Mike S --
So you're saying the Catholic Church didn't alter the NT text because people would catch them, but they went ahead and invented stories that went against the Scriptures, somehow figuring nobody would catch that?
In the case of Mary - there was "nothing to catch" the RC traditions had been making things up - for a long time. (Infant Baptism, Purgatory, the Papacy itself, indulgences..) Once they established their man-made traditions as a valid "source" to created new doctrine - adding more stories about Mary is the easy part.
The more difficult task would be to "change the text of scripture itself". Scripture that was written and distributed in the first century. So they have historically settled for either burning it, banning it, or adding to it.
Mike S--
And the stories they invented didn't even have any use! (just saying "Mariolotry" doesn't tell me what use these made-up stories were to the Church).
Good point Mike. Surely the doctrinal errors and myths must have a purpose - some "gain". Point well made.
Notice that when the images of Zeus are baptized as "peter" in Rome - the church "benefits" with this inclusion of paganism. In fact the entire system of praying to the dead - turns out to be very beneficial on numerous counts. The Pagans instantly identify with it. Their existing gods and images are "reusable" in the new Christianized form of paganism AND an entire "industry" grows within Catholicism dedicated to this worship of the dead. (See the back of Catholic Digest for a good example of ads and "business" based soley in non-biblical man-made traditions).
But then as Mike correctly asks -- "why Mary"? What good does it do to add another story about Mary to the stories about the "tomb of Mary" and all the dead saints?
Why introduce the "Assumption of Mary" - and "sinless like Christ" and "Queen of heaven" and "All-powerful" and "at her Command even God obeys"... etc?
Notice that none of the other dead saints achieve the full God status of Mary. There is no statement about them that they are "King" or "Queen" of heaven, "All powerful" or that "At their command even God obeys".
This "second source of Doctrine" can elivate its deities EVEN to the same level as God himself "Co-Redemptrix" - "Sinless like Christ" etc.
The obvious "incentive" is there - to take this second - man-made-avenue to the "very top". Financial gain - as well as the hold over the masses of an even more powerful superstition than prayers to dead ancestors, forefathers, leaders is also "an obvious incentive".
We may argue that all these "benefits" are simply "unforeseen byproducts" and pretend that they massive traffic in sales, donations and the ability to hold the masses with a source that is not objective and can not be established in scripture - never "occured to them".
But that is a bit far fetched.
Mike S --
At least, if they knew they might get found out anyway, they could have altered the NT texts and claim that theirs were the true texts and that the others were forgeries. That at least makes it a sensible conspiracy. But they didn't do that.
No "need to" and the "Risk is high". By establishing their second channel of man-made-stories as "equally authorotative as scripture" they need to take the risk of announcing in 520 AD "Hey we have a new Bible today" - No Internet -and no good way to zap the entire world with its various copies held and and outside of the RC institutions - (copies even maintained in RC monastaries) - to "all change at once".
So again - high risk, and no incentive when the "Second channel" is so effective and too many changes would be "needed in the text of scripture" to get the loads of tradition - imported into the text.
(Not to mention the fact that God - is the "owner" of His Word, not the RCC).
Mike S --
Instead, the Church came out in 1950, knowing that hundreds of millions of bible-wielding Protestants were ready to pounce on their every encyclical, and boldly declared the Assumption anyway. If it's all just made up, what sense is there in that?
The "Bible Believing" Christians "already" did not accept "purgatory" or "prayers to the dead" or "infallability of the Papacy" etc. Making up more "stories" along those same lines - would not "increase the risk" - they were already "way down that road". And they had been working on the "Assumption of Mary" myth prior to 1950.
In Christ,
Bob
