There is no evidence in the scripture for any of the Marian doctrines. Aren't they just doctrines that have been made up by the Catholic Church?
.

.

The following response is taken from the Catholic Answers web site. It is an excellent site. To visit it, click here.

.

. .

Response 4

Immaculate Conception and Assumption

The Marian doctrines are, for Protestants, among the most annoying of the doctrines most people identify as distinctively Catholic ones. Fundamentalist Protestants disapprove of any talk about Mary as the Mother of God, as the Mediatrix, or as the Mother of the Church. In this tract we'll examine briefly two Marian doctrines that Fundamentalist writers frequently complain about--the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. 
 

The Immaculate Conception

It's important to clearly understand what the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is and is not. Some non-Catholics think the term refers to Christ's conception in Mary's womb without the intervention of a human father; but the proper name for that is the Virgin Birth. Others think the Immaculate Conception means Mary herself was conceived "by the power of the Holy Spirit" in the way Jesus was, but it does not. The Immaculate Conception means that Mary, whose conception was brought about the normal way, was conceived in the womb of her mother without the stain of original sin. The essence of original sin consists in the deprivation of sanctifying grace, and its stain is a corrupt nature. Mary was preserved from these defects by God's grace; from the first instant of her existence she was in the state of sanctifying grace and was free from the corrupt nature original sin brings. 

Catholic exegetes, in discussing the Immaculate Conception, first look at the Annunciation of the birth of Christ. The angel Gabriel greeted Mary by saying, "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you" (Luke 1:28). The phrase "full of grace" is a translation of the Greek word kecharitomene. This word actually represents the proper name of the person being addressed by the angel, and it must on that account express a characteristic quality of Mary. 

What's more, the traditional translation, "full of grace," is more accurate than the one found in many recent versions of the New Testament, which give something along the lines of "highly favoured daughter." True, Mary was a highly favoured daughter of God, but the Greek implies more than that. The newer translations leave out something the Greek conveys, something the older English versions convey which is that this grace (and the core of the word kecharitomene is charis (the Greek word for grace) after all is at once permanent and of a unique kind. The Greek term indicates a perfection of grace. A perfection must be perfect not only intensively, but extensively. The grace Mary enjoyed must not only have been as "full" or strong or complete as possible at any given time, but it must have extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward.

That is, she must have been in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence to have been called "full of grace." If she was merely "highly favoured," in the normal connotation of those words, her status would have been indistinguishable from that of some other women in the Bible, such as Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist, or Sarah, the wife of Abraham, or Anna, the mother of Samuel--all of whom, by the way, were long childless and were "highly favoured" because God acceded to their pleas to bear children. 
 

Fundamentalists' objections

Fundamentalists' chief reason for objecting to the Immaculate Conception and Mary's consequent sinlessness--which is what her lifelong state of sanctifying grace and freedom from a corrupt nature implies--is that Mary was but a creature, and we are told that "all have sinned" (Rom. 3:23). Besides, they say, Mary said her "spirit rejoices in God my Saviour" (Luke 1:47), and only a sinner needs a Saviour. Since Mary was a sinner, she couldn't have been immaculately conceived. 

Let's take the second citation first. The Church has a simple and sensible answer to this objection. It is this: Mary, too, required a Saviour. Like all other descendants of Adam, by her nature she was subject to the necessity of contracting original sin. But by a special intervention of God, undertaken at the instant she was conceived, she was preserved from the stain of original sin and its consequences. She was therefore redeemed by the grace of Christ, but in a special way, by anticipation. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception thus does not contradict Luke 1:47. 

Consider an analogy: Suppose a man falls into a deep pit, he cries out for help, and someone hears his plea, reaches down, and pulls him out. The man has been "saved" from the pit (cf. Psalm 40:2-3). Now imagine a woman walking along, and she too is about to topple into the pit, but at the very moment that she is falling in, someone reaches out, holds her back, and prevents her from falling in. She too has been saved from the pit, but in an even better way: she was not simply taken out of the pit, she was prevented from getting defiled in the mud in the first place. This is the illustration Christians have used for a thousand years to explain how Mary was saved by Christ. By receiving Christ's grace at the exact instant of her conception, she had his grace applied to her before she was able to become mired in original sin and its stain, and so she was saved in an even more immanent manner than we are. 

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) thus describes her as "the most excellent fruit of redemption" (CCC 508) in that she was "redeemed in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son" (CCC 492). She has more reason to call God her Saviour than we do, because he saved her in an even more glorious manner!
 

Have All Sinned? 

But what about Romans 3:23, "all have sinned"? Fundamentalists, as a rule, think it means more than that everyone is subject to original sin. They think it means everyone commits actual sins. They conclude it means Mary must have sinned during her life, and that certainly would speak against an Immaculate Conception. But is the Fundamentalists' reasoning solid? No.

Think about a child below the age of reason. By definition he can't sin, since sinning requires the ability to reason and the ability to intend to sin. If the child dies before ever committing an actual sin, because he isn't mature enough to know what he is doing, what act of his brings him under their interpretation of Romans 3:23? None, of course. 

This is indicated by Paul elsewhere in the epistle to the Romans when he speaks of the time when Jacob and Esau were unborn babies as a time when they "had done nothing either good or bad" (Rom. 9:11). Thus there is a time in people's lives before they have sinned, meaning Paul's statement earlier in Romans must be a general rather than an exceptionless principle.

We also know of another very prominent exception to the rule: Jesus (Heb. 4:15). So Paul's statement in Romans 3 must also include an exception for Jesus. But if it includes an exception for Jesus, the Second Adam, then it also includes an exception for Mary, the Second Eve.

Paul's comment to the Christians in Rome thus would seem to have one of two meanings. Despite the phrasing, it might be that it refers not to absolutely everyone, but just to the mass of mankind (which means young children and other special cases, like Jesus and Mary, would be excluded without having to be singled out). If not that, then it would mean that everyone, without exception, is subject to original sin, which is true for a young child, for the unborn, even for Mary--but she, though due to be subject to it, was preserved from it and its stain. 

It took a positive act of God to keep her from coming under its effects the way we have. We had the stain of Original Sin removed through baptism, which brings sanctifying grace to the soul (thus making the soul spiritually alive and capable of enjoying heaven) and makes the recipient a member of the Church. We might say that Mary received a very special kind of "baptism" at her conception, though, because she never contracted Original Sin, she enjoyed certain privileges we never can, such as entire avoidance of sin. 

If one interprets the text to mean all have actually been bound under original sin and objects that Mary was not, true enough, but then neither was Jesus, and if the text has an exception for him in his capacity as the Second Adam then it has an exception for Mary in her capacity as the Second Eve.
 

A Question of Lowliness

On occasion one will hear that the Immaculate Conception can't be squared with Mary's own description of herself: "for he has regarded the low estate of his handmaiden" (Luke 1:48). How could she be lowly if she were as Catholics say, the highest creature, what the poet Wordsworth called "our tainted natures solitary boast"? If she understood herself to be lowly, doesn't that mean she understood herself to have sinned? 

The key is that sin is not the only motive for lowliness. Compared to God, any creature, no matter how perfect, is lowly, Mary included. Jesus, referring to his human nature, said, " learn from me; for I am gentle and lowly in heart" (Matt. 11:29). Certainly he was without sin, and if he could describe himself as lowly, there can be no argument against Mary describing herself the same way. In fact, it is precisely her freedom from sin which would lead her to adopt a humble attitude!

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was officially defined by Pope Pius IX in 1854. When Fundamentalists claim that the doctrine was "invented" at this time, they misunderstand both the history of dogmas and what prompts the Church to issue, from time to time, definitive pronouncements regarding faith or morals. They are under the impression that no dogma is believed until the Pope or an ecumenical council issues a formal statement about it. 

Actually, dogmas are defined formally only when there is a controversy that needs to be cleared up or when the Magisterium (the Church in its office as teacher [Cf. Matt. 28:18-20; 1 Tim. 4:11; ]) thinks the faithful can be helped by particular emphasis being drawn to some already-existing belief. The definition of the Immaculate Conception was prompted by the latter motive; it did not come about because there were widespread doubts about the doctrine. In fact, the Vatican was deluged with requests from people desiring the doctrine to be officially proclaimed. Pope Pius IX, who was highly devoted to the Blessed Virgin Mary, hoped the definition would inspire others in their devotion to her. 
 

The Assumption

Just as Fundamentalists and Evangelicals reject the Immaculate Conception and Mary's perpetual virginity, so too they reject the dogma of the Assumption, but they don't worry about it much. What little thought they give to it concerns why Catholics think Mary didn't die. That isn't the Catholic position, of course, but Fundamentalists think it is, and they are concerned about a privilege which finds no warrant in Scripture. 

They note that Enoch "walked with God; and he was not, for God took him" (Gen. 5:24). He was translated so as no to see death (Heb. 11:5). And then there was Elijah, who was taken up into heaven in a fiery chariot (2 Chron. 2:1-13). But the Bible says nothing about what happened to Mary, and doesn't it seem that there would be some mention of her never dying? After all, it would have been truly "remarkable." 
 

They Misunderstand

There is a certain sense in their argument, and if the doctrine of the Assumption were what they think it is, the argument would carry some weight. But it is beside the point because Catholic commentators, not to mention the popes, have generally agreed that Mary died; that belief has long been expressed through the liturgy. The doctrine of the Assumption says that at the end of her life on earth Mary was assumed, body and soul, into heaven, just as Enoch, Elijah, and perhaps others had been before her. It's also necessary to keep in mind what the Assumption is not. Some people think Catholics believe Mary "ascended" into heaven. That's not correct, Christ, by his own power, ascended into heaven. Mary was assumed or taken up into heaven by God. She didn't do it under her own power. 

The Church has never formally defined whether she died or not, and the integrity of the doctrine of the Assumption would not impaired if she did not in fact die, but the almost universal consensus is that she did die. Pope Pius XII, in Munificentissimus Deus (1950), defined that Mary. "after the completion of her earthly life"--note the silence regarding her death--"was assumed body and soul into the glory of Heaven." In short her body wasn't allowed to corrupt, it was not allowed to remain in a tomb. 

The Assumption is therefore similar to beliefs Fundamentalists themselves have concerning other Bible figures (Enoch and Elijah), though the doctrine is still not acceptable to them. 

True, no express scriptural proofs for the doctrine are available. But the possibility of a bodily assumption before the Second Coming is not excluded by 1 Corinthians 15:23, and it is even suggested by Matthew 27:52-53: ". . . the tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many." Did all these Old Testament saints die and have to be buried all over again? There is no record of that, but it is recorded by early Church writers that they were assumed into heaven, or at least into that temporary state of rest and happiness often called "paradise," where the righteous men and women from the Old Testament era waited until Christ's Resurrection (cf. Luke 16: 22, 23:43; Heb. 11:1-40; 1 Pet. 4:6), after which they were brought into the eternal bliss of heaven.
 

No Remains

And there is what might be called the negative historical proof for Mary's Assumption. As every Fundamentalist knows, from the first Catholics gave homage to saints, including many about whom we now know nothing. Cities vied for the title of the last resting place of the most famous saints. Rome, for example, claims the tombs of Peter and Paul, Peter's tomb being under the high altar of the St. Peter's Basilica in Rome. Other cities claim the mortal remains of other saints, both famous and little-known.

We know that after the Crucifixion Mary was cared for by the apostle John (John 19:26-27). Early Christian writings say John went to live at Ephesus and that Mary accompanied him. There is some dispute about where she ended her life; perhaps there, perhaps back at Jerusalem. Neither those cities nor any other claimed her remains, though there are claims about possessing her (temporary) tomb. And why did no city claim the bones of Mary? Apparently because there weren't any bones to claim and people knew it. 

Remember, in the early Christian centuries relics of saints were jealously guarded, highly prized. The bones of those martyred in the Coliseum, for instance, were quickly gathered up and preserved; there are many accounts of this in the biographies of those who gave their lives for the faith. Yet here was Mary, certainly the most privileged all the saints, certainly the most saintly, but we have no record of her bodily remains being venerated anywhere. 
 

Complement to the Immaculate Conception

The evidence for the of the Assumption, as understood and explained over the centuries by the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, concern not so much scriptural references (there are none that speak even indirectly to the matter of Mary's Assumption, and only a few that deal with the subject of assumptions in general), but rather the fittingness of the privilege. The speculative grounds considered include Mary's freedom from sin, her Motherhood of God, her perpetual virginity, and--the key--her participation in the salvific work of Christ. It seems most fitting that she should attain the full fruit of the Redemption, which is the glorification of the soul and body. 

But there is more than just fittingness. Pius XII said the Assumption is really a consequence of the Immaculate Conception. "These two singular privileges bestowed upon the Mother of God stand out in most splendid light at the beginning and the end of her earthly journey. For the greatest possible glorification of her virgin body is the complement, at once appropriate and marvellous, of the absolute innocence of her soul, which was free from all stain. . . . [S]he shared in [Christ's] glorious triumph over sin and its sad consequences." 
 

Mary's Cooperation

"But," ask Fundamentalists, "if Mary was immaculately conceived, and if death was a consequence of original sin, why did she die?" Although she was wholly innocent and never committed a sin, she died in order to be in union with Jesus. Keep in mind that he did not have to die to accomplish our redemption; he could have just willed it, and that would have been sufficient. But he chose to die. 

Mary identified herself with his work, her whole life being a cooperation with God's plan of salvation, certainly from her saying "Let it be to me according to your word" (Luke 1:38), but really from the very start of her life. She accepted death as Jesus accepted death, and she suffered (Luke 2:35) in union with his suffering. Just as she shared in his work, she shared in his glorification. She shared in his Resurrection by having her glorified body taken into heaven, the way the glorified bodies of all the saved will be taken into heaven on the last day. 

This brings us to another important point. Fundamentalists believe that one day we will all be raised in a glorious form and then caught up ("raptured") to be forever with Jesus (1 Thess. 4:17). This is quite true; it is one of the blessings we will one day receive (though Catholics don't generally use the term "rapture"). Mary was simply given this blessing early, as have been some other individuals. As the first person to say "yes" to the good news of Jesus (Luke 1:38), Mary is in a sense the prototypical Christian, and she receives early the blessings we will all one day receive. One day we will all be rendered immaculate, free from every stain of original sin; Mary received this blessing early. One day we will all be caught up, glorious, to be with Jesus; Mary received this blessing early. Thus she is indeed, "the most excellent fruit of redemption" (CCC 508).
 

"The Bible only"?

Still, Fundamentalists ask, where is the proof from Scripture alone? Strictly speaking, there is none. It was the Catholic Church that was commissioned by Christ to teach all nations and to teach them infallibly, guided, as he promised, by the Holy Spirit until the end of the world (John 14:25, 16:13). The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as something definitely true is a guarantee that it is true (cf. Luke 10:16). 

Here, of course, we get into an entirely separate matter, the question of sola scriptura or the Protestant "Bible only" theory. There is no room in this tract to consider that idea. Let it just be said that if the position of the Catholic Church is true, then the notion of sola scriptura is false. There is then no problem with the Church officially defining a doctrine which, though not in contradiction to Scripture, cannot be found on its face. After all, the Bible says nothing against the Assumption; silence is not the same as rejection, though, to be sure, silence is not the same as affirmation either. Silence is just--silence.

 

Argument 5

There is no evidence for purgatory in the scriptures. It has just been made up by the Catholic Church.

 

Response 5

The existence of purgatory is categorically displayed in a number of passages from the Bible. 

Maccabees 2  12 : 39-45 : This passage is taken from the Apocrypha which is recognized by the Roman Catholic Church and a few Protestant denominations as part of the official canon of scripture. It talks about living persons praying for the dead. One could reason that there is no need to pray for the deceased if they are in Heaven; they have already received their reward. If the deceased is in Hell, then prayer would again be meaningless because they would be beyond help. Hence there must be an intermediate state or location where a person's soul could be helped by the prayer of others.

Corinthians 3:15 discusses how each individual's good and bad works will be judged after death. This is probably the main text which supports the belief in Purgatory. The passage refers to fire which will test the quality of each man's work. If it is burned up...he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames. This passage is interpreted as a reference to the purifying fires of Purgatory, which would eventually allow a person to escape. This reference cannot refer to Hell, because one cannot leave that place; it cannot refer to Heaven because there is no pain there; it must refer to some intermediate location.  The key word in the original Greek is "zemiothesetai" which is translated as "suffer loss" in many versions of the Bible. But the original word also can refer to punishment.

Revelations 21:27 states that no impure person will enter heaven. "But nothing unclean shall enter it..." If a person dies with some minor sins still on their record, then they are obviously not pure. Logic indicates that they must go to some place to be refined until they can attain heaven.

Other passages include: Psalm 141:8; Daniel 12:10; Micah 7:9; Zechariah 9:11; Matthew 5:26; Matthew 12:32 & 36; Luke 12:47-48; Philippians 2:10; Hebrews 12:22b; James 3:1; 1 Peter 3:19; 1 Peter 4:18; 1 Peter 7:37; and Jude 23.

Passages which discuss "penitent mourning or concern for safe passage of the dead" are: Genesis 50:10; Numbers 20:29; Deuteronomy 34:8; 2 Maccabees 12:44-45; 1 Corinthians 15:29; 2 Timothy 1:16-18;  2 Timothy 4:19. These imply the existence of Purgatory.

 

Logistics of purgatory

The Roman Catholic Church dogma only states that:

• Purgatory exists for temporary purging of sin. 
• Punishment and prayers by people on earth will help those in Purgatory. 

On July the 28th 1999, Pope John Paul II described Hell to be "More than a physical place. Hell is the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy." By extension, Purgatory may be more of a state of being than an actual place.

There is no official dogma about the precise nature of the punishment in Purgatory. However, various Church authorities have taught that the inhabitants in Purgatory are systematically tortured with fire. Orthodox churches also believe that Purgatory exists; however they do not specify a method by which pain is inflicted. 

Passages in the Bible describe many forms of torture used on the inhabitants of Hell for all eternity without hope of mercy or relief: worms, unbearable heat, unbearable thirst, etc. However, St. Thomas Aquinas taught that only one form of torture is used in Purgatory "to cleanse us from the remains of sin...the pain of fire only is ascribed to Purgatory." 

Some have puzzled whether Hell and Purgatory are actually in the same location. St. Thomas Aquinas quotes Gregory the Great as quoting St. Augustine who wrote: "Even as in the same fire gold glistens and straw smokes, so in the same fire the sinner burns and the elect is cleansed." St. Augustine apparently believed that the same fire that tortures the sinful in Hell also is used to purify the saved in Purgatory. Some believe that this implies that Purgatory and Hell are either adjacent or in the same location. Aquinas wrote that there are probably two Purgatory locations: one is inside the earth and is close to hell so that they can share the same fire. The other location is above the earth, between us and God.

Some have inquired whether the pain that people experience in Purgatory is greater than the pain that we experience in life. Some reasoned that it is not greater because punishment is a result of sin; since we do not accumulate more sins in Purgatory, then the punishment will not be greater than that which we have been used to. But St. Thomas Aquinas quotes St. Augustine as saying that "This fire of Purgatory will be more severe than any pain that can be felt, seen or conceived in this world." Aquinas agrees with St. Augustine. There will be two types of pain in Purgatory. They feel a keen sense of loss because they will not be in the presence of God while they remain in Purgatory. They will also feel the "punishment by corporeal fire." The former is an overwhelming pain because the souls there will deeply long to be with God. The thermally induced pain would also be severe because it would be inflicted on the soul itself - there are no bodies in Purgatory. "Therefore it follows that the pain of Purgatory, both of loss and of sense, surpasses all the pains of this life."  The Catholic Encyclopaedia mentions that St. Bonaventure thought: "that this punishment by fire is more severe than any punishment which comes to men in this life."

Many unofficial beliefs have arisen among individual Catholics: One source quotes Holy Mary as saying that there are many levels in Purgatory. Living Christians can pray on behalf of individuals in Purgatory in order to give the latter temporary relief from pain. Those in the lowest level of Purgatory can only receive respite from their torture through the prayers of the living on NOV-2. The greatest number of souls leave Purgatory on Christmas day. 

Another source lists a Prayer of St. Gertrude the Great, which M. Cardinal Pahiarca allegedly said (at Lisbon, Portugal, on 1936-MAR-4) would release 1000 souls from Purgatory each time it is recited:

"Eternal Father, I offer they the most precious blood of thy Devine [sic] Son, Jesus, in union with the Masses said throughout the world today, for all the Holy Souls in Purgatory, for sinners everywhere, for sinners in the Universal Church, those in my own home and with in my family. Amen."

It is not beyond the realm of possibility for a person to repeat this prayer 1000 times a day, and thus release 1 million souls from Purgatory. A three person team, working for an entire year could release over one billion souls.

.
Main Page 

.