Instigator / Pro
0
1500
rating
4
debates
37.5%
won
Topic
#5932
The Roman Catholic dogmas and teaching on Mary are false
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
0
Better sources
0
0
Better legibility
0
0
Better conduct
0
0
After not so many votes...
It's a tie!
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Max argument characters
- 20,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
0
1500
rating
9
debates
72.22%
won
Description
The goal of this debate is the pursuit of truth. We accept Jesus is Lord of the Christian Church(es).
I (pro) will argue that the Mary doctrines of the Roman Catholic church are false and defocus whom we worship and whom we follow for spiritual growth.
The Roman Catholic Dogmas on Mary are:
(A dogma of the Roman Catholic Church is a required belief)
1. Mary is the Mother of God.
2 .Perpetual Virginity: Mary was a virgin before, during, and after the birth of Jesus.
3. Immaculate Conception: Mary was conceived without original sin.
4. Assumption: Mary was taken body and soul into heaven.
Additionally, the Roman Catholic doctrine supports:
1. Marian apparitions (supernatural appearances by Mary)
2. Mary has a role within the church and in the life of all Christians and so the veneration of Mary and prayers to Mary are encouraged
Rules:
1. Both parties accept the Bible as divinely inspired and authoritative.
2. Any approved Roman Catholic Bible translation can be used
3. In the final round, only counterarguments addressing previous points will be allowed; no new arguments may be introduced
Round 1
Pro
#1
The Roman Catholic dogmas and teaching on Mary are false
I like to thank MAV99 for the opportunity to debate this again.
The goal of this debate is the pursuit of truth. We accept Jesus is Lord of the Christian Church(es). I (pro) will argue that The Roman Catholic dogmas and teaching on Mary are false and thus defocus whom we worship and whom we follow for spiritual growth.
Roman Catholic Dogmas on Mary:
- Mary is the mother of God.
- Perpetual Virginity: Mary was a virgin before, during, and after the birth of Jesus.
- Immaculate Conception: Mary was conceived without original sin.
- Assumption: Mary was taken body and soul into heaven.
We note a dogma of the Catholic Church is a required belief, and several of these dogmas have associated condemnations for a non-conformist/believer
I will also review some the Marian apparitions
When We are critiquing a doctrine, we are not necessarily critiquing people who believe a doctrine, but we are critiquing leadership that potentially allows millions to be led astray or on a tangent with a false doctrine. Isn't that what the devil wants - anything so we do not get close to the truth. But as believer but we need to be courageous enough to recognize when something is false or true and adapt accordingly, so the aim is not to destroy but to seek truth
I will quote the New Revised Standard Version Catholic Ed
using plain reading of the text as far as possible
Mary Mother or God/Queen of Heaven
The Bible refers to Mary as the mother of Jesus (John 2:1 John 2:3 Acts 1:14) never as the mother of God.
Granted that Jesus is God, but calling Mary the mother of God is presumptions as God has no mother. The Creator was not created. There is an order in Heaven, even Jesus acknowledges "the Father is Greater than I " (John 14:28). Who is man to set the order of heaven!!
The title "queen of heaven" when it appears in the Bible is in the context of serving other idols/gods (Jeremiah 44). The title queen of heaven is a reference paganism that exalts a goddess when we should be focusing of the true King of heaven, Yahweh,
The Council of Ephesus in AD 431 declared Mary as the "Mother of God" (Theotokos). This council affirmed that Mary gave birth to Jesus Christ, who is both fully God and fully man. This declaration was made to counter the Nestorian heresy, which claimed the divine nature could not be born of a woman.
We know Jesus if fully human and fully divine - the later coming from the father, so it is a shame on the solution at the Council of Ephesus was the title "Mother of God" (Theotokos).
The actual understanding of Jesus two nature came later at Council of Chalcedon - convened in 451.
The basis of the settlement at Chalcedon was the Western understanding of the two natures in Christ, as formulated in the Tome of Pope Leo I of Rome. Chalcedon declared:
We all unanimously teach…one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, perfect in deity and perfect in humanity…in two natures, without being mixed, transmuted, divided, or separated. The distinction between the natures is by no means done away with through the union, but rather the identity of each nature is preserved and concurs into one person and being.
I acknowledge Roman Catholic, Easter Orthodox and many protestant congregations have no issue with the title mother of God. However, I feel it is a misrepresentation that has led the way to further false doctrines
Perpetual Virginity: Mary was a virgin before, during, and after the birth of Jesus.
We are not disputing that Mary was a virgin till the birth of Jesus. Perpetual Virginity claims she was always a virgin even after the birth of Jesus
History:
This dogma originated from The Gospel of James (or the Protoevangelium of James)
It is a second-century infancy gospel telling of the miraculous conception of the Virgin Mary. It was condemned by Pope Innocent I in 405 and classified as apocryphal by the Gelasian Decree (https://www.tertullian.org/decretum_eng.htm)
around AD 500. Still, it became a widely influential source for Mariology.
Bible Study:
Looking at the Bible passage 's
Mathew 1
24 When Joseph awoke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took her as his wife, 25 but had no marital relations with her until she had borne a son; and he named him Jesus.
The plain reading is Joseph knew Mary.
Mathew 13
55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? 56 And are not all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all this?
Mark 3
31 Then his mother and his brothers came; and standing outside, they sent to him and called him. 32 A crowd was sitting around him; and they said to him, “Your mother and your brothers and sisters[c] are outside, asking for you.” 33 And he replied, “Who are my mother and my brothers?” 34 And looking at those who sat around him, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! 35 Whoever does the will of God is my brother and sister and mother
Mark 6
He left that place and came to his hometown, and his disciples followed him. 2 On the sabbath he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were astounded. They said, “Where did this man get all this? What is this wisdom that has been given to him? What deeds of power are being done by his hands! 3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary[a] and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense[b] at him.
The context is plainly familial, and the locals knew this family
Ps 69 is a argument against perpetual virginity:
9 It is zeal for your house that has consumed me;
the insults of those who insult you have fallen on me.
This is reference when Jesus clears the temple, the verse before this
8 I have become a stranger to my kindred,
an alien to my mother’s children.
Discussion:
The Romans Catholic argument here is that Mary being a temple/ark of covenant of God cannot be a temple to another child. Holiness demands purity and so arguing for the other side it is interesting the lineage of Mary (Luke 3) does not mention Rahab, Ruth, Tamar, but the lineage of Joseph (Math 1) does. From the later lineage it can be seen God does not have an issue with non-virgins.
Judaism places a strong emphasis on marriage and procreation, as seen in the biblical commandment to "be fruitful and multiply" (Genesis 1:28). Marriage is considered a duty, and celibacy is generally viewed as contrary to this commandment. The Roman Catholic argument is that Mary and Joseph made Celibacy a choice - I cannot judge this, and this is not stated anywhere in the Bible
Immaculate Conception: Mary was conceived without original sin.
The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception developed over many centuries. Early Christian communities didn't focus much on Mary's conception, but as Marian devotion grew, so did interest in her unique qualities. By the 8th and 9th centuries, the Eastern Church celebrated a Feast of the Conception of Mary. In the Western Church, this feast began to be celebrated in the 12th century
(ref https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/teachings/history-of-the-doctrine-of-the-immaculate-conception-117)
The point being this is nowhere present in the Gospels
What is being believed here is
- Mary was born without sin
- Mary never sinned
- Mary is the only person who did not need a redeemer (Jesus)
This just does not fit the human condition...
There is no evidence of these statement in the Bible
Pope Pius IX, in his encyclical "Ineffabilis Deus," which defined the dogma of the Immaculate Conception in 1854, used strong language to emphasize the importance of this belief. He warned against those who would reject this dogma, likening their faith to a shipwreck.
quoting "Ineffabilis Deus" (https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius09/p9ineff.htm)
...following the testimonies of the Sacred Scriptures, of the Holy Fathers and of the renowned Council, decreed and defined that all men are born infected by original sin; nevertheless, it solemnly declared that it had no intention of including the blessed and immaculate Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, in this decree ....
...Hence, if anyone shall dare — which God forbid! — to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith...
There is no mincing of words here, believe it or be shipwrecked
The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) paragraph 66 (https://ucatholic.com/catechism/ccc66/)
...no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.
This means that the Church believes all necessary truths for salvation have been revealed, but our comprehension of these truths can deepen over time.
It appears this rule is broken by Pope Pius IX
Assumption: Mary was taken body and soul into heaven.
Pope Pius XII defined The Assumption of Mary on November 1950
quoting this document
5. Now God has willed that the Blessed Virgin Mary should be exempted from this general rule. She, by an entirely unique privilege, completely overcame sin by her Immaculate Conception, and as a result she was not subject to the law of remaining in the corruption of the grave, and she did not have to wait until the end of time for the redemption of her body.
6. Thus, when it was solemnly proclaimed that Mary, the Virgin Mother of God, was from the very beginning free from the taint of original sin, the minds of the faithful were filled with a stronger hope that the day might soon come when the dogma of the Virgin Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven would also be defined by the Church's supreme teaching authority.
The Bible has 2 examples to People going to heaven without dying
Elijah (2 Kings 2:10) and Enoch (Gen 5:24)
Whether Mary did or did not going to heaven without dying is speculative, and to create a dogma over an unwitnessed and undocumented event lack mental rigor, and only add to the god like mystical image and somewhat superstitious view of Mary
Also, whenever the early fathers mentioned assumption, it was always Elijah and Enoch never included Mary. Again, this is a late invention.
the consequence for not believing this - again quoting Pope Pius XII in the above document
45. Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.
....
47. It is forbidden to any man to change this, our declaration, pronouncement, and definition or, by rash attempt, to oppose and counter it. If any man should presume to make such an attempt, let him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God...
No mercy or grace here......
Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) paragraph 66 again has been broken this time by Pope Pius XII
Marian apparitions (supernatural appearances by Mary)
First, I would like to point out that where the supernatural interacts to teaching humans this is always bad. Fallen angles in Genesis (6:4), Gabriel with Mohamed creating Islam, the angel Moroni interacting with Joseph Smith to create Mormonism
Paul warns: Even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light (2 Cor 11:14)
So, looking at some of the approved apparition of Mary
1531, Guadalupe, Mexico - Mary proclaimed herself "the mother of the true God who gives life"
1830, Paris, France - Mary commissioned the "Miraculous Medal" made in order to spread devotion to Our Lady.
1846, La Salette, France - Her appearance in sorrow and tears called for conversion and penance for sins.
1858, Lourdes, France - Under the title "the Immaculate Conception," she called for penance and prayer for the conversion of sinners.
1871, Pontmain, France - Mary's message "But pray my children. God will hear you in a short time. My Son allows Himself to be moved by compassion."
1879, Knock, County Mayo, Ireland - During a pouring rain, the figures of Mary, Joseph, John the Apostle and a lamb on a plain altar appeared over the gable of the village chapel, enveloped in a bright light. None of them spoke. At least fifteen people (ages 5-75) saw the apparition.
1917, Fatima, Portugal - Mary, who identified herself as "Our Lady of the Rosary." urged prayer of the rosary, penance for the conversion of sinners and consecration of Russia to her Immaculate Heart.
1932-33, Beauraing, Belgium - Mary is believed to have come thirty-three times. Identifying herself as "the Immaculate Virgin" and "Mother of God, Queen of Heaven," she called for prayer for the conversion of sinners.
1933, Banneux, Belgium - Mary Called herself the "Virgin of the Poor," promised to intercede for the poor, the sick and the suffering.
Hence what we see being taught by the apparitions are:
- Miraculous Medal to create devotion to Mary
- "The Immaculate Conception"
- call for penance
- "The Immaculate Virgin"
- "Mother of God, Queen of Heaven,"
Mary's last words in the Bible are "Do whatever he (Jesus) tells you" John 2:5 Mary Points to Jesus, Jesus points to God - We would do well to follow her advice and not follow her. These Apparitions that in part promote self are out of character with the Mary presented in the Bible
Conclusion
All the above should not be dogmas, as they are not core to faith in Jesus. And certainly, they should not incur the wrath of God for not believing them.
- Mary name as mother of God has led to superstition and a growing worship of Mary
- Perpetual Virginity I cannot judge, but face value it seems wrong (I do not need prove every Marian belief is wrong, but this certainly should not be a dogma)
- Mary assumption of body is a late invention not proven should not be essential and condemning to a non-believer in this
- Immaculate Conception is outside the human condition, elevating Mary excessively and again should not be essential
I am not saying Roman Catholics are not sincere. There are great Christians on all sides. We are saved by faith. Very simply believe "Jesus is Lord and you will be saved" (Romans 10:9). God will judge by your works (not doctrine). However, I am saying it is possible to fool all people (Roman Catholics) on some things all of the time
And where will this all lead
- The Second Coming of Mary, to prepare the return of her Son?
- Co-Redemmer / Coredemptrix - Mary's role in the redemption of all people
the Marian dogmas appear to have started innocently with Mary the mother of God and have progressively led to more false narratives...
Con
#2
Thank you FMeyer for this debate. I am very excited to debate it with you, as I find it to be a very misunderstood aspect of the Catholic Religion.
Firstly, I will lay down some principles that are very necessary to understanding why the Catholic Church says what She says and does what She does.
Secondly, I will apply said principles to the Marian Doctrines.
Thirdly I will address Pro's arguments.
1) The Principles necessary to understand Dogma in the Catholic Church.
a.) The Sources of Public Divine Revelation are twofold. Sacred Tradition and the Holy Bible.
Sacred Tradition are those truths of the faith handed down (from the Latin: tradere- to hand down) to all the baptized by way of the teachings of the Apostles to their successors and so on. It is important to note that the Apostles would have used their reasoning to teach and explain these truths. These teachings coming from their reasoning are considered to be divinely inspired acts of reasoning, hence why we consider them a part of Divine Revelation. They contain the truths not written in Scripture. This Source of Divine revelation was not disputed until the 1500's when a condemned heretic named Martin Luther challenged it in order to justify his heresies; specifically "Sola Scriptura" the notion that the bible is supreme without any authority; a notion Pro seems to adhere to.
The Holy Bible is the collection of sacred texts, inspired by God, written and compiled over several centuries. This book must have an authority behind it to, not only interpret its texts in the intended meaning, but also to safeguard from the adding of false books. This authority would have to be something separate from the book itself (obviously, if a book says it is inspired it is unreasonable to say that it is with only that.) and established by God Himself, which in this case is The Holy Catholic Church, The societal body founded by Jesus Christ, Divine in It's origin, mission and Sacraments.
b.) Dogmas are those Truths defined by the Catholic Church that bind all its faithful to believe under the pain of sin.
There are conditions for the definition of a dogma. It must be on something regarding Faith and/or Morals, binding all the faithful, coming from the Chair of Peter (a way to say the pope has to use His supreme authority to define it) and is something that is a part of Public Divine Revelation. This means that it must be something that was taught by Sacred Tradition and/or is in the Bible.
c.) The law of Lex Credendi, Lex Agendi.
This Latin phrase means: The law of believing, so also the law of doing. This is a very important aspect to the debate as it shows why the Church explicitly defines Dogmas and condemns errors. This phrase means that if one believes a certain thing to be true, he will act according to it. For example, in the Catholic Church we believe that Jesus Christ is actually, truly and substantially present in the Holy Eucharist. This means that God himself is on our altars. If one truly believes this, he will do the fitting actions that express this belief. Such actions: genuflections, bows, etc... show this. This is an essential aspect to the Catholic Faith as Saint James says: "Faith without works is dead." 2 James 14-17. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James%202&version=NRSVCE
Our faith is enlivened by the Dogmas of the Catholic Church. Our actions express our love for the Truths God has given to us.
d.) It is the Role of the Catholic Church to safeguard the truths revealed to us by God, so that false teachers will not lead souls away from the truths of God.
The Catholic Church would be committing a dereliction of duty if every Jack, Tom and Harry would be allowed to teach their heretical nonsense with the Catholic Church's authority. Also, under this sacred duty of Hers to protect the truth is to present Dogma in a way befitting the truth but also mindful of human ways, customs and the condition of the souls. The Catholic Church is the only religion that keeps the balance between The Transcendence of God (God, as He is in Himself) and The proximity that God grants to us (God, as He is with us. a.k.a. Jesus Christ). The Church safe guards these truths with reason and faith. The Catholic Faith is the only faith that is reasonable. The Church uses Her reason, through Her scholars and Theologians to delve deeper into the Truths revealed by God. The Catholic Religion is the only religion that has reconciled faith and reason. Her usual modus operandi is through Dogmatic Councils.
2) Application of the above principles to the Marian Dogmas.
a.)Mary is the mother of God.
While it is true that the words "Mother of God" are not in the bible, They are held as a part of Divine Revelation coming from Sacred Tradition (a). Early Church Fathers taught this doctrine as it was taught them by their predecessors, and their predecessors before them back to the Apostles. Most Notably:
St. Cyril of Alexandria
St. Ignatius of Antioch
St. Irenaeus.
Pro is correct to say that The Catholic Church defined Her as the Theotokos at the Council of Ephesus(b). The Church has the Authority to do that. Which gives more credence to the truth of her Divine Maternity than some protestant saying otherwise because of their interpretation of Holy Scripture.
From this The Catholic Church has laid down the foundation of Devotion to Her as the Mother of God (c) giving us an opportunity to exercise love for God Through His greatest creation. It is important to note that we do not, nor has the Catholic Church ever, given worship to The Mother of God. We give to her what is called Hyper Dulia which is an idiomatic way of saying that we give the greatest reverence to God's greatest creature. Her role in the salvation of men stems from God's will to be a yet another way to Him.
Lastly, It stands to reason that if Our Lord Jesus Christ is truly God, then Mary His Mother is also rightfully called The Mother of God (d). She bore His human and divine nature in Her womb and gave birth to the one person in whom those two natures reside. To deny that Mary is the Mother of God is deny that Christ was fully divine.
b) Perpetual Virginity: Mary was a virgin before, during, and after the birth of Jesus.
This is another Sacred Tradition (a) taught by Church Fathers and is an argument of fittingness (which is one of the strongest arguments in theology) centering on her role as the Mother of Jesus Christ. The main Church Fathers who defended this doctrine are most notably:
St. Athanasius
St. Ambrose
St. Augustine
The argument of fittingness is not one that can be deduced from natural reason; as St. Thomas Aquinas says. Regarding Her Perpetual Virginity, it stems from Her role as the Mother of God and the fittingness that She belong to Her Creator as His Mother (d). While this is definitely paradoxical, it is not against reason. God willed that She be His Mother: Pure, Immaculate and Worthy to bear The Son. It comes from the fittingness principle that the way God created something is more perfect than permanent changes happening to it afterwards. Obviously we are not considering the effects of Original Sin here.
Pope Martin I defined it at the Lateran Council following upon the Declaration of the Council of Constantinople which was still in communion with the Catholic Church at the time of its declaration. (b)
This has become the basis for the practice of Purity for all Catholics, and celibacy for those in the religious life. (c) I will not go into detail here of all of that, except to mention that it once again demonstrates God's will that Mary has a part in the sanctification of men.
c.) The Immaculate Conception
This Dogma has a lot of history and we could speak a lot about it. But, like all Marian dogmas, it comes from Sacred Tradition (a) and was most notably taught by:
- St. Irenaeus (Against Heresies III.22.4),
- Tertullian (On the Flesh of Christ 17),
- Julius Firmicus Maternus (De errore profan. relig xxvi),
- St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Catecheses 12.29),
- Epiphanius (Hæres., lxxviii, 18),
- Theodotus of Ancyra (Or. in S. Deip n. 11), and
- Sedulius (Carmen paschale, II, 28).
- St. Justin (Dialogue with Trypho 100)
It was definitively defined by Pope Pius IX in 1854 in His papal Bull Ineffabilis Deus. (b)
This follows once again as an argument of fittingness, namely that it is fitting that God choose a most perfect vessel Through which to enter into this world. (d) This becomes the basis of Her as an aid to help us in our pursuit of holiness and perfection, stemming from the doctrine of Judgement when we will appear before God, to give an account of our lives. A devotion to Her to help and intercede for us to appear before God just and loving Him is what springs from this (c). It is celebrated December 8th which is a Holy Day of obligation in the Catholic Church.
d.) The Assumption of Mary into Heaven.
This Doctrine is once again from Sacred Tradition (a) and is taught by St. Epiphranius, A Church Father. https://www.catholic.com/qa/did-the-early-church-believe-in-marys-assumption
Pope Pius XII defined The Assumption of Mary on November 1950 in the Document: Munificentissimus Deus. (b)
This Doctrine is unique among all the other Marian Doctrines. It shows a maturing of the thought of the Catholic Church regarding the development of Mariology. It was accepted among the early Church that She was assumed into Heaven, Body and soul, due to the pertinent lack of any trace of Her body (d). There is also the story that the Apostles left Her in a room to rest and later came back and found a bed of roses instead of Her body. Tradition holds that St. John first taught that she was assumed, which was revealed to Him as the beloved disciple and the caretaker of Mary after Her Son ascended into heaven.
The Main devotion that has sprung from this is the Coronation of Our Mary as the Mother of all Catholic Households (c) and it is celebrated August 15th which is a Holy Day of obligation in the Catholic Church.
3.) Refutation of Pro's arguments.
I will begin by stating that Pro seems to adhere to the position that the Bible is the only source of Divine Revelation and as such, He will say that if it is not in the Bible, then it is not held to be true. This belief, commonly called Sola Scriptura was invented by a heretic named Martin Luther in the 1500s in order to justify his heretical doctrine. The problem with this idea is that makes the Bible supreme, which at best is intellectually dishonest since to accept a book as inspired because it says so is against reason. Without any authority behind it, the Bible would be a scam.
a.) Mother of God
The Bible refers to Mary as the mother of Jesus (John 2:1 John 2:3 Acts 1:14) never as the mother of God.
If Jesus is God, Then Mary is the Mother of God. That stands to reason.
Granted that Jesus is God, but calling Mary the mother of God is presumptions as God has no mother. The Creator was not created.
We are not saying the Creator was created. We are saying He entered into His creation by taking a Mother.
We know Jesus if fully human and fully divine - the later coming from the father, so it is a shame on the solution at the Council of Ephesus was the title "Mother of God" (Theotokos).
Pro is confusing the God in Eternity and God entering into time by a human Mother. Also, The Catholic Church teaches that Christ is One Person. Motherhood implies a relation of Personhood. So, therefore if Christ is one person, then Mary is the mother of that person. That Person has two natures, then She is the Mother of both natures.
b.) Mary's Perpetual Virginity
This dogma originated from The Gospel of James (or the Protoevangelium of James)
No it did not. That is an apocryphal book and therefore cannot be used as matter for a dogma as you show here:
It is a second-century infancy gospel telling of the miraculous conception of the Virgin Mary. It was condemned by Pope Innocent I in 405 and classified as apocryphal by the Gelasian DecreeStill, it became a widely influential source for Mariology.
I don't think this is true, unless you can prove otherwise. remember that just because a book said it does not mean the author was the first to say it. Nor in the decree for Her Virginity is it mentioned as a source.
The Romans Catholic argument here is that Mary being a temple/ark of covenant of God cannot be a temple to another child
That is not the Catholic Churche's argument. While it may be used as comparisons, pious thoughts or a better explaining it is not used as the definitive teaching.
The context is plainly familial, and the locals knew this family
The word used is "adelphoi" which need not signify a literal brother but can also mean cousin, step brother, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_virginity_of_Mary
This article sheds a lot of light on it. This is where the Authority of Church is needed to interpret correctly what is being said.
c.) Immaculate Conception
What is being believed here is
- Mary was born without sin
- Mary never sinned
- Mary is the only person who did not need a redeemer (Jesus)
This just does not fit the human condition...
Yes, well that is kind of the point of the Dogma. To show that She, by God's will was elevated above the human condition.
There is no evidence of these statement in the Bible
Yes, because it is a part of Sacred tradition.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) paragraph 66 (https://ucatholic.com/catechism/ccc66/)...no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.This means that the Church believes all necessary truths for salvation have been revealed, but our comprehension of these truths can deepen over time.It appears this rule is broken by Pope Pius IX
I do not see how he is breaking the rule. He seems to be actually proving it.
d.) Assumption of Mary
Whether Mary did or did not going to heaven without dying is speculative, and to create a dogma over an unwitnessed and undocumented event lack mental rigor, and only add to the god like mystical image and somewhat superstitious view of Mary
The Dogma states that She was assumed into heaven. It says nothing about whether or not She actually died. The Catholic Church has the authority and power of infallibility to make this claim. Once again it comes from Sacred Tradition and was taught by the Church and has Her authority behind it. i will admit, that this particular Dogma is more difficult to believe, a reason the Church took so long to make it a dogma, but that does not take away from its veracity.
Also, whenever the early fathers mentioned assumption, it was always Elijah and Enoch never included Mary. Again, this is a late invention.
Obviously not, as St. Epiphranius taught it.
Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) paragraph 66 again has been broken this time by Pope Pius XII
No He has not.
Conclusion
It seems Pro has misunderstood the actual teaching behind these Marian Dogmas based off an assertion that the Bible is the sole authority on truths about God and His Creation.
In light of the above, I deny all his conclusions, namely:
All the above should not be dogmas, as they are not core to faith in Jesus. And certainly, they should not incur the wrath of God for not believing them.
- Mary name as mother of God has led to superstition and a growing worship of Mary
- Perpetual Virginity I cannot judge, but face value it seems wrong (I do not need prove every Marian belief is wrong, but this certainly should not be a dogma)
- Mary assumption of body is a late invention not proven should not be essential and condemning to a non-believer in this
- Immaculate Conception is outside the human condition, elevating Mary excessively and again should not be essential
Lastly, I will address shortly Pro's stance on Marian apparitions before I refute a few things He says about them.
Firstly, the veracity of Marian apparitions are not at all binding in any way. You do not have to believe them if you wish. The Catholic Church does not bind any of it's faithful to them due to them being private revelations. So those are not considered here legitimately in this argument since we do not have to believe them.
Secondly, I would like to answer some things Pro says about them.
First, I would like to point out that where the supernatural interacts to teaching humans this is always bad
Then Jesus Christ, who is supernatural and taught, is bad.
These Apparitions that in part promote self are out of character with the Mary presented in the Bible
I disagree. If you actually look and study what She said and what She asks for, it is most certainly not out of Her character. Unless Pro can show otherwise, but that would be for a different debate.
Round 2
Pro
#3
Hello Marv99
Let start top down
This Source of Divine revelation was not disputed until the 1500's when a condemned heretic named Martin Luther challenged it in order to justify his heresies; specifically "Sola Scriptura" the notion that the bible is supreme without any authority; a notion Pro seems to adhere to.
Sola Scripture just means what all side accept namely that the Bible is divinely inspired and authoritative and infallible, inspired by the holy spirit. We actually agree on this. (I would argue The Holy spirit is the authority here). Roman Catholic in addition hold that
are also as infallibly authoritative on par with the Bible. This is something us "heretics" do not accept. We do not reject history or tradition and learn from them, but they are not in the divinely authoritative category. The debate is not about Martin Luther, but he and others were reacting to the corruption found in the church......
Case in point the Roman catholic tradition is labelling people who do not believe in the Marian dogmas (the subject of this debate) as "heretics" or with similar terms. I am grateful God (Father Son and Holy Spirit) do not speak this way but work with anyone who is open.
The point on the Marian dogmas is that these are accretion i.e. developed over time, with no evidence in the Bible and generally no evidence in the Apostolic fathers and early church history. Fighting false teaching was present already in the Bible, read Jude or Peter or John. Jesus also shows how to know if something is false - by the fruit. My argument is that the Marian dogmas have no biblical basis and only limited early historical basis. They developed with time, and so I see these in the false doctrine category.
The Holy Bible is the collection of sacred texts, inspired by God, written and compiled over several centuries. ......and established by God Himself, which in this case is The Holy Catholic Church, The societal body founded by Jesus Christ, Divine in It's origin, mission and Sacraments.
This debate is not about which the nature of the church founded by Jesus, which certainly is the Holy Catholic Church (catholic means universal) but it does not mean "the Roman Catholic church" who claim universality.
We have allowed this debate to be based on any edition of the Roman catholic bible. We actually agree with one other on 66 of the books in the Bible as inspired by God....
The point is that we are accepting scripture we are not accepting all the Roman Catholic Church's traditions. Jesus did not accept all the pharisaic traditions either. I repeat Jesus did not accept the man-made traditions prevalent in his generation that had developed over the centuries prior. (see sermon on the mount)
Dogmas are those Truths defined by the Catholic Church that bind all its faithful to believe under the pain of sin.
Now we are getting a bit closer, the Marian dogmas are a necessity for Roman catholic to believe in. Mary's assumption for example is a required belief quoting Pope Pius XII in "The Assumption of Mary on November 1950"
Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.
This is what "us heretics" disagree with. Paul defines a Christian as
one who professing Jesus Christ is Lord (Romans 10:9-10)
or the apostle John says
3.16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.
God makes it easy to come to him, but the Roman Catholic dogmas, and therefore the Roman Catholic church add heavy condemning burden.
The law of Lex Credendi, Lex Agendi.... Catholic Church we believe that Jesus Christ is actually, truly and substantially present in the Holy Eucharist. This means that God himself is on our altars....Our faith is enlivened by the Dogmas of the Catholic Church.
This debate is not about the nature of the eucharist. I would think we agree "Faith without works is dead", but I say it again God makes it easy and exciting to come to him, but the Roman Catholic church add heavy condemning burden in the Marian dogmas. These deaden, creates exclusivism and do does not enliven one's faith
The Catholic Church would be committing a dereliction of duty if every Jack, Tom and Harry would be allowed to teach their heretical nonsense with the Catholic Church's authority.
I am sorry but the Roman Catholic church is acting like Jack, Tom and Harry in at least 2 of the Marian dogmas
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mary is the mother of God.
Lord Jesus Christ is truly God, then Mary His Mother is also rightfully called The Mother of God (d). She bore His human and divine nature in Her womb and gave birth to the one person in whom those two natures reside
This is the crux: Mary did bear Jesus in her womb. Her "genes" i.e. egg, gave the human nature. God's "sperm" gave the divine nature. Mary can be rightly called the mother of Jesus. Jesus who is both fully human and fully divine. Jesus acknowledges God is greater than him so there is an order in heaven. This dogma is defining an order in heaven and has mislead many to pray to her.
I acknowledge many traditions call Mary mother of God.
The concern: This is defining an order in heaven elevating Mary.
Mary herself acknowledges she needs a savior
- Mary says in Luke 1“My soul magnifies the Lord,
and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perpetual Virginity
This has become the basis for the practice of Purity for all Catholics, and celibacy for those in the religious life.(c) I will not go into detail here of all of that, except to mention that it once again demonstrates God's will that Mary has a part in the sanctification of men.
The argument that perpetual Virginity is a basis for celibacy for those in the religious life does not hold. Peter was married. Only in the twelfth century did The Church take a stand in favor of celibacy. This is not a dogma and can be reversed at any time.
The argument that perpetual Virginity is a basis for purity is natural to austerity side of man. The Old Testament is full of the adultery image- Israel's spiritual adultery by worshipping other gods (e.g. Hosea). Man uses the austerity image; God uses the faithfulness image. Mans method is deprecating, Gods method is uplifting.
Off course we do respect vows of celibacy and vows of a religious life to God. Mary does not need to be invoked for this
It is true that perpetual Virginity is found faith early in church history. Mary was looked after by the apostle John after the first Christian easter. However, the plain reading of the Bible study outlined in round 1 does not point to perpetual Virginity. Both Joseph and the crowds act as witness to a family with more children. The one potential witness against this: Jesus asking John to look after his mother and not James - but James was not present at the cross.
Perpetual Virginity was defined by: Pope St. Martin I at the Lateran Synod in 649 A.D
Canon 3. If anyone does not properly and truly confess in accord with the holy Fathers, that the holy Mother of God and ever Virgin and immaculate Mary in the earliest of the ages conceived of the Holy Spirit without seed, namely, God the Word Himself specifically and truly, who was born of God the Father before all ages, and that she incorruptibly bore [Him?], her virginity remaining indestructible even after His birth, let him be condemned
The concern: Not believing in the Marian doctrine makes us condemned in the eyes of the Roman Catholic Chruch
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Immaculate Conception
Paul say Romans 3:23: " since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"
The Roman catholic church is dogmatically contradicting Paul saying Mary never sinner
"The early Church Fathers speaking of Mary's struggles at the Cross express opinions to the effect that she was confused, in pain, and suffered emotionally... For these writers it was not a concern to mention Mary may have sinned.
references:
- Chrysostom’s Vainglorious Virgin Mary - Ad Fontes
- The Sinlessness of the Theotokos | The Monastery of St. Tikhon of Zadonsk
- https://youtu.be/PR9EbapyPcg (Gavin Ortland)
All this to show that this dogma is an accretion....
Cons argument is hard to understand
This follows once again as an argument of fittingness,....his becomes the basis of Her as an aid to help us in our pursuit of holiness and perfection, stemming from the doctrine of Judgement ....A devotion to Her to help and intercede for us to appear before God just and loving Him is what springs from this
Man invents something because it seems fitting?? As Christians we need not fear judgement - if we live with a clear conscience judgement become a time when we hear "well done"
The concern: This is elevating Mary beyond human
.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assumption of Mary
... It shows a maturing of the thought of the Catholic Church regarding the development of Mariology.
Really mature making this a requirement of faith else " he will incur the wrath of Almighty God..."
The gospels make no such requirements
Tradition holds that St. John first taught that she was assumed
Church history present no evidence for this
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apparition
I repeat some of what these apparitions are saying
- Jesus is seen to be stern, Mary is seen to be holding back the wrath of Christ
- The apparition is demanding for itself - chapel, prayer
- Mary is holding a baby - Jesus is no longer a baby
- the apparitions are self-seeking
Basically, this is all very weird.
The theology presented is not in line with the Christian spirit
I am amazed when I hear priest put so much emphasis on what Mary says
The concern: This is giving more attention to Mary and displacing Jesus.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I rest my case.
- The RC church has added conditions for belief that are not present in the Bible -
- The Marian dogmas have displaced Jesus
- My opponent upholds traditions. However, we must all run with our conscience and there are times to question traditions
Con
#4
Thank you FMeyer for your response.
I will present only the rebuttals here.
Sola Scripture just means what all side accept namely that the Bible is divinely inspired and authoritative and infallible, inspired by the holy spirit. We actually agree on this. (I would argue The Holy spirit is the authority here)
Sola Scriptura means the Bible is the only source of Divine Revelation. We most most certainly do not agree with that. As Pro pointed out, we also hold Sacred Tradition as a source of Divine Revelation. The pope speaking ex cathedra is Him explicitly declaring a proposition to be a truth from Divine Revelation or Regarding morals. The pope speaking ex cathedra is not a source of Divine Revelation.
The debate is not about Martin Luther, but he and others were reacting to the corruption found in the church......
I pointed out that Martin Luther rejected Sacred Tradition and held the bible as the only source of Divine Revelation. Not exactly the best way to fight corruption in the church.
The point on the Marian dogmas is that these are accretion i.e. developed over time, with no evidence in the Bible...
Because they are found in Sacred Tradition. Not the Bible. The Bible is not the only source of divinely revealed truths.
...and generally no evidence in the Apostolic fathers and early church history.
Yes there is. I gave a list in R1 for all the Church fathers who taught the Marian Dogmas.
They developed with time, and so I see these in the false doctrine category.
A dogma developing with time does not mean it is not a part of Divine Revelation. We can come to a deeper understanding of the mystery in question in which we can make a definitive statement about it.
This is what "us heretics" disagree with. Paul defines a Christian asone who professing Jesus Christ is Lord (Romans 10:9-10)or the apostle John says3.16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.God makes it easy to come to him, but the Roman Catholic dogmas, and therefore the Roman Catholic church add heavy condemning burden.
The Dogmas the Church defines are those truths that were revealed to us. To reject them is akin to rejecting Christ, even if they are not directly about Him. St. Paul above is giving us a certain aspect of what a Christian is. Not necessarily the whole picture.
This debate is not about the nature of the eucharist. I would think we agree "Faith without works is dead", but I say it again God makes it easy and exciting to come to him, but the Roman Catholic church add heavy condemning burden in the Marian dogmas. These deaden, creates exclusivism and do does not enliven one's faith
I am not trying to make the Eucharist a part of this debate. I gave it as an example demonstrating the principle: Lex credendi lex agendi.
Also I do not see how the Marian Dogmas make it more difficult to go to God. You will have to actually explain that. Not just keep saying it. I have no problem going to God believing those Marian Dogmas. In fact, I find them quite comforting knowing that The Mother of God is interceding on behalf of sinners.
MOTHER OF GOD
The concern: This is defining an order in heaven elevating Mary.
I do not know where you get your explanations of dogmas, but we are not defining an order in heaven. We are defining a title of Mary. Yes, it implies She is the greatest saint in heaven. It does not imply She is greater than God. Rather is shows Her role in the Redemption of man.
Mary herself acknowledges she needs a savior
and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
Yes, She needed a savior to receive the grace to become the Mother of God. God anticipated the Redemption and gave to Her the grace of Her Divine Maternity before the Redemption in time.
PERPETUAL VIRGINITY
Perpetual VirginityThis has become the basis for the practice of Purity for all Catholics, and celibacy for those in the religious life.(c) I will not go into detail here of all of that, except to mention that it once again demonstrates God's will that Mary has a part in the sanctification of men.The argument that perpetual Virginity is a basis for celibacy for those in the religious life does not hold. Peter was married. Only in the twelfth century did The Church take a stand in favor of celibacy. This is not a dogma and can be reversed at any time.The argument that perpetual Virginity is a basis for purity is natural to austerity side of man. The Old Testament is full of the adultery image- Israel's spiritual adultery by worshipping other gods (e.g. Hosea). Man uses the austerity image; God uses the faithfulness image. Mans method is deprecating, Gods method is uplifting.Off course we do respect vows of celibacy and vows of a religious life to God. Mary does not need to be invoked for this
I did not say celibacy was a dogma. I'm not sure you understood what I wrote. I pointed out that The dogma of perpetual virginity is the basis of the devotion to purity and celibacy in the religious life. The fact that Peter was married has nothing to do with what I am saying.
The argument that perpetual Virginity is a basis for purity is natural to austerity side of man. The Old Testament is full of the adultery image- Israel's spiritual adultery by worshipping other gods (e.g. Hosea). Man uses the austerity image; God uses the faithfulness image. Mans method is deprecating, Gods method is uplifting.
I have no idea what you are trying to say here. You will have to explain this differently.
It is true that perpetual Virginity is found faith early in church history. Mary was looked after by the apostle John after the first Christian easter. However, the plain reading of the Bible study outlined in round 1 does not point to perpetual Virginity. Both Joseph and the crowds act as witness to a family with more children. The one potential witness against this: Jesus asking John to look after his mother and not James - but James was not present at the cross.
The plain reading of the bible has to be considered under the light of the other source of Divine Revelation which is Sacred Tradition. The text need not imply immediate family relations and under the light of Sacred Tradition we know that it doesn't. I addressed that in R1 which Pro has not addressed yet.
The concern: Not believing in the Marian doctrine makes us condemned in the eyes of the Roman Catholic Chruch
Yes, because you are rejecting as untrue what God said is true.
IMMACULATE CONCEPTION
The Roman catholic church is dogmatically contradicting Paul saying Mary never sinner
The quote you gave would also have to imply that Christ sinned as well since He was also Human. We both know that is not true. So St. Paul was clearly using a universal exceptive statement. The Catholic Church has shown through Her theology that Mary was free from sin as well
"The early Church Fathers speaking of Mary's struggles at the Cross express opinions to the effect that she was confused, in pain, and suffered emotionally... For these writers it was not a concern to mention Mary may have sinned.references:
Even though some have said that, their opinions are still subject to the Catholic Churches Authority. Not all Church Fathers taught that. So I can just throw here a list of those who said She did not sin and then we would be at a standstill. The point is that the Church's Authority decided the matter and they defined infallibly against Mary sinning. So it does not matter if some Church Fathers said She did. They were wrong.
Cons argument is hard to understandThis follows once again as an argument of fittingness,....his becomes the basis of Her as an aid to help us in our pursuit of holiness and perfection, stemming from the doctrine of Judgement ....A devotion to Her to help and intercede for us to appear before God just and loving Him is what springs from thisMan invents something because it seems fitting?? As Christians we need not fear judgement - if we live with a clear conscience judgement become a time when we hear "well done"
I would say you misunderstood it if the part you quoted is what you think I was essentially saying. It is not.
Pro has this a priori assumption that the Marian Dogmas are man made and therefore because of that so also the principles of fittingness. The dogma comes from Sacred Tradition. It is not man made.
The concern: This is elevating Mary beyond human
No it is not. It is elevating Her beyond sinful human status. Not human status. Adam and Eve were at that point one time as well before they sinned.
ASSUMPTION OF MARY
Assumption of Mary... It shows a maturing of the thought of the Catholic Church regarding the development of Mariology.Really mature making this a requirement of faith else " he will incur the wrath of Almighty God..."The gospels make no such requirementsTradition holds that St. John first taught that she was assumedChurch history present no evidence for this
I don't think Church history needs to when Tradition holds it. It is a question of faith not scientific knowledge. Good luck getting getting any direct evidence of it.
ApparitionI repeat some of what these apparitions are saying
- Jesus is seen to be stern, Mary is seen to be holding back the wrath of Christ
- The apparition is demanding for itself - chapel, prayer
- Mary is holding a baby - Jesus is no longer a baby
- the apparitions are self-seeking
Basically, this is all very weird.The theology presented is not in line with the Christian spiritI am amazed when I hear priest put so much emphasis on what Mary saysThe concern: This is giving more attention to Mary and displacing Jesus.
I don't think you actually read what I wrote. You certainly have not addressed it. We do not need to believe in the Apparitions.
- The RC church has added conditions for belief that are not present in the Bible -
Because the Bible is not the only source of Divine Revelation.
- The Marian dogmas have displaced Jesus
No they have not.
- My opponent upholds traditions. However, we must all run with our conscience and there are times to question traditions
I uphold Sacred Tradition. I am not convinced you are speaking of the same thing here in your quote. As for your conscience that has nothing to do with the veracity of the proposition defined.
Pro has not really addressed my arguments in this round but rather seems to have gotten distracted by examples and/or minor explanations. It seems as though they did not actually understand the main points I made.
Round 3
Pro
#5
I will summarize our points of view
- We both agree the Bibel is infallible - divinely inspired
- We disagree on Sacred Tradition. For con Sacred Tradition is infallible. This has been cons sole argument in the debate. Basically, saying because Sacred Tradition says so, therefore it is true. At the onset
Rules 1:. Both parties accept the Bible as divinely inspired and authoritative. There was so rule about Sacred Tradition.I repeat; I do not reject history or tradition but say that Sacred Tradition is fallible (unless proven otherwise). - I have shown the Marian Dogmas are not in the Bible - I think we agree the Marian dogmas are not in the Bible
- I have shown and argued these Marian dogmas developed over time - We seem agree the Marian dogmas developed over time
- We agree not all church fathers have supported the Marian doctrines
Some of con's statements below:
we also hold Sacred Tradition as a source of Divine RevelationI don't think Church history needs to when Tradition holds it. It is a question of faith not scientific knowledge. Good luck getting getting any direct evidence of it.
their opinions are still subject to the Catholic Churches Authority. Not all Church Fathers taught that.
The concern: Not believing in the Marian doctrine makes us condemned in the eyes of the Roman Catholic ChruchYes, because you are rejecting as untrue what God said is true.
I don't think Church history needs to when Tradition holds it. It is a question of faith not scientific knowledge. Good luck getting any direct evidence of it.
The Dogmas the Church defines are those truths that were revealed to us. To reject them is akin to rejecting Christ
Pro has not really addressed my arguments in this round but rather seems to have gotten distracted by examples and/or minor explanations. It seems as though they did not actually understand the main points I made.
Sacred Tradition has been the only argument made. This is a circular argument
The concerns again:
- Not believing in the Marian doctrine makes us condemned in the eyes of the Roman Catholic ChruchCon agrees we are condemned in the eyes of the Roman Catholic Chruch
- This is elevating Mary beyond human
- This is giving more attention to Mary and displacing Jesus.Con agrees stating: To reject them is akin to rejecting Christ
I will conclude with quotes from Moses and Jesus
- Moses SaysDeut 12:32 you must diligently observe everything that I command you; do not add to it or take anything from it.
- Jesus Says
Math 5: 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven;
Finally, thanks for this debate.
Con
#6
Thank you FMeyer for this debate. I enjoyed doing it.
I will present a few rebuttals.
Sacred Tradition has been the only argument made. This is a circular argument
I'm not sure how you see it as a circular argument. I presented in R1 what Sacred Tradition was and how we use it.
- This is elevating Mary beyond human
No it is not. It elevates her above sinful human condition. It is not elevating above human. That is a gross misunderstanding of the dogmas.
I did not in any way agree that it is displacing Jesus. I would suggest Pro go and actually read what I said. The Dogmas are revealed truths. Revealed by God to man. To reject them as untrue is to say that God lied to us. That is a very condemnable position to be in.
Thanks again for the debate!
No content
Looks like there is nothing here yet
If any have time, could you please vote on this?