Catholic Without Marian Dogma?

[Della]

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!

It definitely doesn’t go against the “no other name” passage (or any other passage regarding Christ’s one sacrifice for sin). The passage you refer to does not address our being co-workers with Christ, which is the category we place Mary in, although at a more exalted level than all other saints or even angels.

Salvation is in Christ alone because he alone died for our sins and then offered that sacrifice once to the Father to satisfy God’s justice. Belief in Mary’s Immaculate Conception and her Assumption are results of that one sacrifice, not additional to it nor do they add anything to it. They were the answer to Jesus’ promises that we will be holy as the Father is holy and that we will be raised with incorrupt bodies. That is all they are. Belief in them is essential only because Jesus made those promises and Mary, the Second Eve, the Mother of the Faithful, fulfilled them through God’s free gift of grace–showing us that they are not just for her, but for all of us.

 

[Kliska]

No one believes we are saved by Mary.

1. No salvation outside of the Church (RCC)
2. To belong to the RCC one must profess specifics about Mary.
3. If you don’t profess specific things about Mary, you can’t become a part of the RC Church.
4. No salvation outside of the Church (RCC)

Do you see the potential problem?

We Christians believe salvation is by God by grace through faith (working through love), absolutely. However it is the logical entailment in the dogmas that may perhaps cause issue.

 

[Wesrock]

1. No salvation outside of the Church (RCC)
2. To belong to the RCC one must profess specifics about Mary.
3. If you don’t profess specific things about Mary, you can’t become a part of the RC Church.
4. No salvation outside of the Church (RCC)

Do you see the potential problem?

We Christians believe salvation is by God by grace through faith (working through love), absolutely. However it is the logical entailment in the dogmas that may perhaps cause issue.

We profess a lot about Adam and Eve, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and David, among others involved in salvation history. Can we reject original/ancestral sin, David being annointed as a king after God’s own heart, or that Isaiah, Elijah, and Moses were prophets of God?

I don’t know. Frankly, I think you’re putting the cart before the horse and focusing too much on Mary. The issue isn’t that Mary has any role in salvation, it goes back to rejecting a teaching of Christ’s body and apostolic witness.

A Catholic must profess that his bishop is an apostolic successor, and that the Pope is the successor to Peter. Does that mean I’m declaring my Bishop or the pope is giving me salvation? No.

 

[Della]

1. No salvation outside of the Church (RCC)
2. To belong to the RCC one must profess specifics about Mary.
3. If you don’t profess specific things about Mary, you can’t become a part of the RC Church.
4. No salvation outside of the Church (RCC)

Do you see the potential problem?

We Christians believe salvation is by God by grace through faith (working through love), absolutely. However it is the logical entailment in the dogmas that may perhaps cause issue.

Your first premise is simply not true. There is salvation outside the Church:

Possible salvation of non-Christians: #s 846-848.

“Outside the Church there is no salvation”
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337
848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338

 

[Kliska]

Thank you both, I don’t want to hijack the thread. I’ll think and pray on what you all have said.

 

[Della]

Thank you both, I don’t want to hijack the thread. I’ll think and pray on what you all have said.

Sounds good.

 

[Wesrock]

Thank you both, I don’t want to hijack the thread. I’ll think and pray on what you all have said.

Understood. I know I didn’t provide the greatest explanations or necessarily anything you hadn’t heard before. May god bless you.

 

[Todd977]

The Marian dogmas concerning her Immaculate Conception, her Perpetual Virginity, and her Assumption are important because they are true. However, except for the teaching that Mary was a virgin before Jesus was conceived in her womb, they concern matters that were only “fitting,” not matters that were absolutely necessary for the Incarnation and our Redemption. For instance, owing to the dignity of the Child she was to bear, it was fitting that the Virgin Mary be immaculately conceived but it was not absolutely necessary that she be so conceived. Owing to the dignity of the Child she was to bear and did bear, it was fitting that the she remained a perpetual virgin but it was not absolutely necessary that she remain a virgin. It was fitting that the Virgin Mary was rewarded for her faithfulness in life by being bodily assumed into heaven at the end of her life but it was not absolutely necessary that she be so rewarded.

It would be great if you believed the Marian dogmas but, personally, I think it would be fine for you to join the Catholic Church if you are at least neutral concerning the Marian dogmas, i.e., if you are willing to accept that they might be true. I think the only reason you should not join the Catholic Church is if you outright reject the Marian dogmas, i.e., if you are convinced that the Marian dogmas cannot possibly be true. In other words, if you are convinced that Mary was conceived with Original Sin like the rest of us and could not possible have been immaculately conceived even by a special favor from God, then you should not join the Church. If you are convinced that Mary gave birth to other children besides Jesus and could not possibly have remained a virgin during and after the birth of Jesus, even by a special favor from God, then you should not join the Church. If you are convinced that Mary’s body remains in its grave and could not possibly have been assumed into heaven at the end of her earthly life, even by a special favor from God, then you should not join the Church. Otherwise, I think you should go for it.

 

[Duane1966]

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.

Correct. In fact the Feast of the Assumption we know to have been celebrated in Catholicism since at least the fourth century, but it was known as the Memory of Mary back then.

THE ASSUMPTION OF MARY: A BELIEF SINCE APOSTOLIC TIMES
Father Clifford Stevens

After the building of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in 336, the sacred sites began to be restored and memories of the life of Our Lord began to be celebrated by the people of Jerusalem. One of the memories about his mother centered around the “Tomb of Mary,” close to Mount Zion, where the early Christian community had lived.

On the hill itself was the “Place of Dormition,” the spot of Mary’s “falling asleep,” where she had died. The “Tomb of Mary” was where she was buried.

At this time, the “Memory of Mary” was being celebrated. Later it was to become our feast of the Assumption.

For a time, the “Memory of Mary” was marked only in Palestine, but then it was extended by the emperor to all the churches of the East. In the seventh century, it began to be celebrated in Rome under the title of the “Falling Asleep” (“Dormitio”) of the Mother of God.

Soon the name was changed to the “Assumption of Mary,” since there was more to the feast than her dying. It also proclaimed that she had been taken up, body and soul, into heaven.

That belief was ancient, dating back to the apostles themselves. What was clear from the beginning was that there were no relics of Mary to be venerated, and that an empty tomb stood on the edge of Jerusalem near the site of her death. That location also soon became a place of pilgrimage. (Today, the Benedictine Abbey of the Dormition of Mary stands on the spot.)

At the Council of Chalcedon in 451, when bishops from throughout the Mediterranean world gathered in Constantinople, Emperor Marcian asked the Patriarch of Jerusalem to bring the relics of Mary to Constantinople to be enshrined in the capitol. The patriarch explained to the emperor that there were no relics of Mary in Jerusalem, that “Mary had died in the presence of the apostles; but her tomb, when opened later . . . was found empty and so the apostles concluded that the body was taken up into heaven.”

In the eighth century, St. John Damascene was known for giving sermons at the holy places in Jerusalem. At the Tomb of Mary, he expressed the belief of the Church on the meaning of the feast: “Although the body was duly buried, it did not remain in the state of death, neither was it dissolved by decay. . . . You were transferred to your heavenly home, O Lady, Queen and Mother of God in truth.”

 

[auctoris]

I’ve thought about it some more and I may be able to better articulate my thoughts. Maybe someone can direct me to some reading that could help clear things up. In this post when I use “necessary” or “necessarily” or some other variation, I am referring to the philosophical definition–something that must be true and cannot not be true.

I understand that dogmas are required. As I’m sure you know, there are not as many essentials (i.e. dogmas) in Protestantism, and most are related to Jesus. But they are dogmas none the less. The Apostles’ Creed or the Nicene Creed contains all of them for Protestants. So I understand dogmas in that these are things that must necessarily be true in order for Christianity to be true. If you remove any one of them, you have done irreparable damage to the Christian faith.

The Marian dogmas are Mother of God, Ever Virgin, Immaculate Conception, and Assumption. I’ll take them one at a time.

1. Mother of God: This makes sense as a dogma. If Jesus is true God and true man, then his mother must necessarily be Mother of God. If she isn’t Mother of God, then he isn’t true God, and Christianity is not true.
2. 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? Does this mean that if she ever had relations with her lawful husband, Joseph, then Christianity is no longer true or the nature of Jesus is so diminished that Christianity is no longer true?
3. Immaculate Conception: This is where it gets more difficult. Christians believe that Jesus is perfect and sinless. So the dogma says that Mary must have been conceived without sin for her to be able to carry Jesus. He cannot come into contact with sin. It seems to be related to the necessary sinlessness of Jesus.

But, if God could make it so that Mary was protected from original sin in the womb, why could he not make it so that Jesus was protected from original sin in the womb? He already pulled off a virgin pregnancy so why not protection from original sin in the womb? How is this a necessary belief for Christianity to be true? If it’s not true, how does that make Christianity untrue?

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.

So is this saying that not only was she never exposed to original sin, she also never chose to sin in her entire life? If that is true, then more than one perfect person has lived. It’s not just Jesus, it’s Mary and Jesus.

If the Assumption is not true, does that mean Christianity is not true? If it is defined as a dogma, then it is necessary for the faith. So if Mary actually died, then our faith is in vain–Christianity is not true?

Thank you

 

[Catholic4Christ]

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.

It does follow from the Immaculate Conception in that God prepared her then, preserved her through life, and dignified her at the end of her life. That being said, it is commonly held that she did in fact suffer death, but got to experience the resurrection of the dead and went to be with God (as will happen to God’s other faithful ones at the end of time).

 

[Wesrock]

Mary did not need to be without sin so that Christ could be without sin. That’s a misconception. However, it is fitting that she should be. She is the Ark of the New Covenant. The old ark carried the heavenly manna, the priestly rod of Aaron, and the old law carved on tablets of stone. How much more wonderful that Mary should carry the bread of life, our eternal high priest, and the bringer of the new covenant and law? Was it necessary for salvation for the old ark to be so holy and pure that men who touched it fell down dead? I don’t know. But how fitting for our new ark to be preserved from any spiritual impurity throughout her life, to remain untouched (intimately) by any men, to be kecharitomene, previously filled and kept full of grace by God throughout her life?

catholic.com/magazine/articles/mary-the-ark-of-the-new-covenant

 

[Charliesj]

I completely understand where you are coming from. I had a hard time with the immaculate conception but I got over it with the help of the Holy Spirit like this; I believe in the supremacy of the pope, I believe in apostolic succession, I believe in the magisterium of the Church, therefore if the pope or an ecumenical council declared Mary to have been conceived without the stain of original sin then I will accept that and pray that I come around to fully comprehend it. Once I accepted it then it was long until it all made sense to me and I fully believed it, but even before I was fully on board I signed up for Rcia and haven’t looked back

 

[auctoris]

I completely understand where you are coming from. I had a hard time with the immaculate conception but I got over it with the help of the Holy Spirit like this; I believe in the supremacy of the pope, I believe in apostolic succession, I believe in the magisterium of the Church, therefore if the pope or an ecumenical council declared Mary to have been conceived without the stain of original sin then I will accept that and pray that I come around to fully comprehend it. Once I accepted it then it was long until it all made sense to me and I fully believed it, but even before I was fully on board I signed up for Rcia and haven’t looked back

Thank you for the reply. I understand it from that perspective as well. I guess I’m a Thomist because I really want to understand it logically as well.

If they are dogmas, they must be believed in order for Christianity to be true. If Christianity can be true without these dogmas being true, then they are not dogmas. So I would like to understand logically why they must be true in order to be a Christian (i.e. belong to the Catholic Church).

The Protestant accusation on the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and Assumption is that they were not required from the earliest centuries of Christianity. They are dogmas not because they are logically necessary, but because a council bowed to the will of a minority who wanted Mary officially elevated. I would very much like to be able to articulate why this accusation is not true.

Thank you

 

[Wesrock]

If they are dogmas, they must be believed in order for Christianity to be true. If Christianity can be true without these dogmas being true, then they are not dogmas.

Where did this definition come from?

The Protestant accusation on the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and Assumption is that they were not required from the earliest centuries of Christianity. They are dogmas not because they are logically necessary, **but because a council bowed to the will of a minority who wanted Mary officially elevated. **I would very much like to be able to articulate why this accusation is not true.

The bolded certainly isn’t true. It’s 2,000 years of tradition handed down by the apostles, and taught in the earliest days of the Church.

 

[auctoris]

Where did this definition come from?

I am going by the generally accepted definition. And to my knowledge the Catholic Church says dogmas must be accepted to join the Church. If the dogmas must be accepted to join the Church (i.e. become a Christian) then they are required to be a Christian. It logically follows if they are not required, then they are not dogmas.

Oxford New American Dictionary

dogma: a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.

I saw a further definition that said:

“A dogma serves as part of the primary basis of an ideology or belief system, and it cannot be changed or discarded without affecting the very system’s paradigm, or the ideology itself.” [That is, if the dogma is removed the ideology is fundamentally altered.]

If I understand this incorrectly, please correct me.

The bolded certainly isn’t true. It’s 2,000 years of tradition handed down by the apostles, and taught in the earliest days of the Church.

I agree, now I need the references and evidence.

Thank you

 

[mattp0625]

I’ve thought about it some more and I may be able to better articulate my thoughts. Maybe someone can direct me to some reading that could help clear things up. In this post when I use “necessary” or “necessarily” or some other variation, I am referring to the philosophical definition–something that must be true and cannot not be true.

I understand that dogmas are required. As I’m sure you know, there are not as many essentials (i.e. dogmas) in Protestantism, and most are related to Jesus. But they are dogmas none the less. The Apostles’ Creed or the Nicene Creed contains all of them for Protestants. So I understand dogmas in that these are things that must necessarily be true in order for Christianity to be true. If you remove any one of them, you have done irreparable damage to the Christian faith.

The Marian dogmas are Mother of God, Ever Virgin, Immaculate Conception, and Assumption. I’ll take them one at a time.

1. Mother of God: This makes sense as a dogma. If Jesus is true God and true man, then his mother must necessarily be Mother of God. If she isn’t Mother of God, then he isn’t true God, and Christianity is not true.
2. 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? Does this mean that if she ever had relations with her lawful husband, Joseph, then Christianity is no longer true or the nature of Jesus is so diminished that Christianity is no longer true?
3. Immaculate Conception: This is where it gets more difficult. Christians believe that Jesus is perfect and sinless. So the dogma says that Mary must have been conceived without sin for her to be able to carry Jesus. He cannot come into contact with sin. It seems to be related to the necessary sinlessness of Jesus.

But, if God could make it so that Mary was protected from original sin in the womb, why could he not make it so that Jesus was protected from original sin in the womb? He already pulled off a virgin pregnancy so why not protection from original sin in the womb? How is this a necessary belief for Christianity to be true? If it’s not true, how does that make Christianity untrue?

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.

So is this saying that not only was she never exposed to original sin, she also never chose to sin in her entire life? If that is true, then more than one perfect person has lived. It’s not just Jesus, it’s Mary and Jesus.

If the Assumption is not true, does that mean Christianity is not true? If it is defined as a dogma, then it is necessary for the faith. So if Mary actually died, then our faith is in vain–Christianity is not true?

Thank you

We believe Mary was ever virgin because the weight of sacred tradition tells us this has been dogma since the beginning. However, there’s more to this than our tradition. The claims that Jesus had biological brethren really do not make much sense. For example, “all who do the will of my Father are my brethren”. That’s a lot of brethren. I think non-Catholics teach Mary is not ever virgin primarily to contradict the Catholic Church.

Catholics believe it is important to clearly see Mary’s role in salvation. However, it is a mistake to think we give Mary equal weight when compared to the role of Jesus. To me, this smacks of the non-Catholic “spiritual pie” concept (my own phrase). You have a pie, and if you give any honor or focus to Mary, it takes away from Jesus. It does not have to be that way. You can have both/and, with Jesus taking the lead role.

I think you’re using the word “essential” as a proxy for the spiritual pie concept.

Mary was full of grace, but we do not equate her to Jesus. She may have been sinless in her conception and during her life, but she did not have the dual nature of true-God and true-man. She needed special graces from God to strengthen her during her life. I think that is an important distinction.

She was assumed into heaven after her death.

Now back to the “who do you believe” conversation. They are linked.

Non-Catholic Christianity is not untrue solely due to Marina dogma. However, it is one of many areas that are not sound for non-Catholics in terms of scripture and Christian tradition.

Most of non-Catholic doctrine on Mary evolved after the Reformation and is sorely lacking. Most non-Catholics hold she had other children, that Jesus rebuked her, and any “vessel” would have been just fine. Many non-Catholic pastors purposely avoid Luke 1 because it depicts Mary. So - who do you believe? The folks who came around 1,600 years later with these new doctrines? I am not certain there is room for middle ground between the two camps when it comes to Mary.

That said, this does not mean NOTHING about non-Catholic Christianity is true. Of course they hold to the truths of the incarnation, that Jesus was God and man when He was on earth (most of the time), etc. However, given the historical nature of Protestant origins, and given the propensity to create doctrine (aka interpret the bible) in order to contradict the Catholic Church, there are many ways to show they do not have the fullness of truth.

 

[auctoris]

We believe Mary was ever virgin because the weight of sacred tradition tells us this has been dogma since the beginning

Thank you for the reply. But I’m still looking for some references and the logical reasons why these dogmas must necessarily be true in order to become Catholic.

I do not mean to be difficult, but I really want to understand this.

Thank you

 

[mattp0625]

Thank you for the reply. But I’m still looking for some references and the logical reasons why these dogmas must necessarily be true in order to become Catholic.

I do not mean to be difficult, but I really want to understand this.

Thank you

I understand that, but I don’t think you can look at this in a vacuum. Spiritual pie is tripping you up, friend

Also, our interpretations are contextual - considering ALL of scripture and ALL of tradition. I think that may be a concept that may take time to get used to as well.

 

[auctoris]

I understand that, but I don’t think you can look at this in a vacuum. Spiritual pie is tripping you up, friend

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.