The Immaculate Heart of Mary is a heresy

[AdriannaJean]

Originally Posted by budgie2

So the two miracles dedicated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary and Immaculate Conception are to St. Catherine Laboure and founder of the miraculous medal and Our Lady of Fatima. Is that right? I know that it's not defined doctrine but I have strong disbelief in the Immaculate Conception which also means that I have to see these miracles as false.

I dislike the Immaculate conception on a number of grounds. Here are two:
- Mary was saved from the point of her conception and not through the saving action of Christ.
- The Immaculate conception led to the doctrine of the Assumption which means that Mary is the only human being in history to never have died or resurrected, excluding her son who shared the same burden of death with us. Therefore Mary's heart is not immaculate and loving and it is also popular belief that she did not share the pains of childbirth.

Again with not putting authority where it belongs. The Immaculate Conception IS defined doctrine. It even has a feast day. Why do you consider yourself to be intellectually superior to every pope and Catholic theologian since Jesus' time? What makes you so special? Have you dedicated your entire life to the study of theology? If you have then I will print this off and literally eat my words. You are not the ultimate authority on what is true and what it not.

And your arguments are not even logical. Look at your last paragraph. How does the fact that Mary never died make the Immaculate Conception untrue? It's like me saying "I have an apple tree in my backyard therefore I am allergic to oranges." The two statements are completely unrelated!

And, theologically speaking, how the Immaculate Conception worked is that since God is outside of time and space, He took the saving grace of Christ and applied it to Mary at the time of her conception. So she was saved by Christ, just before He was born. And don't you dare tell me that God can't do that!

[JamesE24]

Originally Posted by budgie2

So the two miracles dedicated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary and Immaculate Conception are to St. Catherine Laboure and founder of the miraculous medal and Our Lady of Fatima. Is that right? I know that it's not defined doctrine but I have strong disbelief in the Immaculate Conception which also means that I have to see these miracles as false.

I dislike the Immaculate conception on a number of grounds. Here are two:
- Mary was saved from the point of her conception and not through the saving action of Christ.
- The Immaculate conception led to the doctrine of the Assumption which means that Mary is the only human being in history to never have died or resurrected, excluding her son who shared the same burden of death with us. Therefore Mary's heart is not immaculate and loving and it is also popular belief that she did not share the pains of childbirth.

Mary is not the only human being to not have died. I forget which one, but one of the prophets was taken up to heaven in a fiery chariot. He didn't die.

Also, Mary didn't die, so she isn't loving?!!
I think you have to really, rethink what you are saying, cause that doesn't make any sense.

[Jennifer J]

Enoch and Elijah were taken directly to heaven.
Elijah:
2 Kings 2:11 says: "As they were walking along and talking together, suddenly a chariot of fire and horses of fire appeared and separated the two of them, and Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind"

source: http://www.catholic.com/library/Imma..._and_Assum.asp

"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. "

[otjm]

Originally Posted by budgie2

I have been doing research for the Church and I am developing my own theology.

And what makes you think, in the few years you have been alive, that you have accumulated more wisdom than the Church has in 2000 years?

[1ke]

Originally Posted by budgie2

So the two miracles dedicated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary and Immaculate Conception are to St. Catherine Laboure and founder of the miraculous medal and Our Lady of Fatima. Is that right? I know that it's not defined doctrine but I have strong disbelief in the Immaculate Conception which also means that I have to see these miracles as false.

Apparitions and devotions springing from them are considered private revelation by the Church. You are not required to believe in them or participate in them. The Church deems them free from doctrinal error and worthy of belief if they are approved, but it does not require anyone to believe in them. You should read the Catechism entry regarding apparitions.

However, the Immaculate Conception is *not* a matter of private revelation, nor is it optional regarding belief, nor is it based on the private apparitions mentioned above-- the Immaculate Conception was defined before St. Catherine Laboure, before St. Bernadette, and before the children of Fatima received apparitions of the Virgin Mary.

It is a Dogma of the Catholic Church. It has been solemnly defined by the Church and every Catholic must assent to this teaching.

Originally Posted by budgie2

I dislike the Immaculate conception on a number of grounds. Here are two:
- Mary was saved from the point of her conception and not through the saving action of Christ.

Neither of these statements accurately reflects the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

The Church does not teach Mary was saved from the moment of her conception. It teaches she was preserved free from all stain of original sin from the moment of her conception.

Moreover, the Church explicitly teaches that all mankind needed a savior, Mary included. The Immaculate Conception dogma does NOT teach that Mary was saved apart from Christ. Salvation comes through Christ and no other way-- that is Catholic teaching.

Originally Posted by budgie2

- The Immaculate conception led to the doctrine of the Assumption which means that Mary is the only human being in history to never have died or resurrected, excluding her son who shared the same burden of death with us.

The Dogma of the Assumption does not teach that Mary "never died." The dogma of the Assumption states only that at the end of her earthly life Mary was assumed body and soul into heaven.

Originally Posted by budgie2

-Therefore Mary's heart is not immaculate and loving and it is also popular belief that she did not share the pains of childbirth.

All of your "problems" with Marian dogma are based on the fact that you don't know what they actually say and that you have wrong assumptios about them and wrong conclusions that flow from your wrong assumptions.

Please study what the Church teaches before you post what your "problems" are with the teachings.

[LilyM]

Originally Posted by budgie2

So the two miracles dedicated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary and Immaculate Conception are to St. Catherine Laboure and founder of the miraculous medal and Our Lady of Fatima. Is that right? I know that it's not defined doctrine but I have strong disbelief in the Immaculate Conception which also means that I have to see these miracles as false.

I dislike the Immaculate conception on a number of grounds. Here are two:
- Mary was saved from the point of her conception and not through the saving action of Christ.
- The Immaculate conception led to the doctrine of the Assumption which means that Mary is the only human being in history to never have died or resurrected, excluding her son who shared the same burden of death with us. Therefore Mary's heart is not immaculate and loving and it is also popular belief that she did not share the pains of childbirth.

This is called a straw man argument.You're attacking what you THINK the dogmas say when in fact they say no such thing.

It is actually NOT part of the Immaculate Conception dogma that Mary wasn't saved through the saving action of Christ. She absolutely was saved through His saving action, only the effects of that action were applied to her by God upon her conception. God is able to do this since He is outside time, time is His creation.

Second straw man - it is NOT part of the dogma of the Assumption that Mary never died. It's also not part of the dogma that she DID die. Catholics are free to believe that she died, and free to believe that she didn't die, the Church simply hasn't passed on any divine revelation on the subject of her death. Subsequent teaching on the dogma has made it clear that it does not bind us to believe that Mary didn't die, nor that she did die.

[budgie2]

Originally Posted by LilyM

This is called a straw man argument.You're attacking what you THINK the dogmas say when in fact they say no such thing.

It is actually NOT part of the Immaculate Conception dogma that Mary wasn't saved through the saving action of Christ. She absolutely was saved through His saving action, only the effects of that action were applied to her by God upon her conception. God is able to do this since He is outside time, time is His creation.

Second straw man - it is NOT part of the dogma of the Assumption that Mary never died. It's also not part of the dogma that she DID die. Catholics are free to believe that she died, and free to believe that she didn't die, the Church simply hasn't passed on any divine revelation on the subject of her death. Subsequent teaching on the dogma has made it clear that it does not bind us to believe that Mary didn't die, nor that she did die.

So if Catholics do not know whether Mary died or not, if Mary did die was she also resurrected before the Apocalypse and ascended or assumed into heaven? Or was her dead body assumed into heaven? I think these two options sound ridiculous and I think the doctrine of the Assumption reads that Mary is immortal whereas Christ was mortal.

I believe Mary is being portrayed as a female Christ, free from sin (Immaculate and spotless) who ascended (was assumed) into heaven and has a Sacred (immaculate) heart. I'm not blaming anybody apart from the Popes.

[LilyM]

Originally Posted by budgie2

So if Catholics do not know whether Mary died or not, if Mary did die was she also resurrected before the Apocalypse and ascended or assumed into heaven? Or was her dead body assumed into heaven? I think these two options sound ridiculous and I think the doctrine of the Assumption reads that Mary is immortal whereas Christ was mortal.

I believe Mary is being portrayed as a female Christ, free from sin (Immaculate and spotless) who ascended (was assumed) into heaven and has a Sacred (immaculate) heart. I'm not blaming anybody apart from the Popes.

I think the whole idea of a deity becoming human, willingly offering Himself to be put to death, then rising and ascending into heaven, only to somehow remain on Earth as well, in the form of something that to all appearances is bread and wine but is in reality NOT bread and wine, sounds ridiculous as well. Of course I ALSO know, as you apparently do not, that the wisdom of God is foolishness to mere mortals like us, for scripture tells us so.

And what of it if she was alive? Both Enoch and Elijah were assumed into heaven alive - does that make them equal to Christ? And would they not have had to be in a state of grace to be fit to be assumed into God's heaven?

And it says much about your lack of theological knowledge that you confuse the Ascension under his own power of Christ with the Assumption by God's power rather than their own of Mary, Enoch and Elijah.

[Nick_in_MB]

Originally Posted by budgie2

into heaven and has a Sacred (immaculate) heart.

Still making them the same, which they aren't.
So since you aren't listening to people explaining doctrine, maybe you'll listen to something from the secular world.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sacred

Main Entry: sa·cred
Pronunciation: \ˈsā-krəd\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from past participle of sacren to consecrate, from Anglo-French sacrer, from Latin sacrare, from sacr-, sacer sacred; akin to Latin sancire to make sacred, Hittite šaklāi- rite
Date: 14th century

1 a: dedicated or set apart for the service or worship of a deity <a tree sacred to the gods> b: devoted exclusively to one service or use (as of a person or purpose) <a fund sacred to charity>
2 a: worthy of religious veneration : holy b: entitled to reverence and respect
3: of or relating to religion : not secular or profane <sacred music>
4 archaic : accursed
5 a: unassailable, inviolable b: highly valued and important <a sacred responsibility>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/immaculate

Main Entry: im·mac·u·late
Pronunciation: \i-ˈma-kyə-lət\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English immaculat, from Latin immaculatus, from in- + maculatus stained — more at maculate
Date: 15th century

1: having no stain or blemish : pure
2: containing no flaw or error
3 a: spotlessly clean b: having no colored spots or marks <petals immaculate>

Sounds like two different definitions.

Originally Posted by LilyM

I think the whole idea of a deity becoming human, willingly offering Himself to be put to death, then rising and ascending into heaven, only to somehow remain on Earth as well, in the form of something that to all appearances is bread and wine but is in reality NOT bread and wine, sounds ridiculous as well.

Well, when you put it that way... LOL

[budgie2]

Originally Posted by Jennifer J

Enoch and Elijah were taken directly to heaven.
Elijah:
2 Kings 2:11 says: "As they were walking along and talking together, suddenly a chariot of fire and horses of fire appeared and separated the two of them, and Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind"

source: http://www.catholic.com/library/Imma..._and_Assum.asp

"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. "

I have looked at the Bible passage that you have quoted and indeed it says in Kings that Elijah went to heaven in a whirlwind. However, we do not know if Elijah died or not. It is the Church's teaching also that nobody could enter heaven before Christ's death and resurrection and the souls of the just were suspended in limbo. So do you believe Elijah went to heaven before Christ came to Earth, died and rose from the dead? Some people believed that Christ was Elijah. Although Elijah was a prophet who was meant to announce the coming of the Messiah in some ways he must have represented the Messiah himself to some Jews as they were waiting for the second coming of Elijah. At the Passover feast Jews put out a glass of wine for Elijah over night. Christ is not a reincarnation of Elijah although to some people he resembled this prophet.

Mark 6:14
King Herod heard about this for Jesus' name had become well known. Some were saying, "John the Baptist has been raised from the dead, and that is why miraculous powers are at work in him."
Others said, "He is Elijah."
And still others claimed, "He is a prophet, like one of the prophets of long ago."

I personally believe it is wrong to state that anybody assumed or ascended to heaven body and soul apart from Christ himself and this is an aspect of Christ's divinity. It may be that Christ as both God and Man had a home in both heaven and earth and could physically exist in heaven. We as human beings are mere earthlings and are waiting for the Resurrection here on Earth which will lead to eternal life on Earth.

http://www.wordoftruthradio.com/questions/45.html

[budgie2]

[quote=LilyM;5278631]I think the whole idea of a deity becoming human, willingly offering Himself to be put to death, then rising and ascending into heaven, only to somehow remain on Earth as well, in the form of something that to all appearances is bread and wine but is in reality NOT bread and wine, sounds ridiculous as well. Of course I ALSO know, as you apparently do not, that the wisdom of God is foolishness to mere mortals like us, for scripture tells us so.

I am prepared to believe all these things about Jesus as they are part of the Gospel, my holy book. The Immaculate Conception and the Assumption are not based on any scriptural authority although you say have miracles to back them up. How do you know these miracles are true or have been properly researched? I am prepared to believe these things about Christ as I believe he is God aswell as man and he was conceived by the Holy Spirit. I am not prepared to believe that Mary was assumed to heaven as I do not believe she is divine and this is not part of our Gospel and scripture.

[Nick_in_MB]

Originally Posted by budgie2

I am prepared to believe all these things about Jesus as they are part of the Gospel, my holy book. The Immaculate Conception and the Assumption are not based on any scriptural authority although you say have miracles to back them up. How do you know these miracles are true or have been properly researched? I am prepared to believe these things about Christ as I believe he is God aswell as man and he was conceived by the Holy Spirit. I am not prepared to believe that Mary was assumed to heaven as I do not believe she is divine and this is not part of our Gospel and scripture.

Sounds like Sola Scriptura to me. Are you sure you're Catholic?

[Holly3278]

Originally Posted by budgie2

I believe it is a heresy as it depicts Mary as both God and Woman, a divinity and goddess. Jesus said that he was the way to the Father and that we would know the Father through him. The Sacred Heart of Jesus shows both Christ's humanity and divinity and is a divinely revealed statue. Mary could be represented as only having a flame in the place of her Immaculate Heart and the Sacred Heart could be placed in Mary's womb. This would have a more pro-life message (not divinely revealed). This is not yet defined dogma but it will be. Flame represents the Holy Spirit as Mary was a holy woman although I believe the heart with sunrays should really represent God's love. Sunrays are also used around the monstrance to represent the light of Christ's soul, Jesus the light of the world.

http://media.photobucket.com/image/I...e/2708b1f5.jpg

Oh no. Don't tell me that you, as a Catholic, have fallen into the heresy of believing that Catholics sometimes worship Mary? The Immaculate Heart of Mary is a perfectly orthodox devotion. It is one that I really like to be honest. Please do some research before condemning something that the Church has fully approved.

[1ke]

Originally Posted by budgie2

I am prepared to believe all these things about Jesus as they are part of the Gospel, my holy book.

Sola Scriptura (scripture alone) is a heresy.

The Church stands on both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, faithfully handed down from the Apostles. Both are divine revelation, equally.

You really need to study your Catholic faith more.

Originally Posted by budgie2

The Immaculate Conception and the Assumption are not based on any scriptural authority although you say have miracles to back them up.

You are incorrect on both counts. They are both implicit in Scripture. And, moreover, the "miracles" to back them up are NOT the basis of the teachings in any way. As has already been stated, private revelation is NOT part of the deposit of faith.

Originally Posted by budgie2

How do you know these miracles are true or have been properly researched?

It doesn't matter whether you accept them or not. They are not the basis of the teachings of the Church, nor does the Church require anyone to accept any apparition or miracle.

Originally Posted by budgie2

I am prepared to believe these things about Christ as I believe he is God aswell as man and he was conceived by the Holy Spirit.

You are prepared to believe this because the Church says it is true, yet you are not willing to believe what the Church teaches about Mary.

Originally Posted by budgie2

I am not prepared to believe that Mary was assumed to heaven as I do not believe she is divine and this is not part of our Gospel and scripture.

You are denying a dogma of the faith by refusing to assent to the Assumption.

The second item is perfectly acceptable-- because the Church does not teach that Mary is divine. She is human. No problem there.

[budgie2]

There is absolutely no biblical basis for the doctrine of the Assumption. We know that Jesus ascended into heaven due to eyewitness accounts of the apostles in Acts. Acts 1:9-11
After he [Jesus] said this he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from sight. They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. "Men of Galilee," they said, "why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven."

The Ascension is also mentioned in Luke 24:50-53 and Mark 16:19.

There are absolutely no eyewitness accounts documented in the Bible for the Assumption even though Mary was with the apostles at Pentecost. Therefore the Assumption is currently only theory and cannot be proved as fact. I declare it false!