Catholic Without Marian Dogma?

[Della]

I will also add that if you don’t accept the Marian dogmas, but are attracted to an idea of a Church rooted in two thousand years of history, you don’t have to remain Protestant.

The Orthodox Churches only teach two Marian dogmas, that she is the Mother of God and was ever virgin. In general, the Orthodox Churches teach fewer things infallibly as they only consider the ancient councils to be infallible.

It also might be worthwhile if you study those two churches, the Catholic and the Orthodox, to see why you are more attracted to the Catholic one. If that road leads you to accept the Petrine supremacy, it may convince you that you can accept Pius IX’s declaration on the Conception and Pius XII’s declaration on the Assumption and understand why those two declarations were so important that the popes decided to elevate them to dogma.

Your last statement is the key, as I see it. These teachings weren’t invented by either pope, rather they were doctrines elevated to dogmas for the reasons both stated at the time. Perhaps reading the original documents might help.

As for accepting only certain councils, if only the earliest ones can be trusted, it would mean that at some undetermined point the Holy Spirit stopped guiding the Church into “all truth.” If that were the case, why would the early ones be reliable but not the later ones? Who is to determine that? Seems quite selective to me, and untenable for deciding matters of faith and moral.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

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

I would argue that if you take a legalistic approach to Catholicism, you should not become Catholic. You are obviously being called to the Church, why are you letting doubts about Jesus’ mother, of all things, stop you. Look deeper at what is stopping you, it’s not Mary; she doesn’t stop people from becoming part of her son’s Church.

To many Protestant converts take a legalistic approach to Catholicism after they join and completely miss the point of the Church. Stop reading apologetics and start forming yourself in moral theology. A good start is RCIA.

 

[auctoris]

Thank you. That does help a lot. I have no problem with anything contained in the Nicene or Apostles’ Creed.

I fully embrace Mother of God. Ever virgin is not a problem. While I have not fully embraced it, I do not have a problem with it.

It is the Immaculate Conception and Assumption that cause me the problems. As I stated, it may be more about the necessity of the dogma. It is difficult for me to accept them as necessary to the faith (i.e. MUST be accepted or you throw out everything else).

Thank you

 

[auctoris]

Perhaps reading the original documents might help.

As for accepting only certain councils . . .

That’s a good idea.

My problem is that I refuse to accept only certain councils. I know I must accept all. So if I have a logical and rational problem with the necessity of a dogma determined by any council, then I’ve got a big problem.

Thank you

 

[mattp0625]

I agree, that’s why it has been difficult.

When I use the words “necessary” and “necessity”, I am using them n the philosophical sense. A fact which is required to be true and is logically impossible to not be true.

I understand the reasoning behind the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, but I do not believe it is necessary. I understand the dogma behind the assumption, but I do not believe that it must necessarily follow from the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. It could have happened, but I’m not convinced that it did happen.

Some will say “But if you accept the Church’s teaching, then you will accept it.” At the same time, if the Church declared a dogma today that from all reason and fact I knew to be false, I would not ignore my reason. I think even Thomas would agree with that.

So I am in a dilemma. I accept the Church’s authority, but I do not agree that the Marian dogmas are both necessary and essential. I do not believe they inhibit the Christian faith, but I do not believe they are necessary for the Christian faith. The dogmatic necessity may be my biggest problem. Dogmas about Jesus are necessary–they must be true to accept the faith. I do not believe the same is true of Mary.

Thank you

I think there are possibly a few forces at work here. Feel free to correct me.

In your Protestant background:

• When you direct any spiritual praise or honor beyond Jesus, the conclusion is you are taking your eyes off of Jesus and not giving Him all the glory. In effect, you are committing idolatry.
• Since all have sinned, Mary could not have conceived immaculately. Any woman would have made an appropriate vessel.
• Jesus rebuked His mother at the wedding of Cana.
• Jesus had biological siblings.
• Catholics worship Mary and put her above Jesus.

I am going with the first two bullet points:

Consider that giving honor to Mary does not diminish Jesus at all.

Instead of pieces of a spiritual pie that you can divide up, it’s both/and. Honoring Mary can lead you closer to Jesus, her Son. She does not replace Him.

If you love and honor your parents or spouse, does it separate you from Jesus? Or does that love enhance your relationship with Jesus?

Regarding the Immaculate Conception:

• We know sin cannot enter heaven.
• We know Jesus was true God and true man - not one or the other, not two separate natures.
• We know God has a plan for all, including Mary.
• If sin cannot touch God, and if Jesus is God, how can God’s plan have Jesus conceived in a womb of a woman with sin? Denying the Immaculate Conception has the effect of a lower view of Jesus (e.g. sin could touch Him and any vessel would have been just fine). Some Protestants resort to a belief in two Jesus’s to get around this.
• We know the prophet Isaiah foretold that Emmanuel would be born of a Virgin. Revelation includes the woman in heaven with a Son to rule all nations. She had a crown of stars and the moon under her feet. Luke 1 indicates all generations will call her blessed. Sounds important in terms of scripture and God’s plan.
• The bible indicates that some remain a virgin in order to fulfill a higher spiritual calling.

 

[Della]

I agree, that’s why it has been difficult.

When I use the words “necessary” and “necessity”, I am using them n the philosophical sense. A fact which is required to be true and is logically impossible to not be true.

I understand the reasoning behind the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, but I do not believe it is necessary. I understand the dogma behind the assumption, but I do not believe that it must necessarily follow from the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. It could have happened, but I’m not convinced that it did happen.

Some will say “But if you accept the Church’s teaching, then you will accept it.” At the same time, if the Church declared a dogma today that from all reason and fact I knew to be false, I would not ignore my reason. I think even Thomas would agree with that.

So I am in a dilemma. I accept the Church’s authority, but I do not agree that the Marian dogmas are both necessary and essential. I do not believe they inhibit the Christian faith, but I do not believe they are necessary for the Christian faith. The dogmatic necessity may be my biggest problem. Dogmas about Jesus are necessary–they must be true to accept the faith. I do not believe the same is true of Mary.

Thank you

Thank you for explaining your position and your dilemma. :tiphat:

Two things, firstly, when we are reconciled to the Church we accept that we cannot know everything that God has for us–on our own authority and reasoning. If that were the case any branch of Protestantism would be true and no one could deny it. For example, when Jesus talked about his flesh being real food and his blood real drink, many who had been his disciples walked away. It was something they couldn’t understand nor accept because it didn’t match their perception of truth. What did Peter say when Jesus asked him if he too would leave him? “To whom shall we go (notice the we, not the I)? You have the words of eternal life.”

We cannot pick and choose doctrines/dogmas that we can reasonably decide with our own knowledge are true and which aren’t. It’s a matter of faith, as someone else said. Either Christ entrusted Peter, and thus his successors, with the “keys to the kingdom” or he didn’t. How are we to know if firm belief in the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption are necessary or not? For example, certainly many will be in heaven who never received the body and blood of Christ, still Jesus thought it essential. God knows what is best for us, we don’t. The same could be said of any Church teaching whether it has direct connection to Mary or not.

Secondly, Marian doctrine/dogma tells us much more about her Son than about her. We are to honor Mary, of course, and these teachings do exalt her, as God wishes her to be. But, that’s not their main purpose. They are taught because they tell us something vital about Christ. Jesus, after his resurrection taught the Apostles and his disciples for 40 days. How we wish we had that teaching straight from Jesus’ lips, as it were. But in reality we do. Whatever he revealed to them, the Church reveals to us.

As the Church delves into Christ’s life and teachings she unearths treasures for our benefit. After all, God doesn’t need us to elevate doctrines to dogmas so we will believe in him, but he directs his Church, which is a living body, not a dead institution, to give us more and more of his riches for our salvation. Who are we to tell him what we need and what we don’t need?

I believe that in our day and age when women’s identities are being more and more debased from their uniqueness to that of mere objects of commerce and men’s lust, we need the Marian doctrines/dogmas more than ever. In every age God speaks to us as we need most to hear him. The Marian teachings are, as are the Church’s teachings, a bulwark against the tendency of man to have everything his way, and in our times, explained to everyone’s satisfaction. God never promised us either of those things, did he?

 

[Corki]

Thank you for your reply. That was very helpful.

I have no strong objections to the dogmas in principle. I understand them. I understand the logic behind them. I am simply uncertain as to whether I believe they are 1. True and 2. Necessary for the faith.

As I understand it, they are “dogmas” which means they must be excepted as true. There is no room for a difference of opinion. I may have more of a problem with the fact they are dogmas than the content of the dogmas themselves.

Thank you

You need to at least accept that the Church has the authority to declare truth and that the dogmas of the Church are, therefore, truth. If you can’t quite yet wrap your head around a particular teaching but are at the same time both obedient and seeking the truth, that’s one thing. But if you flat out reject a doctrine of the Church, that’s another. I would never say “no, you shouldn’t join the Church” but you might need some more discernment first.

 

[Memaw]

One no and one yes. Hmm.

For the record, I have been a Christian for 40 years. I have been studying Catholicism seriously for over five. I have read about every apologetic work there is. I have read the best Catholic theologians and Biblical scholars (like Raymond Brown). I’ve watched every video Bp. Barron has ever made. I’ve read every book by Scott Hahn. I regularly read Jimmy Akin et al. I’ve watched about every video from Catholic Answers. I’ve actually taught some Catholics things they didn’t know about their own faith. I have attended a few different Catholic churches (no Eucharist of course).

But the Marian dogmas are hanging me up.

So, do I become a Catholic and see if they ever make sense to me. Or do I remain a Protestant sympathetic to Catholicism? Do I continue doing all things Catholic (Mass, Liturgy of the Hours, etc.) but refrain from the Eucharist forever?

Like I said, so far there’s one vote for no and one for yes. Is there a consensus or reference to an “official” answer?

Thank you

Have you discussed this with your Parish priest, He could help you understand this better than all the advice you could get here. If I were you I would also go on the Coming Home network, chnetwork.com, and let them help you. If you would just remember that Jesus Christ loved His Mother more than we ever could, that might help. Prayers and God Bless, Memaw

 

[auctoris]

Have you discussed this with your Parish priest, He could help you understand this better than all the advice you could get here. If I were you I would also go on the Coming Home network

Thank you for the advice. I will try that.

 

[auctoris]

I will pray for you to be led where God wants you, auctoris - and if that leads you to the Church, we will all be here to welcome you!

Thank you.

 

[ComplineSanFran]

Have you checked out the Fatima sun miracle? She performed a miracle at a predicted set date and time. Pretty much undeniable proof the catholic church is the one true church. So if Mary is happy with the churches teaching about herself, then so should probably us.

Do you realize, in all charity, that your statement makes no sense to anyone outside the Roman Catholic Church?

 

[Wesrock]

You have probably already encountered this, but I thought I’d mention it, just in case, since there’s a perception outside the church that these are nineteenth and twentieth century revelations/innovations. That’s not true. While some nuances are different, the Orthodox also teach that Mary was sinless all her life (they don’t speak of an Immacate Conception because they reject western understanding of Original Sin), that she died and was raised and assumed and crowned as Queen of Heaven. These are not declared dogmas in the Orthodox Church, and I don’t believe they mandate faith in it. Still, I say that as evidence that these are hardly new teachings. They are ancient traditions, with surviving documentation in the Church Fathers going back many centuries before the schism.

 

[JurisPrudens]

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

You **cannot ** participate in the Catholic sacraments until You accept everything the Church believes in.

However, accepting does not necessarily presuppose full understanding. So, You can become a Catholic and participate in the sacraments even if You don’t understand something from the doctrine, but are eager to understand it in the future.

It seems to me, Mariology still has a way to develop further, so that everything about the role of Our Blessed Mother in the Church becomes clear and settled down.

A person can feel truely attached to Our Blessed Mother only as a result of the active prayer life, invoking Her for intercession. It does not mean She will make a personal apparition to You. It means, You will realize Her role in our salvation through meditation, as well as become attached to Her as Our Mother and the Image of the Church, whom we are all called to defend and take care off, like a knight defends his beloved one. :knight2:

This happened to me.

 

[auctoris]

Do you realize, in all charity, that your statement makes no sense to anyone outside the Roman Catholic Church?

I discussed that issue with them in private messages. They were under the impression that miracles incontrovertible proofs for the faith.

 

[Kliska]

I understand the reasoning behind the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, but I do not believe it is necessary. I understand the dogma behind the assumption, but I do not believe that it must necessarily follow from the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. It could have happened, but I’m not convinced that it did happen.

Some will say “But if you accept the Church’s teaching, then you will accept it.” At the same time, if the Church declared a dogma today that from all reason and fact I knew to be false, I would not ignore my reason. I think even Thomas would agree with that.

So I am in a dilemma. I accept the Church’s authority, but I do not agree that the Marian dogmas are both necessary and essential. I do not believe they inhibit the Christian faith, but I do not believe they are necessary for the Christian faith. The dogmatic necessity may be my biggest problem. Dogmas about Jesus are necessary–they must be true to accept the faith. I do not believe the same is true of Mary.

I can only offer thoughts from a Protestant perspective, but a perspective that I too have been forming by interacting here and studying on my own, and also from one who likes to talk philosophy.

Do the dogmas have to be objectively necessary? And, is there not a difference between something unnecessary and something false?

So, first, lets take the idea of necessity; is it necessary that Mary was bodily assumed. I don’t that anyone argues it is necessary, but rather that it happened. If you don’t believe it happened I think that is when there would be a problem with the RCC in attempting to join. I can say that it is necessary that Jesus honored His father and mother, does that extend to assuming her directly into Heaven? I don’t know. I have to admit it could have happened.

Next, you said above, “Some will say “But if you accept the Church’s teaching, then you will accept it.” At the same time, if the Church declared a dogma today that from all reason and fact I knew to be false, I would not ignore my reason” is a different matter. If you are declaring the dogmas wrong, then you can’t become Catholic with a clear conscience.

My hang up is with the Marian dogmas in general that I’ve hashed out on the board quite a bit; if there is no other name under Heaven by which we must be saved and salvation only come from within the RCC, then isn’t Mary’s name now necessary for salvation since it takes confessing the dogmas as true to enter the RCC? I’ve had answers given to me, I just don’t know if I agree with those answers. But that’s neither here nor there.

My answer as a protestant is to keep praying and seeking. Go to Mass if you feel called to do so. Ask a local priest your questions and see what he says.

 

[Wesrock]

My hang up is with the Marian dogmas in general that I’ve hashed out on the board quite a bit; if there is no other name under Heaven by which we must be saved and salvation only come from within the RCC, then isn’t Mary’s name now necessary for salvation since it takes confessing the dogmas as true to enter the RCC? I’ve had answers given to me, I just don’t know if I agree with those answers. But that’s neither here nor there.

This could be its own topic, but I’ll just say that the Church is his body. That is a mystery, but it’s certainly not meant metaphorically. And the Church is not an invisible Church, but the faithful under their priests under their bishops under the Pope, with Christ as its head. To reject Church teaching – with some nuance about the level of teaching – is to reject Christ, and his name and reputation, at least partially. From a Catholic perspective.

 

[Kliska]

This could be its own topic, but I’ll just say that the Church is his body. That is a mystery, but it’s certainly not meant metaphorically. And the Church is not an invisible Church, but the faithful under their priests under their bishops under the Pope, with Christ as its head. To reject Church teaching is to reject Christ, and his name and reputation, at least partially. From a Catholic perspective.

Right, that is one answer I was given. I’d just say that it is odd from the “outside” because even if one professes those things proven about Christ via Marian dogma, that wouldn’t be enough, one has to profess about Mary directly, in my understanding at least. Does that go against the “no other name” passage? I dunno. Still thinking it over. Thank you for your reply!

 

[JM3]

So I am in a dilemma. I accept the Church’s authority, but I do not agree that the Marian dogmas are both necessary and essential. I do not believe they inhibit the Christian faith, but I do not believe they are necessary for the Christian faith. The dogmatic necessity may be my biggest problem. Dogmas about Jesus are necessary–they must be true to accept the faith. I do not believe the same is true of Mary.

CCC 156 What moves us to believe is not the fact that revealed truths appear as true and intelligible in the light of our natural reason: we believe “because of the authority of God himself who reveals them, who can neither deceive nor be deceived”.28 So "that the submission of our faith might nevertheless be in accordance with reason, God willed that external proofs of his Revelation should be joined to the internal helps of the Holy Spirit."29 Thus the miracles of Christ and the saints, prophecies, the Church’s growth and holiness, and her fruitfulness and stability “are the most certain signs of divine Revelation, adapted to the intelligence of all”; they are “motives of credibility” (motiva credibilitatis), which show that the assent of faith is “by no means a blind impulse of the mind”.30

 

[Church_Militant]

Why would I want to?

Mary is the 2nd most unique person in all of human history and we can only pray that we learn to love her Son as much as she does. What other human could love him more?

 

[mattp0625]

Right, that is one answer I was given. I’d just say that it is odd from the “outside” because even if one professes those things proven about Christ via Marian dogma, that wouldn’t be enough, one has to profess about Mary directly, in my understanding at least. Does that go against the “no other name” passage? I dunno. Still thinking it over. Thank you for your reply!

No one believes we are saved by Mary.