Catholic Without Marian Dogma?

[mattp0625]

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.

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?

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.

So any references or information on these aspects would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you

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.

In that light, I guess it goes back to the contextual concept. Since our beliefs are based in an analysis of ALL of scripture and ALL of sacred tradition, the various dogmas are interconnected. Mary had a her role to play, albeit a secondary role, but we never look at anything in a vacuum.

Protestantism is fundamentalist - a certain belief is formed and you take a certain part of scripture to make it so. Jesus died for all past, present, and future sins, so nothing else is needed - not even a response to His grace (e.g. saved by faith alone). Then, the Book of Romans is given priority to prove this point.

This is why we give equal weight to all scripture. We do not divide it up into essentials and non-essentials. We do not put Romans or the epistles above other scriptures.

This does not mean we give Jesus less weight. We just view scripture interpretation in more broad-based terms. Mary is part of our contextual view of salvation history.

I would argue that we even view Jesus a little differently, given the mother/Son relationship to Mary in our contextual view. It’s a higher view with the immaculate conception, to be certain.

 

[Wesrock]

I believe you are incorrect in stating that a dogma is a necessary belief without which Christianity would not be true. A dogma is statement of truth of divine origin. To reject a dogma is to reject a statement of truth of divine origin, and thus heresy. It’s to reject that the Church has the authority to interpret authoritatively and/or infallibly the deposit of faith to which it is entrusted.

As I stated earlier, I think the focus is too much on Mary, and the view that the Marian dogmas being necessary is strictly about her, and putting her specifically in the way of salvation. In a way, the Protestant is focusing more on Mary as the heart of this issue than the Catholic does, who sees the question of dogma in a broader sense. It goes deeper, to a more fundamental issue than just Mary. It’s about rejecting a truth of divine origin and Church authority. To reject a dogma is to not trust God and Christ’s body. I guess you could say that is the point that undermines whether or not Christianity is true. If you don’t trust God, you have an issue. God has chosen to reveal something as absolutely true, and a person rejects it?

 

[PopePiusXIISupp]

auctoris did you get my email?

 

[Kliska]

I believe you are incorrect in stating that a dogma is a necessary belief without which Christianity would not be true. A dogma is statement of truth of divine origin. To reject a dogma is to reject a statement of truth of divine origin, and thus heresy. It’s to reject that the Church has the authority to interpret authoritatively and/or infallibly the deposit of faith to which it is entrusted.

As I stated earlier, I think the focus is too much on Mary, and the view that the Marian dogmas being necessary is strictly about her, and putting her specifically in the way of salvation. In a way, the Protestant is focusing more on Mary as the heart of this issue than the Catholic does, who sees the question of dogma in a broader sense. It goes deeper, to a more fundamental issue than just Mary. It’s about rejecting a truth of divine origin and Church authority. To reject a dogma is to not trust God and Christ’s body. I guess you could say that is the point that undermines whether or not Christianity is true. If you don’t trust God, you have an issue. God has chosen to reveal something as absolutely true, and a person rejects it?

That is what I’ve understood “dogma” to be or mean; a concrete truth.

It doesn’t really touch on “necessity.” A philosophical necessity can flow from something like Anselm’s argument for God (If God is necessary then He must exist; God is necessary therefore He exists), but I don’t think that is the same thing as a dogma.

 

[Todd977]

Concerning the dogma of Mary’s perpetual virginity…
There are only two things I can think of that point to any “necessity” of Mary’s perpetual virginity and how without the teaching Christianity is diminished. The first thing about Mary’s perpetual virginity concerns the Christian understanding that Jesus was holy. The Jews were taught to distinguish between what was holy and what was common (Leviticus 10:10) and taught not to profane the holy things of the Lord by using them for common purposes. Mary’s reproductive system was made holy and set apart from common purposes the moment Jesus was conceived in her womb. For Mary to later engage in normal sexual relations with her husband or anyone else and conceived common children in her womb would have profaned a holy thing of the Lord. Without the teaching of Mary’s perpetual virginity, Christianity’s understanding of the Jesus’ holiness is diminished.

The other thing about Mary’s perpetual virginity concerns the Christian teaching that Jesus is the definitive heir to the throne of David. Prudence dictates that you don’t place all your eggs in one basket. For monarchs interested in the continuation of their royal line in this uncertain world, prudence dictates that they producing at least two heirs, an heir and a spare. Because Jesus is the definitive heir to the throne of David whose reign would never end, there was no need for a spare, no need for Mary to produce any additional heirs to the throne of David. Without the teaching of Mary’s perpetual virginity, Christianity’s understanding that Jesus is the definitive heir to the throne of David is diminished.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Greetings Auctoris

Brother, just sign up for Rcia. Next course will be in August or September.

There is no pressure to convert.

I think once you see just how focused the church is on Jesus, the less bothersome the Marian dogmas become.

She was a hurdle for me too.

Didn’t read all 4 pages so sorry if I’m repeating anyone

Pax

 

[neophyte]

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

But the Church says that you are mistaken. If you accept her authority, why don’t you accept that?

Remember, when entering the Chuch we take an oath that we believe every definitive teaching. You can’t honestly take that oath while positively rejecting the Marian doctrines.

When I entered the Church there were a couple of definitive teachings that I still had trouble with, they seemed contrary to reason and the explanations seemed inadequate. But I made an act of the will to accept then for no other reason than “Holy Mother Church says so”, with the hope that eventually I’d get it, and that was sufficient for me to be able to honestly take the oath. Within a week one set of my objections just melted away - “Oh, of course this is true, it’s so clear now, it has to be this way.” The others took more time, but I eventually came around.

 

[Wesrock]

But the Church says that you are mistaken. If you accept her authority, why don’t you accept that?

Remember, when entering the Chuch we take an oath that we believe every definitive teaching. You can’t honestly take that oath while positively rejecting the Marian doctrines.

To reiterate Lenten_ashes’ point at thr same time, RCIA requires no commitment other than attending classes. If you go through it and aren’t ready or change your mind, no harm, no foul.

 

[Della]

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.

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?

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.

So any references or information on these aspects would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you

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.

A couple of things about Thomas Aquinas. Firstly, he was a biblical scholar and a theologian, but he was not the Magisterium. It was his job to question everything–to study them and remark on the Church’s teachings in order to help the Magisterium decide matters of faith and morals. However, he did not have the charism of infallibility and he’d be one of the first people to say that he didn’t, and that most emphatically.

Secondly, you, dear friend, are not Thomas Aquinas. You are not a deep theologian nor a Bible scholar, but an ordinary lay person, yes? I don’t write this to belittle you in any way, but to get you to see that you are delving into deep waters without enough background or understanding. Not even the best of Thomist scholars know just what he meant by what he wrote. Surely you don’t think you have a better idea than they.

Mary’s Immaculate Conception and her Assumption were believed for centuries before either dogma was declared. Dogmas are merely doctrines raised to higher level of belief, they are not inventions nor are they declared at anyone’s insistence or pressure. Evidence for this is popes going against the grain of scholarship and pronouncing dogmas when everyone was telling him not to. That happened with both the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. They didn’t want to scare off Protestants, but the Church doesn’t declare dogma based on that. The popes believed these doctrines needed such elevation.

I too am a convert–one who, like you, did a lot of reading before I was reconciled with the Church. Instead of diving into Aquinas, who I knew I wouldn’t be able to grasp, I read devotional apologetics regarding Mary, especially, “The Glories of Mary” by St. Alphonsus de Liguori. He gives a lot of references in both Sacred Tradition and the Bible for the Marian teachings, including her Immaculate Conception and Assumption well before either was elevated to dogma. I highly recommend it to you.

Lastly, and I apologize for the length of this post, our relationship with Mary, as Catholics, is a personal one, just like we have with Jesus or any of the saints–because we believe in the Communion of Saints. I believe that if you ask Mary for her help to understand why the Church teaches what she does about her, you will find peace and acceptance.

There is a danger in questioning everything to the point of not being able to see the forest for the trees. And it’s hard to pull one’s head out of the Protestant “prove it to me” mind set to that of faith in the God who is far above us, and who doesn’t have to explain why he does what he does or to whom he does it.

 

[Usagi]

That is what I’ve understood “dogma” to be or mean; a concrete truth.

It doesn’t really touch on “necessity.” A philosophical necessity can flow from something like Anselm’s argument for God (If God is necessary then He must exist; God is necessary therefore He exists), but I don’t think that is the same thing as a dogma.

Yes, this. The elevation of the Immacukate Conception and Assumption to dogmatic status does mean that they are divinely revealed truths rather than just truths we worked out as a consequence of revealed truths (which I can see having trouble with) but I have never heard anyone but you claim that Christianity stands and falls on the truth of each single dogma. The Catholic Church’s claim to define such dogmas infallibly certainly does – so you probably shouldn’t want to be Catholic if you think the Church got these wrong – but no one says that if it had gone the other way and Mary and Joseph had had normal marital relations after Jesus’ birth, or Mary had not been preserved from Original Sin, that Jesus would therefore not be God or whatever. It would just be that those alternatives would be the truth but the rest of Christian belief would persist unchanged (as demonstrated by the fact that most Protestants believe exactly that).

 

[Della]

As to your objections to the IC and Assumption, neither hold water.

We know from Scripture that Jesus was to be born and give his life for us as the God-man. God planned it from all eternity. So, he didn’t plan on who his mother would be and how he would make her fit to be the Mother of God? Does that make sense? No, it doesn’t. He prepared Mary for her role in salvation history just as carefully as he planned Jesus life and sacrifice for us. Remember, Jesus is conceived of Mary–of her seed, of her flesh and her blood. Would it be fitting for her to be stained with Adam’s sin? No. She is the Second Eve, as Christ is the Second Adam. God, in her, re-created Eve, to re-create a new race of humans–the redeemed who are saved through Christ’s redemption. The redemption Mary made possible by her fiat. Because yes, even though God had preserved her from the stain of original sin, she could have said no. That’s a profound thought. Mary wasn’t a puppet. She was a free agent who decided to obey God by saying yes. She gave us our Savior as did God the Father. It was fitting she should be preserved free from the stain of original sin so her answer would be unadulterated and totally free of the influence of Adam’s sin. Could God have created her with the stain of original sin and Jesus would still have been pure. Yes, for God can do anything, but it was most fitting that he create her as he did–free of all stain of sin.

And why is it impossible for Mary to have been assumed into heaven? Elijah was, and she is greater, more unique than he. I believe your arguments are leftover Protestant biases against Mary, not based in logic. I’ve encountered many Protestants have an irrational dislike for Mary. Not saying this applies to you, but it’s like they are jealous of her privileges–that God was supposed to give them what he gave her. But God had a definite purpose for Mary that he had for no one else in all of human history. Would they really want her sufferings as much as her privileges? I don’t think so. Each of us has a vocation that God calls us to. What he asks is that we are faithful to that vocation, not that we question others’ callings, thinking that they were given things we should have gotten. Yes?

 

[WT1]

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.

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?

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.

So any references or information on these aspects would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you

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.

Buy a Catechism and use it for reference because it is an unbelievable source of information:

The dogmas of the faith
(Excerpts from the Catechism)

88 The Church’s Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to
the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes truths
contained in divine Revelation or having a necessary connection with them,
in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of
faith.

89 There is an organic connection between our spiritual life and the
dogmas. Dogmas are lights along the path of faith; they illuminate it and
make it secure. Conversely, if our life is upright, our intellect and heart
will be open to welcome the light shed by the dogmas of faith.

90 The mutual connections between dogmas, and their coherence, can be found
in the whole of the Revelation of the mystery of Christ. “In Catholic
doctrine there exists an order or hierarchy 234 of truths, since they vary
in their relation to the foundation of the Christian faith.”

 

[Duane1966]

1. Ever Virgin: I do not have a problem with the content of this belief, but I do not understand how it is essential. How does this relate to the nature of Jesus so that it is necessary in order for Christianity to be true?

It would be essential to converting Jews when demonstrating that she is the Ark of the New Covenant. Just as the old Ark could not be touched, would the early Jewish converts believe that Jesus was God, if Mary who carried God in her womb and is the Ark of The New Covenant, could be touched in such a way? Probably not. Which is why they doubt him and say;’ is this not Joseph’s son?’ And if Joseph believed her then to be the spouse of the Holy Spirit, would Joseph then consider it adultery to have relations with her? I believe yes.

1. Assumption: As I understand it, this follows from the Immaculate Conception. Death is not required for those without sin so she is assumed into heaven rather than suffering death.

Not at all. The Assumption does not say she did not die, just that Jesus took her body up to Heaven. Some do hold that she did not die, but most believe she did.

 

[Della]

A very informative article by Fr. Dwight Longenecker: l Saw Mary Queen of Heaven Yesterday.

 

[auctoris]

auctoris did you get my email?

I just looked over it. I’m going to read your suggestions and see if that helps.

Thank you

 

[Della]

I just looked over it. I’m going to read your suggestions and see if that helps.

Thank you

I just posted a link to an article you may find helpful. JYI.

 

[auctoris]

Buy a Catechism and use it for reference because it is an unbelievable source of information.

I own and have read the full catechism in print and electronic form, the compendium, Kreeft’s commentary on the compendium (“Catholic Christianity”), and YouCat. I think I may be more familiar with it than many Catholics.

Thank you

 

[auctoris]

Not at all. The Assumption does not say she did not die, just that Jesus took her body up to Heaven. Some do hold that she did not die, but most believe she did.

Thank you. That is helpful.

 

[auctoris]

I still have some more reading to do, but here are some responses and more thoughts.

That is what I’ve understood “dogma” to be or mean; a concrete truth. It doesn’t really touch on “necessity.” A philosophical necessity can flow from something like Anselm’s argument for God (If God is necessary then He must exist; God is necessary therefore He exists), but I don’t think that is the same thing as a dogma.

I believe you are incorrect in stating that a dogma is a necessary belief without which Christianity would not be true. A dogma is statement of truth of divine origin. To reject a dogma is to reject a statement of truth of divine origin, and thus heresy. It’s to reject that the Church has the authority to interpret authoritatively and/or infallibly the deposit of faith to which it is entrusted.

The necessity of the belief comes from its requirement as a dogma. The content of an individual dogma does not imply a necessity for the truth of Christianity. However, the fact dogmas are doctrines which must be accepted in order to join the Catholic Church (i.e. be a Christian) means they are necessary for Christianity. You cannot become a Christian (at the very least in fullness) without believing the Marian dogmas defined by the Church. In that way, they are very much necessary for Christianity to be true. If you do not believe them, then you do not believe in the truth of Christianity enough to be a Christian.

Remember, when entering the Chuch we take an oath that we believe every definitive teaching. You can’t honestly take that oath while positively rejecting the Marian doctrines.

Exactly my quandary.

When I entered the Church there were a couple of definitive teachings that I still had trouble with, they seemed contrary to reason and the explanations seemed inadequate. But I made an act of the will to accept then for no other reason than “Holy Mother Church says so.”

I don’t have a problem with that existentially, but I do have a problem with it. We could say the same for any religion. We could find some beliefs in Islam to be unreasonable, but the Quran says they are true. Since, for Muslims, the Quran is God’s perfect word, you would accept them on faith in order to become Muslim. So if we use that method, we could also become Muslims.

Again, I think Aquinas would be okay with looking for the reasons behind dogmas before accepting them fully as dogmas (incontrovertible truths necessary to become a Christian).

As I stated earlier, I think the focus is too much on Mary, and the view that the Marian dogmas being necessary is strictly about her.

On the contrary, that is what I am asking. How are Marian dogmas incontrovertible in a truth they relate about Jesus? That is, if they are not true, Jesus is somehow lessened.

A more general question is can a Catholic protest from inside the Catholic Church? It is my understanding that Luther never intended to leave the Church or form another Church. He simply wanted to reform the problems from inside the Church. Is that possible or does any dissent mean you cannot be a Catholic?

Thank you

 

[sudy]

A more general question is can a Catholic protest from inside the Catholic Church?

A Catholic can have doubts from inside the Church, and can question also. To acknowledge that we don’t understand something is fine. To refute or protest is a different matter entirely.

‘Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.’