The 4 Marian Dogmas in the Catholic Church A dogma is a truth officially defined by the Church as revealed by God and binding on all Catholics to believe. 1. Mary, Mother of God (Theotokos) This dogma teaches that Mary is truly the Mother of God because she gave birth to Jesus Christ, who is fully God and fully man. Catholics are not saying Mary created God, but that the child she bore was God incarnate. This title was officially affirmed at the Council of Ephesus to defend the divinity of Christ. Jesus Christ 2. Perpetual Virginity Catholics believe Mary remained a virgin before, during, and after the birth of Christ. This means Jesus’ birth was miraculous and that Mary dedicated herself completely to God. The Church teaches that references to Jesus’ “brothers” in Scripture refer to relatives or close kin, not to Mary's biological children. Gospel of Matthew 3. Immaculate Conception This dogma teaches that Mary was conceived without original sin by a special grace from God, in preparation for her role as the mother of Christ. It does not refer to Jesus’ conception, but Mary’s own conception in her mother’s womb. This was formally defined by Pope Pius IX in 1854. 4. Assumption of Mary Catholics believe that at the end of her earthly life, Mary was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory. This reflects her unique holiness and closeness to Christ. The dogma was officially defined in 1950 by Pope Pius XII. These four dogmas summarise the Catholic Church’s official teachings about Mary’s unique role in salvation history. Do you agree with the Church?

Isn’t it amazing that the Catholic organization can have four dogma’s that are not even based in scripture. These so-called truths are only based on what the Catholic organization says is truth. But God‘s holy scriptures do not back a single one of these. It’s amazing the brainwashing that goes on.

“Mary didn’t have other children” The Greek word adelphoi primarily and most commonly refers to direct siblings (brothers from the same womb/parents, or half-siblings) in Koine Greek and the New Testament. It does not typically mean cousins. Almost never. Etymology and core meaning is Adelphos comes from a (“same”) + delphys (“womb”), so it literally points to siblings sharing the same mother (or parents). This is the standard usage. Specific word for cousin in Greek had ANEPSIOS for cousin (used in Colossians 4:10 for Mark as Barnabas’s cousin). The NT writers could have used this if cousins were intended for Jesus’ relatives, but they used adelphoi instead. Always used to indicate ACTUAL brother or sister, same womb. Broader uses exist but are entirely contextual. Adelphoi can sometimes mean kinsmen, step-relatives, or figurative “brothers” (fellow Jews or Christians), similar to how English “brother” works. But these wider senses are CLEAR from CONTEXT (e.g., Old Testament influences in the Septuagint where Hebrew ach for broader kin is rendered as adelphos). In the New Testament, especially for physical family, it defaults to siblings unless context indicates otherwise. Catholic tradition (to uphold Mary’s perpetual virginity) often interprets these adelphoi selectively as cousins or Joseph’s children from a prior marriage (step-siblings). Linguistically, this is a minority or extended usage that relies on broader Semitic (Hebrew/Aramaic) flexibility for “kinsman” rather than strict Greek meaning. Greek is more precise than Hebrew here. You’re taking a rare exception that’s really never used in the context you’re speaking of. It is not calling them Jesus’ cousins. That’s a manipulation of the Greek and ignoring how it’s ALWAYS used in these scenarios same with ANEPSIOS, ALWAYS being used for ACTUAL cousins. There’s no reason they would flip flop back and forth using the common term for cousins, and a way of saying same womb sibling, as “cousins” that isn’t really used in a literal usage of “cousins”, versus ALWAYS using Adelphos to mean same womb siblings unless it’s a context of of not actual family, but saying brother, like we say, brother to people who we aren’t related to.

@Defensofidei TYfor this post

@Defensofidei Roman Catholics think they are God it would appear. Laughable.

@Defensofidei One out of three is a poor score. Matthew 13:56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things? Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die…

@Defensofidei As a former Catholic A man that has research the history of the church & knows his bible well I detest every aspect of catholicism & any promotion of it The contradictions to Gods word are so blatant & numerous It’s offensive & to replace Christ for remission of sin is foolish

@Defensofidei Strongly disagree.

@Defensofidei 1. Okay, but this isn't a Marvel show and didn't grant her superpowers. 2. Doesn't matter. Probably wrong. 3. Bad fanfic, see 1. 4. Terrible fanfic, see 1. Post-resurrection Peter and Paul are clear by silence, Mary's mission was over.

@Defensofidei @andrewa27954232 It’s all unscriptural mademade poppycock.

Umm no. Why would I believe any of that as it contradicts the Bible. Jesus said whoever does the will of his Father, the same is his mother, sister, and brother. The Bible clearly talks about the brothers of Jesus. Mary was married to Joseph and it would have been sinful to withhold the consummation of the Marriage. Immaculate conception contradicts the Bible that says we have all sinned and fallen short of Gods glory, and it is nowhere to be found. Claiming that Mary was assumed contradicts the Bible that all have to die and face judgment. She was not unique and was rarely mentioned and some of the times she was mentioned she was rebuked by Jesus when he called her woman. He rebuked the woman who said blessed is the womb that bore thee, saying rather Blessed are those who do the will of my father. The Apostles never mention her a single time after the ascension of Jesus. I mean just by reading the Bible why would anyone believe any of this?

@Defensofidei The church is and has rubbed elbows with the Pagans since day one. The assumption of Mary is truly a Pagan belief. Pope Pius didn't research Scripture enough before proclaiming the assumption to heaven. He knew the Pagans would latch on in an attempt to Hook,Line & convert later.

@Defensofidei @KimInParadise Yes, I do 🙌 And I am thrilled to my core to have finally seen through the lies so many told me about the Church. To have, at last, a rich relationship with Jesus' blessed mother and recognize that she is, as the Bible says, truly "blessed among women," has been a tremendous joy!

Except for the first one, which was formally defined and defended at the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD to safeguard the core Christian doctrine that Jesus Christ is a single divine Person (the eternal Son of God) who became fully human from the moment of his conception in Mary’s womb, the other three are heresy and unBiblical nonsense

@Defensofidei Dogma=Fairy Tale created by some sinners, you gotta laugh at this, church is infallible so they get to make up the rules and fairy tales, they said it so it’s true LMAO

@Defensofidei Apparently the Holy Spirit was unable to communicate those truths to any of the NT writers. And it took 1900 years to reveal the truth about Mary's assumption.

@Defensofidei Marian dogma is no truth at all. The only thing it “binds” are Roman Catholics, and many of those come to the place where they jettison the dogma altogether.

@Defensofidei I do not agree. All of the statements are a real “stretch” with no scriptural base. It makes for a nice story but it’s solely a tale from tradition & group think. If Jesus thought it worthy, He’d have said so.

@Defensofidei Numbers 3 and 4 are not only unbiblical they possess no evidence as being part of the apostlic tradition (written or oral) before the council of Ephesus in 431

@Defensofidei Catholics bitch that Protestants are newer (1500s) meanwhile theyre making shit up as late as the 1950s.