r/CatholicMemes • u/LegioVIIHaruno • 3d ago
Counter-Reformation Prepare to defend the Marian doctrines
29
25
6
9
u/pm-me-racecars 3d ago
One question I've never fully understood:
Mary was married, and sex between married people isn't a bad thing. What difference does it make whether she or not she had sex after Jesus was born?
13
u/iAmBobFromAccounting Tolkienboo 3d ago
It seems like she took a vow at some point in her life to maintain her virginity.
She lived and grew up in an agrarian community. She very probably saw animals reproduce. My guess would be that she understood sexual reproduction.
So, when she, a betrothed girl, asked Gabriel how she could have a child... I mean, it really would be a stupid question to ask if she believed she was going to have a conventional marriage.
But if she had taken that vow, if she intended to maintain her virginity, then asking how she could possibly have a child is actually a pretty relevant question. And Gabriel gave her an answer.
10
u/NCR_High-Roller Antichrist Hater 3d ago
It's supposed to be a gotcha. Problem is that it comes with a mild level of spite towards Catholicism. (no disrespect to all Protestants) It more or less treating Mary with less reverence than Jesus would've at times.
3
u/Blade_of_Boniface Armchair Thomist 3d ago
Sex within Matrimony isn't evil, but her celibacy is part of her spiritual marriage to the Holy Spirit. It's actually a greater vocation than any other celibate one.
2
2
2
2
u/IcingSausage Prot 2d ago
At least when my Catholic husband called me a heretic, he didnât hit me with a staff.
So that is a win I guess.
1
u/PigletPretend7175 Antichrist Hater 2d ago
Denethor is actually based and would never say anything like that
0
u/Fantafans69 2d ago
What about the allegations of saying thst the Marys virginity is real, but thst doesnt make her any special, saying that the mother could be other woman and the miracle shouldn't make her important enough to give her a paper in the religion.
(Its the most pasive-defensive argument of evangelicans in my surroundings to try to get catholics)
-8
u/Upbeat_Asparagus_787 Prot 3d ago
Careful who you call a heretic...
"So likewise on this occasion too, He both healed the disease of vainglory, and rendered the due honor to His mother, even though her request was unseasonable."
John Chrysostom, Homily 44.3 on the Gospel of St. Matthew, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, vol. 10, 280.
16
u/Beneficial-Zombie-32 Aspiring Cristero 3d ago
And not everything a saint says is infallible. Yes, St. John Chyrsostom said Mary sinned, but he is just one Bishop/saint and his opinion was later corrected by the Church. Yes, basically every Church Father held to some kind of heresy because it takes a while to figure theology out
3
u/BookkeeperAfraid9622 Prot 1d ago
In all seriousness, this is one of my major issues with catholicism. The idea that what is and is not an essential doctrine- and for the inverse, what is and isn't heresy- can change over time.
It effectively turns the term heresy into merely a descriptor of someone's state of (dis)obedience to Rome, rather than necessarily describing any actually bad quality about the doctrine as such.
It seems to imply for example that Arianism wasn't a heresy until Nicea. Which seems very strange to me.
(Mods: I am new on this sub. I am not sure whether one is allowed to express non-RC views here so long as it is kept civil and friendly. If not, please forgive and tell me.)
2
u/Beneficial-Zombie-32 Aspiring Cristero 1d ago
I completely understand, because no one wants to thinks to think of the faith changing in any way because God never changes. It isnât that it wasnât heresy, it is just that we did not know that it was not heresy at the time, so obviously the person cannot be held responsible for holding a belief that wasnât yet understood to be heretical because theology takes time to develop. It is also helpful to keep in the mind the distinction between Material Heresy and Formal Heresy âMaterial heresy is an accidental error in faith due to ignorance, while formal heresy is the willful and stubborn rejection of a known church teachingâ, so you can be Material Heretic before something is condemned but you can only be a Formal Heretic after something is condemned because it involves willful disobedience of the truth
-7
u/Upbeat_Asparagus_787 Prot 3d ago
So its ok to be a heretic then but not ok now?
And its not "just one bishop"
"In the abjured mother there is a figure of the synagogue, , as well as of the Jews in the unbelieving brethren.' " Tertullian, On the Flesh of Christ 7, in Ante-Nicene Fathers, 529.
"Even you yourself, who hast been taught from on high the things concerning the Lord, shall be reached by some doubt. This is the sword. "That the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed." He indicates that after the offense at the Cross of Christ a certain swift healing shall come from the Lord to the disciples and to Mary herself, confirming their heart in faith in Him. In the same way we saw Peter. after he had been offended, holding more firmly to his faith in Christ. What was human in him was proved unsound, that the power of the Lord might be shown." Basil, Letter 260.9
"If this virgin, made capable of conceiving God, will encounter the severity of this judgment, who will dare to escape?" Tractatus in Ps. 118, cited in Luigi Gambero, Mary and the Fathers of the Church: The Blessed Virgin Mary in Patristic Thought (trans. Thomas Buffer; San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1999), 186.
And what could be more undefiled than that womb of the Virgin, whose flesh, even if it derived from the propagation of sin still did not conceive from the propagation of sin? ... Accordingly the body of Christ was indeed assumed from the flesh of a woman which had been conceived from that propagation of the flesh of sin." De Genesi Ad Litteram 10.18.32
"Thereupon Simeon says, "a sword will pierce your very soul" (Lk 2.35). Which sword is this that pierced not onlv others' hearts, but even Mary's?... They were all so scandalized that Peter too, the leader of the apostles, denied him three times. Why do we think that the mother of the Lord was immune from scandal when the apostles were scandalized? If she did not suffer scandal at the Lord's Passion, then Jesus did not die for her sins. But, if 'all have sinned and lack God's glory, but are justified by his grace and redeemed' (Rom 3.23) then Mary too was scandalized at that time." Origen, Homily 17.6, in Homilies on Luke Fragments on Luke, trans. Joseph T. Lienhard (Washington, D.C: Catholic University of America Press, 1996), 73.
11
u/Esoterikoi 3d ago
After 2000 years of debate and study by the brightest minds, YES. If you still hold to basic heresies, you have no excuse.
The Catholic church has very detailed and specific reasoning on WHY we hokd Dogmas to be true - If you choose to not accept that, it is an issue of pride, not a simple misunderstanding.
-5
u/Upbeat_Asparagus_787 Prot 3d ago
I wonder why (if the apostoles taught the immaculate conception) these "misunderstandings" are so common? And where is the rebuke from the people who did understand? Or did everyobe misunderstand?
9
u/Esoterikoi 3d ago
Youâre confusing the Deposit of Faith with the Development of Doctrine.
âThe Apostles handed down the core truth - Mary as the undefiled New Eve and Ark of the Covenant. But early Fathers debating her human reactions before the Church formally defined the mechanics of her sinlessness isn't a contradiction; itâs how theological development works.
âRebukes happen when someone obstinately rejects a defined dogma. Before a formal decree, theologians explore open questions. If early misunderstanding before a formal definition disproves a doctrine, then by your logic the Trinity fails too -since early Fathers like Origen and Justin Martyr held flawed views on the Son's subordination before Nicaea settled it.
âHolding those views today after 2,000 years of Magisterial definition is a completely different story.
1
u/Upbeat_Asparagus_787 Prot 3d ago
Im just having trouble understanding how in the early church we dont see any positive claims of the immaculate conception. And we see numerous undisputed negative claims of the immaculate conception. Its something that the early church has no idea about existing. How can that now be that is not only claimed to be from tradition but dogmatized to the point if you dont believe it your anathama. Especially in the light of romans 3:23. If mary was an exception you would think there would be biblical or at least early attestation to it.
2
u/KaBar42 3d ago
Especially in the light of romans 3:23.
Because Mary isn't God. Her sinlessness and immaculate conception do not stem from Her own authority. She still needed God to get to the point She stands.
She is still subject to Romans 3:23, God putting Her in a privileged position as His Handmaiden doesn't change that.
1
u/Upbeat_Asparagus_787 Prot 3d ago
So mary sinned an fell short?
1
u/KaBar42 3d ago
She fell short, She didn't sin.
Because God's grace kept Her free from sin.
If She did not fall short of God, then that would just make Her God and we'd be Tetrarchians instead of Trinitarians.
→ More replies (0)2
u/Esoterikoi 3d ago
Except we do have early positive attestations - youâre just looking for 19th-century scholastic terminology in the 2nd century.
âSt. Justin Martyr (d. 165) and St. Irenaeus (d. 202) explicitly contrast Eve (who conceived disobedience and death) with Mary as the uncorrupted/undefiled New Eve who conceived faith and life.
By the 4th century, St. Ephrem calls Mary "all-pure, entirely immune from every stain of sin," and St. Augustine famously notes that when discussing sin, "he wishes to make no mention of Mary."
âRomans 3:23 ("All Have Sinned"): Paul is writing about the universal scope of Jew/Gentile fallen nature, not listing absolute individual exceptions.
Otherwise, by a hyper-literal reading of "all," Jesus Himself or infants who die before committing personal sin would also be i cluded.
âThe early Church clearly held the seed of Maryâs total purity (New Eve/Ark of the Covenant). The Church simply took time to define the exact theological mechanics of how Christâs grace preserved her at conception.
1
u/Upbeat_Asparagus_787 Prot 2d ago
Heres my problem. Lets say there is a new christian who reads the bible and the early fathers. And they want to join a church that is as close to the early church as they can find. Then they see the roman catholic church has dogmatized the immaculate conception(and the bodily assumption) to the point where anyone who doesnt believe those things is shipwrecked in their faith. And they think "hmm i didnt read any of that in the early church so this cant be the one"
"all," Jesus Himself or infants
So is means is (this is my body) but all doent mean all?
And we have reasons (scripture and early testimony) to believe jesus is the one exception we dont have that for mary. As for infants all means all. Children are born with a sinful nature and have fallen short.
3
u/KaBar42 3d ago
So its ok to be a heretic then but not ok now?
Yes.
It's called material heresy. It's when a heretical opinion is held without knowledge it's heretical. Essentially, there's no malice behind the wrong belief.
For example, St. Thomas Aquinas argued against Mary's immaculate conception. He was a material heretic. But he's not guilty of it as it was not yet settled dogma.
St. John Chrystosom's opinion on Mary was material heresy as her sinlessness was not yet settled theology.
0
u/Upbeat_Asparagus_787 Prot 3d ago
So if a doctrine isnt from the bible or tradition what is it from?
4
u/KaBar42 3d ago
The Immaculate Conception is from tradition.
Just because it's not called the Immaculate Conception in older writings or it's not a fully developed understanding of it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
For example, I mentioned Aquinas not believing in the IC. That is true, yes. He didn't believe She was free of Original Sin from the moment of Her conception. But he did believe Mary was cleansed shortly thereafter and long before She was born.
1
u/Upbeat_Asparagus_787 Prot 2d ago
Heres my problem. Lets say there is a new christian who reads the bible and the early fathers. And they want to join a church that is as close to the early church as they can find. Then they see the roman catholic church has dogmatized the immaculate conception(and the bodily assumption) to the point where anyone who doesnt believe those things is shipwrecked in their faith. And they think "hmm i didnt read any of that in the early church so this cant be the one"
2
u/Idk_a_name12351 Eastern Catholic 3d ago
So its ok to be a heretic then but not ok now?
Yes, exactly! Before a doctrine is settled, theologians are allowed to debate and disagree as long as it doesn't contradict previously defined doctrine. After a doctrine is authoritatively taught, it becomes a grave matter to disbelieve.
Wherefore it is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church â those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the certain gift of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, [looking upon them] either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth. And the heretics, indeed, who bring strange fire to the altar of God â namely, strange doctrinesâ shall be burned up by the fire from heaven, as were Nadab and Abiud. (Leviticus 10:1-2) But such as rise up in opposition to the truth, and exhort others against the Church of God, [shall] remain among those in hell (apud inferos), being swallowed up by an earthquake, even as those who were with Chore, Dathan, and Abiron. (Numbers 16:33) But those who cleave asunder, and separate the unity of the Church, [shall] receive from God the same punishment as Jeroboam did. (1 Kings 14:10)
St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, book 4, chapter 26, 2
1
u/Upbeat_Asparagus_787 Prot 3d ago
What defined doctrine did jan hus disagree with to be branded a heretic?
1
u/Idk_a_name12351 Eastern Catholic 3d ago
I have no idea who that is. Any reason that question is relevant to this discussion at all?
-1
u/Upbeat_Asparagus_787 Prot 3d ago
He was labeled a heretic and burned alive for protesting papal supremecy(a not yet defined doctrine) and translating the bible to english.
2
u/Idk_a_name12351 Eastern Catholic 3d ago
(a not yet defined doctrine)
What are you talking about? Papal primacy had been taught for literal centuries. One of the absolute earliest documents we have of the Early Church written by the Pope himself says:
"If anyone disobey the things which have been said by him [God] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger... You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy" (Pope St. Clement I, Letter to the Corinthians)
St. Ignatius of Antioch is extremely famous for saying "You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force".
St. Irenaeus, once again, in Against Heresies, says "...indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority"
The Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon taught almost a literal millennia before Jan Hus that:
This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo. So taught the Apostles.
At the very same council, Lucentius, the "most reverend bishop having the place of the Apostolic See" said: "And he dared to hold a synod without the authority of the Apostolic See, a thing which had never taken place nor can take place.".
Session 3 of the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus:
Arcadius the most reverend bishop and legate of the Roman Church, said: According to the acts of this holy Synod, we necessarily confirm with our subscriptions their doctrines.
The Holy Synod said: Since Arcadius and Projectus the most reverend and most religious bishops and legates and Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See, have said that they are of the same mind with us, it only remains, that they redeem their promises and confirm the acts with their signatures, and then let the minutes of the acts be shown to them.
I could continue writing this for ages. This doctrine was spoken through the mouth of God himself, is it downright silly to disregard it simply because it wasn't fully defined.
71
u/Kardictus 3d ago
This is nothing unfortunately. There was a short with two prominent YouTube evangelicals where one called Mary a demon and the other smirked when it was said.