Roman Catholic Church Catechism English Translation 1994

[thessalonian]

Mary in the Bible

You don't know half of what is in the Bible about Mary.

Maybe you could enlighten us...... show us the verses in the Bible which explain or show us examples of the following RCC dogmas

• (1) The Perpetual Virginity of Mary
  
  (2) The Immaculate Conception (Mary born sinless)
  
  (3) The Sinlessness of Mary (Mary remaining sinless)
  
  (4) The Bodily Assumption of Mary (Mary bodily assumed into heaven)
  
  (5) The Mediatorship of Mary (Mary called/titled "Mediatrix" and "Co-redemptrix")
  
  (6) Praying to Mary

.... the easiest would be for you to quote Bible chapter/verse(s) for each of the above RCC dogmas.

Thanks!

I notice you have still not answered this post. Any reason?

Well, simply because I could easily write a book on each. I am sure I will get around to answering each one in time on this thread. Let's just say you don't know everything about scripture. But I also am afraid of a pearl casting venture.

The request was not for a book. The request is for you to quote the Bible. Remember, YOU claimed "You don't know half of what is in the Bible about Mary."

So enlighten us.... quote a few verses for each of the above RCC dogmas.

Gary,

I tried to post this earlier but it didn't work. I am going to put a pearl out there and see how it goes with regard to 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 which are related to it. First are you familiar with typology and allegory in scripture. Jesus used it. He said "just as Jonah spent three days in the belly of the whale, so the Son of Man will spend three days in the earth. Jesus parrelleled himself with Jonah. There is alot of this in the Old Testament. Parrellels, allegory, typology, symbology, metaphore, were all used by the ancient writers. Old Testament events forshadowed New Testament events. Well one of the Old Testament types was the Ark of the Covenant.
Now Luke does something interesting with the Ark. He parrellels it with Mary in the infancy narrative:



Both events took place in the hill country of Judah:

Luke 1
39. Now at this time Mary arose and went in a hurry to the hill country, to a city of Judah,

2 Sam 6
2. And David arose and went with all the people who were with him to Baale-judah, to bring up from there the ark of God which is called by the Name, the very name of the LORD of hosts who is enthroned above the cherubim.

Similarity of David and Elizabeth's words in greeting Mary and speaking of the Ark.
luke 1
43. "And how has it happened to me, that the mother of my Lord would come to me?

2 Sam 6

9. So David was afraid of the LORD that day; and he said, "How can the ark of the LORD come to me?"

John leaps before Mary who contains the Lord in her womb.
Luke 1
44. "For behold, when the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby leaped in my womb for joy.

David leaps before the ark in which the Lord resides.
2 Sam 6
16. Then it happened as the ark of the LORD came into the city of David that Michal the daughter of Saul looked out of the window and saw King David leaping and dancing before the LORD; and she despised him in her heart.

Mary stays with elizabeth for 3 mo.

56. And Mary stayed with her about three months, and then returned to her home.

The Ark stays with obemedon for 3 mo.

11. Thus the ark of the LORD remained in the house of Obed-edom the Gittite three months, and the LORD blessed Obed-edom and all his household.

The ark was also overshadowed by God as was Mary, overshadowed by the Holy Spirit. The Ark contained symbols of Christ, the tablets, the staff of Aaron, and the Holy Bread. Mary of course had Christ in her womb.

Too many coincidences here for one to not draw a parrellel.


We'll see how you handle this and whether I should go further in the development of this exegesis or not. One Protestant actually told me that satan got this in to confuse people. No kidding.

Holla back

Thess

 

[Gary]

You've covered alot of ground there. Let's hit a couple of things:

"All versions of the Bible are false except for the KJV...because they not a Bible at all, as a matter of fact."

So before the KJV there were no valid versions? What did people do without Bibles? Or did the KJV go all the way back to Jesus?

I have no idea what you are talking about or who/what you are referencing. You are going to have to be more accurate and articulate your responses more clearly if we are to discuss issues.

All I asked was for Bible verses used by the RCC to defend their dogmas (1) to (6).

 

[Gary]

... as for the rest, please keep going. Please remember to quote Bible verses to support (1) to (6).

Also, as this thread is about the "Catechism of the Catholic Church" please tell me which paragraph/s in the CCC this analogy is from.

Thanks.

 

[Solo]

... as for the rest, please keep going. Please remember to quote Bible verses to support (1) to (6).

Solo whispers to Gary>>>>>Psst, Gary, they can't give you any scripture supporting the Mary dogma (1) through (6) of the RCC. It does not exist. 8-)

 

[Gary]

... as for the rest, please keep going. Please remember to quote Bible verses to support (1) to (6).

Solo whispers to Gary>>>>>Psst, Gary, they can't give you any scripture supporting the Mary dogma (1) through (6) of the RCC. It does not exist. 8-)

...I love this quote: "...one ignores Jesus at one’s peril, but no one will be deprived of heaven for neglecting Mary."

Reference: Geisler, N. L., & MacKenzie, R. E. (1995). Roman Catholics and Evangelicals : Agreements and differences (Page 330).

 

[thessalonian]

oops

 

[thessalonian]

You've covered alot of ground there. Let's hit a couple of things:

"All versions of the Bible are false except for the KJV...because they not a Bible at all, as a matter of fact."

So before the KJV there were no valid versions? What did people do without Bibles? Or did the KJV go all the way back to Jesus?

I have no idea what you are talking about or who/what you are referencing. You are going to have to be more accurate and articulate your responses more clearly if we are to discuss issues.

All I asked was for Bible verses used by the RCC to defend their dogmas (1) to (6).

I copied this from another website I posted it on. Somehow the KJV got in there. I see you still haven't responded to what I asked earlier in the day. Are we CAtholics the only ones who are to respond to questoins. You ask for one liner explicit proof texts yet you cannot present such things to me for some of your dogmas. Don't you know anything about typology and allegory. For gosh sakes and you act as if you know about what the Bible says.

 

[thessalonian]

... as for the rest, please keep going. Please remember to quote Bible verses to support (1) to (6).

Also, as this thread is about the "Catechism of the Catholic Church" please tell me which paragraph/s in the CCC this analogy is from.

Thanks.

Do you see the parrellel or not. I am not going to go any further until you answer one of my questions, which you have not all day.

Blessings

 

[thessalonian]

... as for the rest, please keep going. Please remember to quote Bible verses to support (1) to (6).

Solo whispers to Gary>>>>>Psst, Gary, they can't give you any scripture supporting the Mary dogma (1) through (6) of the RCC. It does not exist. 8-)

Your million dollar question smart guy who claims to be infallible about scripture is...drum roll....related to this verse.

45: Then he opened their minds to understand the scriptures,
46: and said to them, "Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead,


What verse is the phrase "on the third day rise from the dead" in the Old Testament? After all there were no NT scriptures that he could be speaking to the men on the road Emanaus. I need an explicit text from the Old Testament from you. Thanks.

Thanks.

 

[Gary]

I will ask very specific questions about the analogy/parallel.

(1) Where is it in the CCC?
(2) Where did you get the idea of this analogy from?
(3) If the analogy is not in the CCC, why not?

 

[Lewis]

Gary and Solo you guy's are doing great' I don't have to say to much.

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20 ... igions.htm

 

[TheScarletPimpernel]

It is simply not possible that Mary was sinless. Yo can make arguements that basically lead you away from the point into a doctrine that when taken back to scripture simply does not hold up!

Rom 7:23 but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members.
Rom 7:24 Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?

It is a plain and simple truth that those born of Adam or of the flesh live with sin dwelling in thier mortal bodies! The flesh is corruptible even if you are "born again"! Paul is not however saying he is of corrupt mind or that sin dwells in his mind; only that it is at work in his flesh. Paul was a man! Mary was a woman. In spite of the difference in gender they both lived in "human bodies" born of the flesh and thus sin dwelt in thier bodies as it does in every human being since Adam to Christ. Therefore imo the veneration of Mary is simple poppycock. Blessed she was and placed in a unique position in history thus I can easily agree that the LORD wants people to take notice of her but to the point of veneration or worship this I simply will never agree with. Absolutely! Wasteful pearl casting excercise! Sorry Thess but I don't agree with this!

 

[Theophilus]

1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus
She does not Mediate she intorcedes.

And pray tell where in the scriptures does it say that Mary intercedes?

Have you ever asked anyone to pray for you?

Luke 1:41
41 And it happened, when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, that the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. 42 Then she spoke out with a loud voice and said, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! 43 But why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
She is the Mother of God.

And was God around before Mary? Was the Word around before Mary? Was the Holy Spirit around before Mary? Yes, Yes, Yes. It sounds like some would rather worship a mere mortal woman and claim her as deity instead of worship God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Mary was the vessel that God used to become man. Mary is the mother of the man, Jesus; not the mother of God.

Is the divinity of Christ separated from his humanity? Was he only a man? Did he cease to be God in Mary's womb? No,No,No. Remember Elizabeth was "filled with the Holy Spirit" when SHE called Mary "the mother of my Lord" So unless you say Jesus was NOT God, or Mary was NOT his mother, you acknowledge Mary is the Mother of God.
By the way, the reason Mary was given the title Theotokos (Mother of God) at the Council of Ephesus in 431 was to protect the divinity of Christ form Nestorius. It was not to imply the she was before God or the she is co-eternal with with Him. She is who she is because Christ is who He is. This is why in Eastern Orthodox iconography she is either holding Christ or pointing towards him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theotokos

Luke 1:46
46 And Mary said: “ My soul magnifies the Lord,
47 And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior. 48 For He has regarded the lowly state of His maidservant; For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed. 49 For He who is mighty has done great things for me, And holy is His name.
She is blessed then, now and always.

Mary is indeed blessed of God, but so are those that are poor in spirit, and those that mourn; blessed are the meek, and those that hunger and thirst after righteousness. Blessed are the merciful, the pure in heart, and the peacemakers. Blessed also are those that are persecuted for righteousness sake. Many are and will be blessed, but don't forget that the Word is the only one in the Bible that is said to be full of grace.

[/quote]
Correct in all points! This is why we also honor all the other saints as well.
She is indeed blessed of God, but she said "For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed." Speaking of people. So should WE not call her "Blessed"

 

[SpiritualSon]

Good post Lewis,

Can A Good Catholic be Saved?
by Dave Hunt


The following is from The Berean Call, April 1995:

QUESTION: My question is this: If a Roman Catholic believes wholeheartedly in the Lord Jesus Christ and is committed to serving Him as his Lord; and if he believes that the only way his sins can be forgiven is through Christ's death as atonement for those sins, and the believer's repentance, how come he is not saved? Suppose a person has salvation by faith alone, does he lose that salvation by believing in infant baptism? Does he lose his salvation by believing that communion Is really the body and blood of Christ, as the Lord said it was? Does he lose his salvation if he believes in purgatory? I will look forward to reading your answer in a future Issue of "The Call."

ANSWER: Anyone who believes the gospel, which is "the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth" (Rom. 1:16), is saved, whether he be called Catholic, Baptist, etc. If however a Roman Catholic "believes wholeheartedly in the Lord Jesus Christ," as you suggest, then he would find himself in great conflict with the doctrines and practices of his Church. IT IS LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR A ROMAN CATHOLIC TO TRULY BELIEVE THE GOSPEL THAT SAVES AND AT THE SAME TIME TO BELIEVE THE TENETS OF CATHOLICISM.

Let me ask you how a person can believe that Christ's sacrifice on the cross for our sins is an accomplished fact of history and that He is now at the Father's right hand in heaven in a resurrected, glorified body and at the same time believe that He exists bodily as a wafer on Catholic altars where He is perpetually suffering the agonies of the cross and being literally "immolated in the sacrifice of the Mass" (Vatican II, Flannery, pp. 102-3)?

How can a person believe that Christ's redemptive work on the cross is "Finished!" as He himself said (Jn. 19:30)--and at the same time believe that the Mass is a perpetuation of Christ's sacrifice?

How can one "perpetuate and make present" any past event? It is logically impossible. One may remember or memorialize a past event, but one cannot perpetuate it in the present. And why would that be necessary inasmuch as Christ's death and resurrection fully accomplished God's purpose?

Let me ask you how any person can believe that Christ does not offer Himself repeatedly, as were the Old Testament sacrifices (Heb. 9:25,10:1-3), but that "once... hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself ... Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many" (9:26,28), 'this man [Christ], after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God .... For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified .... there is no more offering for sin" (10:12-18)--and at the same time believe that the mass is a "propitiatory sacrifice" that takes away sin and that in it "the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1367)?

How can one believe, as Vatican II states, that through Catholic liturgy, "especially in the divine sacrifice of the Eucharist, the work of our redemption is accomplished [i.e., is an ongoing process]" (Flannery, p. 1)--and at the same time believe that the work of

our redemption was accomplished once for all by Christ on the cross, as so many Scriptures clearly state (Heb. 9:12; Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14, etc.)?

How can one believe that by simple faith in Christ one receives eternal life and the assurance of heaven as a free gift of God's grace, as the gospel that saves declare--and at the same time believe that God's grace and the merits of Christ (plus the merits of Mary and the saints--who needs them if Christ is sufficient?!) are contained in a treasury which the Roman Catholic Church possesses and from which she dispenses in installments bits and pieces of this grace (Vatican II, Flannery, p. 66, etc.) for attending mass, saying the rosary, penance, etc.?

A Catholic can't believe in Christ alone but [is required by the doctrines of his own church to believe] in Christ plus baptism and the sacraments and other helps given by the Church.

Paul cursed the Judaizers who taught that in addition to faith in Christ's finished work one also must keep the Jewish law. That destroys the gospel. How, then, can one believe in the gospel of Christ plus baptism for salvation and the mass as a propitiatory sacrifice and the other "sacraments of the New Law" which Trent and Vatican II say are essential for salvation, the necessity of the Church and its priesthood, the intercession of Mary, purgatory, indulgences, etc.?

You must believe one gospel or the other; you can't believe two contradictory gospels at the same time.

Whoever believes in Christ alone, is saved. Whoever believes in Christ plus anything else for salvation, is lost. He has rejected the gospel of Christ which alone saves those who believe it (Rom. 1:16). And, indeed, those who preach this "other gospel" come under Paul's anathema (Gal. 1:6-8)!

(The Berean Call, April 1995)

What's good about the Catholics and not about the Protestants, is that they believe, as I do, that good works in the name of Jesus Christ is important in man's salvation. Faith without good works is dead. Man is the tree, not faith. Good works does not follow faith.

Harry :fadein:

 

[thessalonian]

It is simply not possible that Mary was sinless. Yo can make arguements that basically lead you away from the point into a doctrine that when taken back to scripture simply does not hold up!

It is impossible for an axe to float. It is impossible for a sea to dry up and become land in a few short hours. It is impossible for a bush to burn and not be consumed. It is impossible for the wall of Jerico to come tumbling down. It is impossible for a dead man to rise. It is impossible for the lame to walk and the deaf to hear. A virgin cannot concieve and a few loaves and fish cannot feed five thousand, not counting women and children. These things are impossible in the context you take impossible to be.

God had already made a sinless man and woman. Unforunately for them they did not stay that way. Do you deny that he can remove sinful natures? Oh ye of little faith. His son was to be born of woman. He made the Ark of the Covenant of the most pure materials. It was so sacred it could not be touched or the man would die. It was "the God bearer". It foreshadowed Mary. God made a mother for his son. To his own specifications.

Blessings

 

[Gary]

God had already made a sinless man and woman. Unforunately for them they did not stay that way. Do you deny that he can remove sinful natures? Oh ye of little faith. His son was to be born of woman. He made the Ark of the Covenant of the most pure materials. It was so sacred it could not be touched or the man would die. It was "the God bearer". It foreshadowed Mary. God made a mother for his son. To his own specifications.

I will ask very specific questions about this analogy/parallel.

(1) Where is it in the CCC?
(2) Where did you get the idea of this analogy from?
(3) If the analogy is not in the CCC, why not?

:-?

 

[Gary]

Sinless Mary?

The Bible does not support the sinlessness of Mary. To the contrary, it affirms her sinfulness. Speaking as a sinner, Mary said, “my spirit rejoices in God my savior†(Luke 1:46). .... she was confessing her present need (after her conception) of a Savior. Indeed, she even presented an offering to the Jewish priest arising out of her sinful condition (Luke 2:22-24) which was required by law (Leviticus 12). This would not have been necessary if she were sinless.

The Roman Catholic argument that Mary was “full of grace†at the annunciation in no way proves sinlessness during her entire life. First, the phrase “full of grace†is an inaccurate rendering based on the Latin Vulgate that is corrected by the modern Roman Catholic Bible (nab), which translates it simply “favored one.†The Vulgate’s misleading rendering became the basis for the idea that grace extended throughout Mary’s life.

Second, taken in context the salutation of the angel is only a reference to her state at that moment, not to her entire life. It does not affirm that she was always and would always be full of grace but only that she was at that time. Third, the grace given here to Mary was not only limited in time but also in function. The grace she received was for the task of being the mother of the Messiah, not to prevent her from any sin. Finally, the stress on fullness of grace is misleading, since even Roman Catholic scholars admit that Mary was in need of redemption. Why, if she was not a sinner? Roman Catholic theologian Ott says that Mary “required redemption and was redeemed by Christ.â€Â

Source: Geisler, N. L., & MacKenzie, R. E. (1995). Roman Catholics and Evangelicals : Agreements and differences (Page 310).

:o

 

[thessalonian]

God had already made a sinless man and woman. Unforunately for them they did not stay that way. Do you deny that he can remove sinful natures? Oh ye of little faith. His son was to be born of woman. He made the Ark of the Covenant of the most pure materials. It was so sacred it could not be touched or the man would die. It was "the God bearer". It foreshadowed Mary. God made a mother for his son. To his own specifications.

I will ask very specific questions about this analogy/parallel.

(1) Where is it in the CCC?
(2) Where did you get the idea of this analogy from?
(3) If the analogy is not in the CCC, why not?

:-?

I am waiting for you and Solo to address some of my questions. I have little hope that your questions are sincere.

Do you agree there is a parrellel? I am not going to answer your questions until you answer mine. This is a dialogue. Currently I feel like I am surrounded by snakes waiting to strike at anything I say.

 

[Gary]

Ark of the Covenant analogy to Mary

Irenaeus

Roman Catholic apologists often claim that the ark of the covenant in the Old Testament is a type of Mary. They then use that typological speculation as an argument for doctrines such as the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary. But Irenaeus saw something else in the ark:

"so is that ark declared a type of the body of Christ, which is both pure and immaculate. For as that ark was gilded with pure gold both within and without, so also is the body of Christ pure and resplendent, being adorned within by the Word, and shielded on the outside by the Spirit, in order that from both materials the splendour of the natures might be exhibited together." (Fragments from the Lost Writings of Irenaeus, 48)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Victorinus

Roman Catholics often speculate that the ark in Revelation 11:19 is referring to Mary, and that the passage is therefore referring to a bodily assumption of Mary. It can't be proven that the ark is Mary, and, even if the ark is identified as her, there's no way to determine whether it represents Mary's bodily presence in Heaven or just her soul. Victorinus, commenting on the passage, sees the ark as representing the blessings Jesus brought to mankind. He tells us that the temple is Jesus, meaning that the ark is within Jesus. Roman Catholics make the opposite argument, claiming that the ark, as Mary, carries Jesus.

"'And the temple of God was opened which is in heaven.' The temple opened is a manifestation of our Lord. For the temple of God is the Son, as He Himself says: 'Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.' And when the Jews said, 'Forty and six years was this temple in building,' the evangelist says, 'He spake of the temple of His body.' 'And there was seen in His temple the ark of the Lord's testament.' The preaching of the Gospel and the forgiveness of sins, and all the gifts whatever that came with Him, he says, appeared therein." (Commentary on the Apocalypse of the Blessed John, 11:19)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hippolytus

Hippolytus also saw Jesus rather than Mary in the ark. He mentions Mary as he's describing Jesus as the ark, so it can't be argued that he wasn't thinking of Mary at the time:

"At that time, then, the Saviour appeared and showed His own body to the world, born of the Virgin, who was the 'ark overlaid with pure gold,' with the Word within and the Holy Spirit without; so that the truth is demonstrated, and the 'ark' made manifest....the Saviour appeared in the world, bearing the imperishable ark, His own body" (On Daniel, 2:6)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Want more? What did Augustine say about the issue?

What does the RCC's real Bible, the CCC, say about the Ark of the Covenant analogy to Mary?

:-? :-?

 

[thessalonian]

Gary,

I am the one called a zombie. I am the one said to be parroting Catholic theology, as though I cannot think for myself. I am not going to waste my time responding to a parroted answer from Norman Geisler. Though I could. You seem unable to debate me. It is unfortunate that you can't consider the scriptural evidence that I providing. I see this conversation as a pearl casting venture. Sorry.