Catholic Without Marian Dogma?

[mattp0625]

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

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.

Exactly my quandary.

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).

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

If you look at the history of the Lutheran Church in Norway (e.g. Where they claim to have apostolic succession) and Iceland, Luther sent proxies to take over the Catholic bishops by force. The whole goal of sola scriptura was to deny the church’s authority. At the very least, his intentions changed.

By what standard do you get to hold what is essential or nonessential? Do you use the same standard for putting books of the bible into tiers? If so, how did you make these determinations?

Lastly, can you have Protestantism with Sola Fide but not Sola Scriptura? What happens if you decide you don’t need both? You make a new denomination!

Everything we believe is contextual and linked. Our view of Mary does impact our view of Jesus and God.

The profession of faith also includes:
I believe in one holy Catholic and apostolic church.

 

[auctoris]

If you look at the history of the Lutheran Church in Norway (e.g. Where they claim to have apostolic succession) and Iceland . . .

Bp. Barron talks about how there have been bad popes. That doesn’t make their doctrinal teachings any less true. But their behavior did need “protesting” from within the Church–which is what Luther did. Now I’m no fan of Luther. The harm he caused far outweighs any good he did. But he wasn’t incorrect in all of his 95 theses.

Pope Francis is shaking some things up at the Vatican because of problems. In that sense, he is “protesting” what is going on.

So there’s a fine line to walk between “It’s true because they say so,” and “Does this sync with everything else we know to be true?” If an organization contains humans, it is imperfect. Again, Bp. Barron says this. That means it can need correction. That doesn’t mean dogmas fall into this category.

But, if we say, “It’s true simply because they say so”, then all manner of horrors could take place. Aquinas sought the truth through reason and revelation. That’s all I’m doing–asking for the reasons behind the dogmas that are necessary to become a Christian (i.e. join the Church).

Thank you

 

[mattp0625]

Bp. Barron talks about how there have been bad popes. That doesn’t make their doctrinal teachings any less true. But their behavior did need “protesting” from within the Church–which is what Luther did. Now I’m no fan of Luther. The harm he caused far outweighs any good he did. But he wasn’t incorrect in all of his 95 theses.

Pope Francis is shaking some things up at the Vatican because of problems. In that sense, he is “protesting” what is going on.

So there’s a fine line to walk between “It’s true because they say so,” and “Does this sync with everything else we know to be true?” If an organization contains humans, it is imperfect. Again, Bp. Barron says this. That means it can need correction. That doesn’t mean dogmas fall into this category.

But, if we say, “It’s true simply because they say so”, then all manner of horrors could take place. Aquinas sought the truth through reason and revelation. That’s all I’m doing–asking for the reasons behind the dogmas that are necessary to become a Christian (i.e. join the Church).

Thank you

Luther’s goals were clear. He invented doctrines to reach a predetermined goal. He did not have authority from God nor from God’s Church to change anything. Additionally, the use of force further demonstrates his clear intentions.

Pope Francis is not changing dogmas or doctrines. He is potentially changing practices or canon law. I know Protestants often do not distinguish between a practice (e.g. Procedures) versus a doctrine, but they are not the same thing.

Contemplate the fact that our dogmas and doctrines are interconnected. It’s about both authority as well as our contextual views. Then ask yourself by what standard did you determine what is essential.

 

[mattp0625]

Just to follow up- the media produces false reports that indicate the pope wanted to change doctrines on divorce. It’s simply not true.

There was one Cardinal whose views on divorce may have gone a bit far on the topic of procedures and canon law, and may have even blurred the lines of law vs doctrine, but he does not have authority to make changes to doctrine - only to advise.

 

[auctoris]

We’ll agree to disagree. But thank you for your response.

 

[Della]

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

From what I’ve read in your posts, you don’t have more reading to do, but I do believe you need to do two things:

1. If you haven’t, you need to pray that the Holy Spirit will enlighten your heart and mind.
2. You need to jettison your Protestant idea that the Church has to prove her teachings to our satisfaction before it can be accepted by inquirers. The Church receives her authority from God, not from you or me. If she is wrong about the Marian dogmas, then she is wrong about everything else, and should be rejected wholesale. The Church’s teachings are a whole, not part and parcel of this theological construct and that one. It’s the fullness of the Gospel, not parts of it–only the parts we like. That is a Protestant’s way of thinking not a Catholic’s.

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.

What Catholics are asked is to give consent to the Church’s teachings by saying, as we do in the creeds, “I believe.” That belief isn’t given because I have been convinced to my own satisfaction, but I believe because of Christ’s promises to his Church. You cannot enter the Church unless you are willing to believe her teachings. It seems to me you simply aren’t willing to take that step of faith. That’s not a slur on you, it’s common for many people because we, especially we Americans brought up Protestant, are used to church shopping, theology shopping. But that will only take in in endless circles. At some point you need to say, I will believe because Christ gave his Church his authority to define matters of faith and morals. Or you need to say, I won’t.

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.

However, the Marian dogmas are not unreasonable. The onus is on you to show that they are unreasonable. Not that they aren’t explicitly stated in Scripture or that they go against your ideas about who and what Mary is, but reasonable to any ordinary person. So far, you haven’t provided any.

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).

If this is your impression of Aquinas, you are way off, my friend. He didn’t explore the Church teachings in order to come to accept them. He explored them as a theologian, questioning ones that hadn’t been declared dogmas in order to aid the Church in making her decisions regarding them. If he had been alive when either the IC or Assumption had been declared dogmas, he’d have accepted them because he accepted the Church’s authority to make that determination. It was Bl. Dun Scotus, who lived after Aquinas, who resolved the question of the IC. Aquinas was a great theologian, but he wasn’t perfect–and he’d be the first to admit it.

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.

They are incontrovertible because of who she was–the Second Eve, the one “full of grace,” the Mother of God. The teachings regarding her IC and Assumption have their foundation in these truths, truths that all relate directly to Christ, who he is and what he did in redeeming us.

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

Protest? Not if he wishes to be in full communion with the Church in every way he should be How can anyone truly be nurtured by a Mother they do not trust? You have to remember that the Church is our Mother. By our baptism we are made members of Christ’s body, with the Church as our Mother. This is not merely a sentimental idea, it’s reality. The Church guides us, teaches us, nourishes us, saves us as our Mother, not merely as a teaching institution run by a group of men. If we cannot love the Church and trust her, we will never be fully joined to her.

 

[auctoris]

Contemplate the fact that our dogmas and doctrines are interconnected. It’s about both authority as well as our contextual views. Then ask yourself by what standard did you determine what is essential.

The same standards Aquinas used in writing the Summa. And the same standards Augustine used in most of his writings.

 

[carefullytread]

Just to follow up- the media produces false reports that indicate the pope wanted to change doctrines on divorce. It’s simply not true.

There was one Cardinal whose views on divorce may have gone a bit far on the topic of procedures and canon law, and may have even blurred the lines of law vs doctrine, but he does not have authority to make changes to doctrine - only to advise.

Matt, a follow up question on the way you see it. When auctoris asked

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?

is the answer that a Catholic can protest practices, procedures, or canon law, but cannot protest doctrines?

 

[mattp0625]

The same standards Aquinas used in writing the Summa. And the same standards Augustine used in most of his writings.

Yet, you made yourself the authority to determine the essentials.

Both men held Catholic views of Mary and never broke from the Catholic Church.

They could analyze and write without making themselves into an authority (e.g. Like Luther did). Also notice they didn’t create their own denominations.

 

[auctoris]

You need to jettison your Protestant idea that the Church has to prove her teachings to our satisfaction before it can be accepted by inquirers.

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?

However, the Marian dogmas are not unreasonable. The onus is on you to show that they are unreasonable.

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? That’s a reasonable question. So far, most of the answeres I’ve received are “Becaue the Church says so,” which is the same answer I would get from a Muslim regarding the Quran.

If this is your impression of Aquinas, you are way off, my friend. He didn’t explore the Church teachings in order to come to accept them. He explored them as a theologian, questioning ones that hadn’t been declared dogmas in order to aid the Church in making her decisions regarding them.

Exactly, he explored why they were reasonable. That’s all I’m asking.

They are incontrovertible because of who she was–the Second Eve, the one “full of grace,” the Mother of God.

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

Protest? Not if he wishes to be in full communion with the Church in every way he should be How can anyone truly be nurtured by a Mother they do not trust?

Someone needs to tell Bp. Barron. So, there is no room for reason? You accept everything 100% on faith in spite of reason. Again, someone needs to tell the Catholic convert Dr. Kreeft.

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.

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. 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. 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.

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.

Thank you

 

[mattp0625]

Matt, a follow up question on the way you see it. When auctoris asked

is the answer that a Catholic can protest practices, procedures, or canon law, but cannot protest doctrines?

I don’t want your question to lead down the wrong path.

Catholics believe, for example, that we cannot get remarried after divorce. Jesus said this is adultry. It is a doctrine based on scripture that has never changed.

There are, for example, canon law procedures regarding annulments in situations where the marriage covenant was fatally flawed. In essence, the marriage vows were corrupted from the beginning. Even so, individuals don’t “officially” protest canon law since they don’t have the individual authority to change them.

We do not make a profession of faith with respect to canon law. They are not required doctrines yet we still hold the authority given to our church by Christ.

 

[auctoris]

They could analyze and write without making themselves into an authority (e.g. Like Luther did). Also notice they didn’t create their own denominations.

Exactly. Denominations are very bad.

They used a standard to show the truth of the Church’s teaching. That’s what I’m doing. Working out the in the manner of Aquinas and Augustine.

I’ve come to two conclusion:

1. People believe that because I am not yet officially Catholic that I believe everything Protestants believe. I am far, far more Catholic than any Protestant, and apparently, I am far, far more Catholic than many Catholics. Don’t assume I accept any Protestant positions. I am stuck in limbo right now and that’s why I’m working on it.
2. I must be a horrible communicator because people keep restating my questions without answering them. They restate exactly what I’m saying in different words as if they either disagree with me or are answering me. But they are just restating what I’m asking.

So I apologize if I have caused confusion.

As to matt, I’m just going to call it like I see it. It appears you are rather anti-Protestant–as anti-Protestant as any anti-Catholic I’ve met. I’m sorry for that. I hope you can understand my questions are coming from sincere inquiry, a desire for the truth, and a hope to join the Church.

Thank you

 

[mattp0625]

Exactly. Denominations are very bad. They used a standard to show the truth of the Church’s teaching. That’s what I’m doing. Working out the truth the way Aquinas and Augustine.

I’ve come to two conclusion:

1. People believe that because I am not yet officially Catholic that I believe everthing Protestants believe. I am far, far more Catholic than any Protestant, and apparently, I am far, far more Catholic than many Catholics. Don’t assume I accept any Protestant positions. I am stuck in limbo right now and that’s why I’m working on it.
2. I must be a horrible communicator because people keep restating my questions without answering them. They restate exactly what I’m saying in different words as if they either disagree with me or are answering me. But they are just restating what I’m asking.

So I apologize if I have caused confusion.

As to matt, I’m just going to call it like I see it. It appears you are rather anti-Protestant–as anti-Protestant as any anti-Catholic I’ve met. I’m sorry for that. I hope you can understand my questions are coming from sincere inquiry, a desire for the truth, and a hope to join the Church.

Thank you

I do not accept the doctrines, or versions of history, of Protestantism. I’ve look into both. It’s clear to me they are false. I attempt to communicate what I’ve found without resorting to insults.

Maybe you do get similar answers to some extent. However, it seems that you reject other answers given as well. I have to agree with the previous poster- it appears that the undercurrents of Protestantism have a greater hold on your thought process than you might realize.

 

[auctoris]

I attempt to communicate what I’ve found without resorting to insults . . . it appears that the undercurrents of Protestantism have a greater hold on your thought process than you might realize.

I meant no insult. If any was taken, I apologize.

I believe speaking of the undercurrents of Protestantism betrays as much about your thinking as it is meant to portray mine. As I have stated over and over, I am not doing anything Aquinas and Augstine did not do. They showed the truth of the Church through reason. That is what I am working on. If that comes across as Protestant, then Bp. Barron, Dr Kreeft, St. Aquinas, and St. Augustine are Protestant as well. I’m in good company.

I believe Protestantism is bad. I believe it has caused much harm and many evils. I have not attended a Protestant Church in at least five years. I have not read a Protestant book in at least five years. I am absorbed in Catholicism. I go to Catholic mass. Every book I read and video I watch is Catholic. My TV is stuck on EWTN.

That’s doesn’t mean I reject reason. If wanting to understand the reason for certain beliefs is Protestant, then I guess I’m guilty as charged–but so are many Bishops and Saints.

In any case, it appears the answers are not here, so I will look elsewhere.

I thank everyone for their efforts, time, and patience. I hope to join you in the Church soon.

 

[Della]

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?

We don’t accept “because I said so,” but because Christ said so. We reject the Quran because it is a Christian heresy, as was Arianism and all other heresies. How do we know what is true? Because Christ gave his Church the authority to make those determinations–it’s Christ we believe.

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? That’s a reasonable question. So far, most of the answeres I’ve received are “Becaue the Church says so,” which is the same answer I would get from a Muslim regarding the Quran.

I can’t agree. You have been shown how they are reasonable, but you don’t want reasonable, you want absolute proof. In that you are still thinking like a Protestant, my friend.

Exactly, he explored why they were reasonable. That’s all I’m asking.

But he didn’t have the final say. He bowed to the authority of the Church–because it is Christ’s Church. We believe Christ who speaks through his Church.

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

You have been answered on these points. Again, as I see it, you simply don’t want them to be true–only you can say why. I haven’t seen you provide one solid reason why they aren’t true or can’t be true.

Someone needs to tell Bp. Barron. So, there is no room for reason? You accept everything 100% on faith in spite of reason. Again, someone needs to tell the Catholic convert Dr. Kreeft.

I never said anything about using reason, and neither did you. You asked can one protest against the Church’s teachings, not reason about the Church’s teachings. If I could not reason about the Church’s teachings we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

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.

Why, when you have been answered quite amply? Only you can know what your hitch is, since we cannot read your mind.

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. 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. 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.

Whatever do you mean by "the rest of the Church to be always right and never in need of “protest?” The “rest of the Church” doesn’t decide matters of faith and morals, the Magisterium does. There are no doctrinal/dogmatic wrongs that need righting. And that’s what we’re discussing here, not disciplines or devotions. You really have no good reasons to protest any teachings apart from you unwillingness to accept them.

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.

Thank you

No, that’s not what Church Councils are all about if you are trying to justify protesting Church teachings by saying that that is what prompted Church councils. Councils don’t encourage protest, rather they solve theological issues. They squash heresies not encourage people to foment them.

 

[auctoris]

We don’t accept “because I said so,” but because Christ said so. We reject the Quran because it is a Christian heresy, as was Arianism and all other heresies. How do we know what is true?

Thank you for your time in replying. As I said, I am convinced of my ineptitude in communication, because I obviously did not say what I meant in a way that others could understand. I did not mean the things you thought I meant as you disagreed and I agreed with much of what you thought was disagreement.

As I said before, apparently my communications skills and the belief that Protestantism has anything to do with my questions are preventing a good discussion.

I apologize for the inconvenience.

 

[mattp0625]

Thank you for your time in replying. As I said, I am convinced of my ineptitude in communication, because I obviously did not say what I meant in a way that others could understand. I did not mean the things you thought I meant as you disagreed and I agreed with much of what you thought was disagreement.

As I said before, apparently my communications skills and the belief that Protestantism has anything to do with my questions are preventing a good discussion.

I apologize for the inconvenience.

A fundamentalist attempts to portray the bible as an all inclusive operating manual with every last detail of our faith life completely spelled out.

A fundamentalist can take one verse in scripture and create a doctrine. He can ignore other parts of the bible to stick with his original premise of a direct connection to his predetermined goal.

Example- Romans says we are saved by faith, and therefore it’s “faith alone”, even though James says faith without works is dead and Matthew 25 says we must feed the hungry to be counted among the elect at the second coming.

This absolutist approach to the bible is a direct contradiction to the Catholic contextual approach - which recognizes that scripture and theology are complex. We seek contextual, robust relationships to develop our truths.

In that light, not everything in our theology can be pinned to one verse, but are reasonably thought out and contextually sound using scripture and sacred tradition. The conclusions take into account all evidence and complex relationships.

I believe this is what the previous poster was referring to regarding the absolutist approach. The absolute nature of the fundamentalist cannot accept the contextual nature of many of our doctrines nor the manner in which they connect.

 

[auctoris]

A fundamentalist attempts to portray the bible as an all inclusive operating manual with every last detail of our faith life completely spelled out.

Don’t worry Matt, you put me in my place. There will be no further discussion.

 

[mattp0625]

I hope God leads you to our church. God bless.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Luther’s goals were clear. He invented doctrines to reach a predetermined goal. He did not have authority from God nor from God’s Church to change anything. Additionally, the use of force further demonstrates his clear intentions.

Pope Francis is not changing dogmas or doctrines. He is potentially changing practices or canon law. I know Protestants often do not distinguish between a practice (e.g. Procedures) versus a doctrine, but they are not the same thing.

Contemplate the fact that our dogmas and doctrines are interconnected. It’s about both authority as well as our contextual views. Then ask yourself by what standard did you determine what is essential.

Luther saw Tetzel and apparently others playing fast and loose with the grace of God…and that would have infuriated me as well.

He had some valid points.

I heard someone the other day say that had Luther just been more patient maybe they could have worked things out and there would have been a Lutheran rite of the church.

Anyway, if not him, somebody else would have broken. Human pride is awful.