Catholic Without Marian Dogma?

[guanophore]

I do not believe that is true. If I had a problem with Mary getting praise then Catholicism would not even be an option. I have ejected the overwhelming majority of my previous Protestant prejudices.

Like I said, I must be Thomist. Aquinas questioned EVERYTHING. Just read the Summa. So I don’t believe I’m doing anything Aquinas did not do. He determined the logic and truth of all theological beliefs. That’s what I’m trying to do.

Keep up the good work!

Defining dogmas about Mary is fine. But I would very much like to understand why they are dogmas. Why are they not doctrines or theological opinions? Why have they been elevated to the status of essential, non-negotiable beliefs? Why must they be necessarily true for Christianity to be true?

These are very important questions.

Doctrine is what we have received directly from Jesus, through the Apostles.

Dogmas are declarations of the faith that came later (like the Trinity and the Hypostatic Union) that are based on doctrine, but not fully developed until later.

Dogmas are declared to combat heresies and to maintain the faithful in the Truth. One can look the times and issues around the Dogmas to understand their cultural and historical context.

Dogmas are formed out of decades and sometimes centuries of theological opinions. The wording of them is worked out carefully so that they reflect and support the One Faith that was delivered once for all to the Church.

They are true because they are part of that One Faith that was committed to the Church. They are part of a seamless garment that cannot be unwoven.

Maybe I misunderstand how the Church defines dogma. If so, please correct me. Maybe I'm missing the logical connection between these dogmas and their logical necessity for the truth of Christianity.

Perhaps so. It might be helpful to study a different dogma, such as the Trinity. There are different paths for Dogmas. The Trinity was defined through the Nicean Council, for example, while other Dogmas have been proclaimed by a Pope. Regardless of the path, they are infallibly protected by the Holy Spirit from error.

John Henry Newman’s essay may be helpful.

P.S. - I read a book by the excellent Catholic Biblical scholar Raymond Brown where he concluded that the Marian dogmas cannot be proved definitively from the Bible alone. So I’m not looking for that. I’m willing to accept they are true, but even Aquinas did not settle for, “Because I said so.” So I don’t believe these are unnecessary questions given the same types of questions were asked by one of the greatest doctors of the Church.

Brown is great.

Yes, and this is the case for both doctrines and dogmas. For example, we don’t find the work Trinity in the Bible. We don’t find the table of contents for the books that belong in the bible.

The reason that dogmas and doctrines need to be developed is because the faith handed down to us does not exist in the “bible alone”. In fact, the faith was complete and whole before a word of the New Testament had ever been written.

 

[guanophore]

 I jettisoned that long ago. But again, if we simply go by "because I said so", why do  we not accept Islam because the Quran says so?

Yes, your questions are valid. If one cannot trust Jesus as a Person, and thus, trust all that He teaches because of who He is, then one should not become a disciple, because one must submit oneself to what may yet be revealed that one does not yet know.

If one cannot trust that Jesus is One with HIs Holy Bride, the Church, and that He has ensouled the Church with HIs Holy Spirit, making her infallible, then one should not become a member of her.

I don’t believe they are unreasonable, but I haven’t been shown how they are. That’s why I’m asking the questions. Why are they necessary to become a Christian?

It may be, at this point, that a majority of Christians do not accept the Marian dogmas. Protestants stand in the Tradition of Apollos, very zealous, yet with only partial understanding.

 That's great. So how are ever virgin, immaculate conception, and assumption necessary to the Mother of God. That's what I'm asking.

Perhaps you wish to understand or grasp these mysteries with logic, which I am not sure can be done. God chose to work His eternal plan of salvation through the person of Mary. He could have done it any other way He chose. There are some things about God that we will not know until we get to the other side.

Can you accept that God chose to work His plan of salvation this way? Is that acceptable to you? Do you concede that God has the right to accomplish the salvaton of HIs creation according to His own plan?

  So, there is no room for reason? You accept everything 100% on faith in spite of reason.

I would not say it is “in spite of” reason. We should use our reason as much as we are able to grasp the mysteries of heaven. You have read the Summa, so you know this.
Yet, our reason falls short when it comes to the mysteries of the Divine. Our human intellect is to small to grasp certain things. We accept that God has revealed what is true based not on our logic, but upon who He is. He is trustworthy, and though we may not understand now, we beleive that we shall when the time comes.

If I did not believe in the authority of the Church, I would not be asking the questions. I believe the Church has a reason for doctrines and dogmas. That is what I am asking for.

It is an appropriate course of inquiry. In making it, one must also realize that reason only takes us so far into the mysteries.

 I do hope the Church allows protest on matters that are protestable (e.g. theological opinion versus dogma). It is an organization that is made up of humans. Humans make mistakes.

I think perhaps “prostest” is not the best way to describe it. It is more of being in a state of inquiry. You do not sound to me like you are protesting anything, just trying to follow the reasoning of the Church. You are not protesting because you are willing to accept. Yes, humans make mistakes, but Jesus is Head of the Church, and she is ensouled by the Holy Spirit. It is these divine elements that make her infallible, not the human.

The Church believes that the Pope is infallible when teaching in matters of doctrine and dogma. That is great. Someone has to have the final word. But I have never heard a Catholic say that the Pope is 100% right about everything unrelated to teaching matters of dogma and doctrine.

There are many levels of authority, and this might be grist for another thread. I say that because this is one of the infallible teachings.

 If he's not, then why do we expect the rest of the Church to be always right and never in need of "protest". And by "protest", I mean a dissenting opinion meant to correct a wrong and institute a truth. I do not maan protest in the way Protestants mean protest (i.e. separate from the Church or form a faction). The goal is unity and truth in that unity.

Human beings are always in need of reform/correction. The revelation of God in Christ is not.

 Isn't that what many Church Councils are about? Not everyone agreed in the first Church council in Jerusalem. St. Nicholas punched an Arian at the Council of Nicaea. They definitely did not agree. That's what I'm talking about.

You are right that humans do not always agree, and this is evident throughtout the history of the Church. However, when God guides the Church to an infallible decision, all who are willing to submit themselves to God will receive it.

“For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us …” Acts 15:28

In the end, the Council of Jerusalem was guided by the Holy Spirit to arrive at the Truth and it was accepted by all.

 

[guanophore]

My question then is why are they dogmas (i.e. they must be believed to join the Church)? I can understand if those reasons are the basis for theological opinion and even doctrine. But dogmas are required beliefs in order to join the Church (i.e become a Christian from the Catholic perspective). What is the reason for that? How is it that not believing these things or believing that they are open to theological opinion makes one unqualified to join the Church?

If one does not believe that Jesus has the words of eternal life, why become a disciple?

If one does not believe Him to keep His promise to guide His Church into all Truth, why pretend?

If the Church is not, in fact, being led by the Holy Spirit in the area of these Dogmas then how can anyone have confidence anything is right?

It is not that one is “unqualified to join” but more a matter of the Church being unqualified to hold any allegience. A Body that is so grossly misled should be avoided by all sincere Christians.

If it is because of something they relate about the necessary nature of Jesus, what is it? For example, are they saying if Mary was not conceived Immaculately, then Jesus could not be divine? Are they saying, if Mary was not ever virgin, then the nature of Jesus is significantly altered? If it’s something else, what is it?

God could have saved mankind however He chose. He chose to become incarnate of a woman. He took His flesh from her flesh. He could have miraculously appeared full grown on the earth, but he did not. This is an article of FAITH, one of the MYSTERIES. We cannot know why Jesus did not spring full grown out of a rock. He was demonstrating the value of human life from conception to death. He was fulfilling the prophesies He had been given.

Shall the clay say to the Potter, why hast thou done it such?

That is probably my biggest question. Let’s assume I accept them as absolute, incontrovertible truth. What reason do I give someone that they must accept them as absolute, incontrovertible truth too in order to become a Catholic? Why is it I would have to tell them if they believe there is room for theological opinion on these matters, they can’t become a Christian.

It is perfectly fine to cleave to Christ without fully understanding all He has taught, because one trusts that He is faithful, and will bring it to completion. One can make a profession of faith even though one cannot logically explain the mysteries. I just visited a thread here where someone was looking to understand the Trinity. This is one of the mysteries that has always been beyond me.

You would have to tell them that you had come to believe that the CC is the one Church founded by Christ, and though you still have a lot to learn/understand about the One Faith, you have chosen to place your complete trust in Him to reveal to you all you need to know.

I understand the reasons some dogmas are necessary when it comes to heresies (Gnosticism, Arianism, Manichaeism, etc.). I understand the reasons they are necessary when it comes to the nature of Jesus. But I don't understand the absolute necessity of these three Marian dogmas.

That may be because there is no “absolute necessity” to understand! God could have easily chosen to do things differently. Either you are willing to accept His course of action, or not.

Thank you again. And I thank everyone for their patience with my mental thickness in working this out.

I don’t thnk it is a “mental thickness” YOu are clearly intelligent and hight educated. But you are trying to logically understand mysteries that are beyond the realm of human conprehension.

You are also having a trust issue, and seem to be unable to trust that God can do whatever He wants, however He likes, and it may not make sense to our puny human minds.

“God’s foolishness is wiser than human wisdom, and God’s weakness is stronger than human strength.” I Cor. 1:25

 

[PRmerger]

Can someone become Catholic without accepting the Marian dogmas (immaculate conception, assumption, etc.)?

I realize that if you accept the other Catholic doctrines, then the Marian dogmas should follow since you believe in the authority of the Church. But, if someone simply cannot get past the Marian dogmas, can they still become Catholic or should they remain Protestant?

I guess the more general question is, must someone accept every Catholic doctrine and dogma–100%–to become Catholic?

Of course there are many Catholics who don’t accept Catholic doctrine (i.e. “bad” Catholics). I assume they accepted them at the time of confirmation and later rejected them. So can someone become Catholic without accepting all of them? Or can they join the Church as a “bad” Catholic?

Thank you

Ignorance of Mary is ignorance of Christ.

So, if you reject the Marian dogmas, your Christology will be impoverished.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Ignorance of Mary is ignorance of Christ.

So, if you reject the Marian dogmas, your Christology will be impoverished.

I would respectfully reject that notion.

Protestants read their bibles regularly and know Jesus very well.

St. Jerome said ignorance of scripture is ignorance of Christ.

It is true that proper devotion to our Lady will only lead to a stronger relationship with Christ.

That is the fear as a protestant considering Catholicism, that devotion to our Lady will detract from their adoration of our Lord. I Know now that it does not, but had my reservations for a long time about this.

Pax

 

[PRmerger]

I would respectfully reject that notion.

You are, of course, free to do so. But in doing so you would be wrong.

Protestants read their bibles regularly and know Jesus very well.

Indeed. No one is saying that they don’t read the Bibles regularly. Or that they don’t know Jesus very well.

But their knowledge of him is impoverished.

As is their ability to proclaim the full kerygma.

They stand in the tradition of Apollos: full of vigor and zeal for the Lord but in need of some gentle correction.

St. Jerome said ignorance of scripture is ignorance of Christ.

Yes, indeed he did.

It is true that proper devotion to our Lady will only lead to a stronger relationship with Christ.

This is true, also.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

You are, of course, free to do so. But in doing so you would be wrong.

Indeed. No one is saying that they don’t read the Bibles regularly. Or that they don’t know Jesus very well.

But their knowledge of him is impoverished.

As is their ability to proclaim the full kerygma.

They stand in the tradition of Apollos: full of vigor and zeal for the Lord but in need of some gentle correction.

Yes, indeed he did.

This is true, also.

Agree on the gentle correction.

But I’m not seeing how their knowledge of Christ is impoverished by not accepting the Marian dogmas. Protestants already have a fundamental understanding and appreciation of her, though somewhat incomplete in regards to her true identity

 

[PRmerger]

Agree on the gentle correction.

But I’m not seeing how their knowledge of Christ is impoverished by not accepting the Marian dogmas.

Well, let’s take the example of Mary’s Immaculate Conception.

If a Protestant does not endorse the idea that Mary was sinless from the moment of her conception, it permits some logical inconsistencies.

In fact, I have heard a Muslim address a Protestant on this very issue. He said, “How is it that you can claim that Jesus is divine? He dwelt for 9 months in a womb that was stained black by noisome sin. The womb that held him also held other human beings, so how special could he be, if his dwelling place was not set apart and sanctified? Heck, even in your Old Testament the Ark, which was sacred and held the presence of the Numinous, dwelt in something stainless. How could Jesus be less than the Ark?”

And this Protestant must respond helplessly like this: “Ummmm… I don’t know. Jesus* is* divine.”

Protestants already have a fundamental understanding and appreciation of her, though somewhat incomplete in regards to her true identity

Well, some Protestants may. Some may not.

Protestantism is a behemoth of over tens of thousands of different beliefs, so it’s impossible to paint what “Protestants already have a fundamental understanding” of.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Well, let’s take the example of Mary’s Immaculate Conception.

If a Protestant does not endorse the idea that Mary was sinless from the moment of her conception, it permits some logical inconsistencies.

In fact, I have heard a Muslim address a Protestant on this very issue. He said, “How is it that you can claim that Jesus is divine? He dwelt for 9 months in a womb that was stained black by noisome sin. The womb that held him also held other human beings, so how special could he be, if his dwelling place was not set apart and sanctified? Heck, even in your Old Testament the Ark, which was sacred and held the presence of the Numinous, dwelt in something stainless. How could Jesus be less than the Ark?”

And this Protestant must respond helplessly like this: “Ummmm… I don’t know. Jesus* is* divine.”

Well, some Protestants may. Some may not.

Protestantism is a behemoth of over tens of thousands of different beliefs, so it’s impossible to paint what “Protestants already have a fundamental understanding” of.

I’ve seen Catholics and Protestants argue that point.

The protestant retort is, well, then St. Anne had to have been born w/o sin stain as well in order to not pass it on to Mary. And in order for Anne to not have it, then her mother had to be born w/o sin, etc, etc. And so the lineage of sinlessness never ends.

Anyhow, thanks for clarifying what you meant.

 

[PRmerger]

I’ve seen Catholics and Protestants argue that point.

Egg-zactly.

An impoverished understanding of Mary leads to an impoverished understanding of Jesus.

QED.

The protestant retort is, well, then St. Anne had to have been born w/o sin stain as well in order to not pass it on to Mary. And in order for Anne to not have it, then her mother had to be born w/o sin, etc, etc. And so the lineage of sinlessness never ends.

Anyhow, thanks for clarifying what you meant.

No. We Catholics say that it was fitting that Mary was sinless, but not necessary.

 

[guanophore]

That brings up another question. Do Catholics believe Mary was simply sinless through the grace of God or was she perfect. Other than divine nature, how did she differ from Jesus?

Thank you

Mary was created like Eve, without original sin. She was saved from sin by the grace of God, as we all are. We believe she made different choices than Eve and that His grace preserved her from sin. What must it be like to be with Jesus for 30 years? Changing His diapers, cleaning his scrapes when He fell, making His lunch when he went to work.

She knew Him so well He even let her decide the moment He would enter His public ministry, knowing that she would have to relinquish HIm, and it woudl be a straight shot to the cross.

 

[guanophore]

I don't have a problem with it. To my knowledge the Marian dogmas and just one other issue are the only things left that I need to get my head around better.

Have you considered leaving your head to the Holy Spirit, and just opening your heart? what if you prayed that Jesus would give you His attitude toward His mother.?

We'll just keep this thread exclusively for Mary. Does that means it's consecrated? :) I have no idea what that means, but I hear it all the time--"consecrated to Mary".

It is the same as the vessels of the temple that were consecrated for use in worship. They are dedicated, and not used for everyday purposes. Mary is like a magnifying lens to Jesus. her soul makes Him larger to us. She is always telling us “do whatever He tells you”, so we can trust that, if we live our lives as she did, we will walk according to the Spirit, as she did.

I should clarify that I have no problem understanding these beliefs should be true. And I do not believe I would have problem accepting that they are true. I just haven’t given it a commitment yet.

Thanks

Sometimes the commitment comes first. The Apostles did not understand the Eucharist till after Jesus ascended to heaven. Yet they were committed to Him, because they knew He had the words of eternal life, even if they did not understand them yet.

I know what you are saying, but from an outside perspective, it seems that “belief in Mary” is only relevant for two reasons. 1. She was the Mother of God and that relates something about Jesus’s divine nature. The IC does to some degree as well. Her having a sinless life doesn’t necessarily relate to Jesus. And the assumption really follows from all the others.

I was surprised that you say leading a sinless life does not relate to Jesus. How can anyone be sinless without a relationship with Jesus?

But I think what you meant is that all the Marian dogmas relate back to the identity of Jesus, but you cannot see how here being the New Eve relates to Him? She is the example of the life that is available to us all, walking with Him in grace, no longer slaves to sin. She is the firstfruit of the life that God intended for all of us at creation, so it pertains more perhaps to His plan for humanity.

It is very difficult for Protestants to accept that “belief in” ANY human other than Jesus is ultimately relevant for salvation and the Christian life. The feeling they get is that if there was more than one sinless person, then the sinlessness of Jesus is diminished. I know the answers and response to that, I’m just relaying how it can seem to Protestants.

Yes. I think it results from a deficient anthropology. Jesus intended for all of us to walk by the Spirit, and not fulfill the desires of the flesh. He chose to enter the world through a woman, and grow up in a human family to show us how important the redemption of our humanity is to Him. Remember that Jesus said all who hear the word of God and do it are his mother, brothers. He wants to elevate all of us to this sanctified state. We can take no impurity into heaven, so we all must be “sinless persons”.

In any case, I just received Tim Staples book on the Biblical and historical evidence for the Marian dogmas. So he’s going to clear all this up for me.

Thanks

By the grace of God, may it be so!

 

[PRmerger]

That brings up another question. Do Catholics believe Mary was simply sinless through the grace of God or was she perfect. Other than divine nature, how did she differ from Jesus?

Thank you

She is by grace what He is by nature.

Just like all of us.

 

[Memaw]

That brings up another question. Do Catholics believe Mary was simply sinless through the grace of God or was she perfect. Other than divine nature, how did she differ from Jesus?

Thank you

She was Immaculately Conceived, pure, sinless, (No original sin), Eve was created sinless but she sinned. Mary did not. Mary obeyed God completely. No Divine nature for either of them. Mary never lost her Sanctifying Grace. Jesus is the Son of God. God from God, begotten not made. Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. Mary is a Creature of God. Mother of HIS Divine Son. Trust the Church, you will understand it more as you go along. God Bless, Memaw