a point that is well worth repeating.  Lots of dogmas aren't clearly explained in the Bible, even though they are there.  One won't find a clear explanation of the Trinity, the Incarnation, Redemption, etc

MagisterMusicae Wrote:So already you're pre-judging anything you don't agree with as weak. That's intellectually honest!

Again taken out of context MM. Im saying the case for biblical evidence is weak. A strong case would be the crucifixion or the betrayal of Judas where it is clearly explained in all the gospel books. There is no judging on my behalf, certainly no pre-judging. I know you can be a reasonable person and you've explained a few other topics to me very well. I'm not sure if you were straw manning me, if u despise me or both. I apologize if I caused any offence.

I did also make it clear that its a matter of how much weight one puts on the bible or on the church.
Im happy to discuss (not debate) that. Tell me about the disadvantages of sola scripture as im not too familiar with them and if u promise to keep your cool I'll tell u what I perceive to be the disadvantages of sacred scripture. Will it be safe to do that? Hopefully we will understand each other better.

May Gods grace, peace and mercy be with us through Christ our Lord.
Reply
#27
Disadvantages of Sola Scriptura:
Well, here’s a big one: you have to reject the God-inspired authority that compiled the books of the Bible.
So that leaves you with your current education level to translate all the texts from the original languages, derive their proper meaning, and then determine if they belong in the Canon of Scripture. 
Or you can put your faith in the folks that helped put together the King James Version, hoping that THEY were the ones that really knew the truth.

The whole thing is ridiculous. Please don’t gamble your soul on a 100% losing bet.
[-] The following 2 users Like FultonFan's post:
  • antiquarian, jovan66102
Reply
#28
Quote:I haven't criticized or judged the church or anyone. U really hate Protestants don't yas. Im not one [...] As I've said before I understand both arguments and just accept them [...] Tell me about the disadvantages of sola scripture as im not too familiar with them and if u promise to keep your cool I'll tell u what I perceive to be the disadvantages of sacred scripture. Will it be safe to do that? 

First, no one here hates Protestants. At least they shouldn't. But the Catholic spirit does not condone the hatred of one's enemies. Christ says love your enemies. Part of true charity is instructing the ignorant.

Second, you actually are judging the Church. From your initial post:

Quote:
  • "She wouldn't have to rejoice in God being her savior if she was free of sin."
  • "So this passage tells us without a doubt that Joseph had sex with Mary after Jesus was born."
  • "Well we know she gave birth to Jesus but to God in heaven... She then would be greater than God but we all know God was around thousands of years before Mary was on earth."

All three of these are contrary to the Catholic faith, plain and simple. 

The sinlessness of Mary is well attested in the Fathers, and MM has provided a sufficient response to your reasoning. 

Your denial of Our Lady's Virginity is also against the Catholic faith and all of the Father's, notably Augustine and Jerome.

And calling Mary Theotokos, Mother of God, is really just a matter of deductive reasoning. On top of that, denying it is against the Catholic faith as express by the Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431). But doing such really says more about Christ than it does about Mary. Those who deny Mary the Mother of God implicitly deny the Divinity of Christ.

So, you certainly seem to have chosen to go against the Church.

Third, the Protestant teaching of Sola Scriptura has, in my estimation, two major problems with it.

1. It is self contradictory and logically absurd.

I challenge you to show me in the Bible where "Bible only" is taught. Where does it say that the Bible alone is the rule of Christian faith and morals. Also, if the teaching of Sola Scriptura is true, then which book contains the inspired table of Contents? If one is going to be consistent in his thinking, he needs to demonstrate from the Bible alone which books are in the Bible.


2. It is an unhistorical belief, and a novel teaching.

None of the Apostles held to this belief, none of the early Fathers held this belief, none of the medieval Christians held this belief, none of the scholastic theologians held this belief. It is only with around the 15th century that this idea begins to circulate. Also, it is impractical. The printing press wasn't invented until 1455. Before this every book was hand copied by a monk in one of the scriptoria. It was a labor intensive, time consuming and expensive process. People couldn't just pick up their Bible and start reading (even if they could read, given universal literacy is a very modern thing.)

3. Scripture directly contradicts Sola Scriptura and confirms tradition.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 confirms that Tradition is to be referenced to, something Christians must "hold fast" to.


2 Peter 3:16 tells us that the Epistles of Paul are hard to understand and that the unstable rest them to their own destruction.
[-] The following 3 users Like Alphonse il Segundo's post:
  • antiquarian, jovan66102, MagisterMusicae
Reply
#29
Hail Mary full of grace. Grace is God's state of being - the state of grace. She was full of grace. That's pretty powerful.

Exact support from the Bible - not really going to find a ton for these things.

I am growing less fond of super exact and detailed definition of things, at times they hurt more than help. There is simply and element of mystery in many things of the faith, things we can't all the way explain. The fact that some Catholics go off the rails with Mary and attribute things to her that belong to God alone, that causes problems and bad stereotypes.

But being full of grace, and grace being God's state of being - I guess that says enough for me.
Reply
#30
(09-02-2019, 07:23 PM)Porkncheese Wrote: Hold on you need to put this back into perspective. Read the title again. He is asking for biblical evidence.
This is made clear from the start and he reminds us again on the 2nd page after sensing the anger that it's caused.

But you go beyond stating a lack of biblical evidence or proof, and outright denial of dogmas of the Church, which you must accept if you are a Catholic.

The Immaculate Conception, Assumption, Perpetual Virginity, "Mother of God" title, are dogmas of the Catholic Faith. Deny or willfully doubt any one and one falls into heresy and is no longer Catholic. Others are Marian doctrines, and while not defined are so close to the Faith that you are in theological error, near to heresy for denying them.

It would be one thing for you to say, "I find no biblical evidence" but you instead quite clearly deny these dogmas and doctrines. You set yourself and your own personal interpretation of Scripture as the standard for judgement.

(09-02-2019, 07:23 PM)Porkncheese Wrote: I don't know why some of u guys get so hot under the collar.

Well, part of it is that you impious words about our mother. That does tend to get one a bit irate.

(09-02-2019, 07:23 PM)Porkncheese Wrote: I haven't criticized or judged the church or anyone.

You have. You denied various Marian dogmas. And you, before hearing any replies, reject as worthless those replies.

(09-02-2019, 07:23 PM)Porkncheese Wrote: U really hate Protestants don't yas. Im not one.

Well if you deny the Church's dogmas on Mary you're not Catholic.

And no, we hate Protestantism, because it leads souls to Hell. A good Catholic loves a Protestant and wants him to reject his errors, not wallow in them.

(09-02-2019, 07:23 PM)Porkncheese Wrote: I just presented the "best biblical passages that prove these mysteries." and the ones that are contrary to them. There are no personal opinions, just observed quotes from the bible.

You far exceeded that, saying that the Bible proves Mary was not always Virgin, for instance.

I would have no issue with you if you stuck to saying that Scripture does not definitively prove certain Marian dogma. We all agree on this. Certainly it does suggest them, and this, coupled with other Traditions and the early Church's beliefs are a proof. However, that is not what you have done here.
[-] The following 5 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • Alphonse il Segundo, antiquarian, Augustinian, jovan66102, SeeTheLight
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)