This clears up the implicit faith vs. explicit faith distinction. Thank you.
However, on further reflection perhaps I do not understand the dogma well enough to be excluded from implicit faith. I understand what the dogma says but I am baffled as to its significance and where it fits in with the rest of the deposit of faith.
We have these Catholic beliefs about God, His relationship to us, origin of creation, the Incarnation of God, the Sacraments, and then–seemingly quite out of place to me–there is a statement about the very private relationship between a particular woman and her husband. How does that fit?
Here are the Marian dogmas from the site given by SV:
*]Mary is truly the Mother of God.
*]Mary was conceived without the stain of original sin.
*]Mary conceived by the Holy Ghost without the cooperation of man.
*]Mary bore her Son without any violation of her virginal integrity.
*]After the birth of Jesus, Mary remained a Virgin.
*]Mary was assumed body and soul into Heaven.
The first four are obviously of Christological significance. The sixth is a historical event of which the early Church was aware and, in light of the Book of Revelation, has an explicit scriptural basis–John saw her in heaven with his own eyes. But why #5?
I am not calling into question whether the dogma is true or not but why it is a dogma at all. It is certainly a divinely revealed truth that Bathsheba was not a virgin, yet this is not dogma. Bathsheba’s relations with her first husband and David have no theological, soteriological, nor ecclesiological significance. Why does that of our Lord’s Mother?
Please understand that my discomfort with this dogma stems from the deepest respect of our Mother.
