Do you have to believe Marian dogma to be a good Catholic?

[Contarini]

OK, I’ll put that in my own words and you tell me if I’m correct. (I figure if one can put something into their own words and the mentor is satisfied with the explanation, one can say one understands.)
So if I go straight to Jesus, I will find Him but my love for Him will be imperfect and He will be hurt that I didn’t go through His beloved Mother Mary.

I’ll have to get to Linda Marie later.

Thanks. God be with you today, my brothers & sisters!

This isn’t the view of all Catholics, by any means–it’s not Catholic doctrine but one pious way of looking at it.

I myself don’t think of going “through” Mary rather than “straight to Jesus.” Rather, I see devotion to the BVM and the other saints as going to Jesus with the saints.

Jesus is the Head of a Body. He is glorified in the assembly of his saints. The prayers of the saints accompany us and bring us to Jesus. The language of “straight” vs. “through” is a misleading navigational metaphor!

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I don’t know what the big deal is about belief in Marian doctrines or the argument about dogma vs doctrine and what we are required to believe or what we are being forced to believe. It’s all very logical. You go to Jesus through Mary because Jesus came to us that way. Its how God designed things. No one goes directly to the President of the United States unless they are the VP or a member of his cabinet. No one goes directly to the dentist - you gotta talk to the receptionist and the nurse walks you back to the chair.

What’s the big deal? We do it every day.

This is the kind of language that really disturbs Protestants. It still disturbs me, and I have no problem asking for the intercessions of the Virgin.

Here’s why: surely that bureaucratic, hierarchical approach to God is precisely what the Incarnation abolished. Jesus is not the guy at the top of a hierarchy. Jesus is more intimately present to each of us than any of us could be to each other. When Catholics speak this way–as if they feel Jesus to be a distant CEO who needs to be approached through proper channels–Protestants really start worrying that those Catholics just don’t get the Gospel at all.

I think there are lots of good reasons behind Catholic devotion to the saints. But this isn’t one of them. This metaphor gives Protestants additional reasons to oppose devotion to the saints–it’s not a good way to get them to see the value of such devotion!

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Cathorina said, "To be a Catholic at all, one MUST accept all of these teachings.
One can NOT become a Catholic -“except for the Mary things.”

That disagrees with what someone else had said earlier.

If you mean DavidFilmer in post #2, there’s a difference of emphasis but not a direct contradiction. DavidFilmer was talking about intellectual persuasion. You can have intellectual difficulties with a doctrine as long as you are willing to submit to the Church’s authority.

For me, the point where I’d have to do this would be women’s ordination, though I do have questions about some of the Marian doctrines too (mostly virginity in partu, though Catholics themselves seem divided as to the sense in which they must believe this!).

Edwin

 

[MarcoPolo]

For me, the point where I’d have to do this would be women’s ordination

You are saying you accept women’s ordination even though you have intellectual problems with it? Am I correct to believe the Episcopalian and Anglican Churches do not ordain women?

Marian doctrines too (mostly virginity in partu, though Catholics themselves seem divided as to the sense in which they must believe this!).

What divided senses are you referring to about Mary’s perpetual virginity?

 

[Contarini]

You are saying you accept women’s ordination even though you have intellectual problems with it?

No, the reverse.

I’m saying that I have huge problems with the arguments against women’s ordination, and see theological arguments for it that have yet to be addressed in a remotely adequate way (for the most part they seem to be ignored). If I became Catholic with the views I have now, that would be something I’d just have to trust the Church about.

Am I correct to believe the Episcopalian and Anglican Churches do not ordain women?

The Episcopal Church does, and many other provinces of the Anglican Communion do as well. I am not sure of the exact number.

What divided senses are you referring to about Mary’s perpetual virginity?

Catholics on this forum seem to disagree as to whether it is necessary to believe that Jesus’ birth was itself miraculous–that he passed through Mary’s body in the same way He passed through a locked door after the Resurrection, or something of that sort.

I find this view disturbingly Docetic. But, again, it seems like a silly thing to hold out on if one is generally convinced of the trustworthiness of the Catholic Church.

The Immaculate Conception causes me fewer problems–I incline toward St. Thomas’s opinion purely as a matter of my own theological judgment, but I don’t have strong convictions either way.

The only problem I have with the Assumption is one of evidence. I can’t see that it offers any theological difficulties at all.

Edwin

 

[Dndspoon]

Hi everyone! Thanks for posting your response to my questions about Mary. About a week ago, I was convinced that Mary was what the church teaches about her. The Guy who hosts EWTN open lines Monday convinced me on YouTube of all places. I will be joining the Catholic Church soon! Thanks everyone, and God bless!

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

That which the Church teaches, believes, and offers to us is not merely a set of mandates but a series of truths, all of which are based in a hierarchy related to each other truths leading from first principles and philosophical beliefs. They are based in the reality of God’s Creation, its nature following from this creations resemblance of His Nature transcendentally considered. When we fail to grasp the rudimentary truths of the Catholic faith then it is we who have a failing in our first philosophical principles of truth and beliefs.

Modern philosophy, since the 1600’s, has a truncated view of reality, seen in nominalism, the denial of formal and final causality, and denial of universals. Modern society is awash in these erroneous basic underpinnings of the beginnings of truth and they are applied to theology to its detriment.

The Church offers us the antidote to these errors by confirming truth in the hierarchy that rises toward God and that comes from Him in Divine Revelation. It is not mere belief system but a participation with the very Life of God in the spiritual soul of the Catholic Christian. We can then see by faith the truth of the doctrine on Mary because we participate in Her participation in the Life of God through His Spirit Who offers us the Gift of understanding and wisdom.

 

[acarlson]

I’m glad to know that one can be a faithful Catholic and not be persuaded that the Church’s teaching on Mary is true.

I think there was a bit of misunderstanding: the Church’s teaching on Mary is true. To be a faithful Catholic, one needs to show deference to the Church’s wisdom even if one cannot understand with one’s current knowledge. That does NOT mean that “agreeing to disagree” is permissible.

A plainer way to put it: “OK, I don’t get why the Church teaches this about Mary, and it personally doesn’t make sense to me whatsoever and even seems wrong to me, but I’ll still believe it because I know the Church knows better than I do.” That’s not the same as “OK, I don’t get why the Church teaches this about Mary [etc], but I’ll just silently disagree because I cannot in good conscience accept that teaching.” If the latter is where your position falls, I’d advise you to put forth an effort to better educate yourself so that your conscience is not misguided (a conscience is not a static thing - truth, however, is).

 

[MarcoPolo]

No, the reverse.

I’m saying that I have huge problems with the arguments against women’s ordination, and see theological arguments for it that have yet to be addressed in a remotely adequate way (for the most part they seem to be ignored). If I became Catholic with the views I have now, that would be something I’d just have to trust the Church about.

May I ask what theological arguments in favor of women priests are not remotely adequately addressed?

Catholics on this forum seem to disagree as to whether it is necessary to believe that Jesus’ birth was itself miraculous–that he passed through Mary’s body in the same way He passed through a locked door after the Resurrection, or something of that sort.

I find this view disturbingly Docetic. But, again, it seems like a silly thing to hold out on if one is generally convinced of the trustworthiness of the Catholic Church.

I see. Do you think the doctrine itself is unclear on whether she was a virgin before, during, and after Jesus’ birth, or are you just pointing out that many Catholics don’t know the answer?

 

[MarcoPolo]

Hi everyone! Thanks for posting your response to my questions about Mary. About a week ago, I was convinced that Mary was what the church teaches about her. The Guy who hosts EWTN open lines Monday convinced me on YouTube of all places. I will be joining the Catholic Church soon! Thanks everyone, and God bless!

Welcome home.
http://www.forumsextreme.com/images/sHa_runaround.gif

 

[catharina]

Jumping into this thread so I might be mentioning what has been already mentioned.

1. The Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed define truths about Mary.
2. Also, only two doctrines have been declared infallibly. Both concern Mary.

Mary was conceived without original sin (Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception).
Mary was assumed into heaven, body and soul (Doctrine of the Assumption).

To be a Catholic at all, one MUST accept all of these teachings.
One can NOT become a Catholic -“except for the Mary things.”

No, the reverse.

I’m saying that I have huge problems with the arguments against women’s ordination, and see theological arguments for it that have yet to be addressed in a remotely adequate way (for the most part they seem to be ignored). If I became Catholic with the views I have now, that would be something I’d just have to trust the Church about.

The Episcopal Church does, and many other provinces of the Anglican Communion do as well. I am not sure of the exact number.

**Catholics on this forum seem to disagree as to whether it is necessary to believe that Jesus’ birth was itself miraculous–that he passed through Mary’s body in the same way He passed through a locked door after the Resurrection, or something of that sort. **
Odd, but I’ve never heard any Catholics discuss this notion. ALL Catholics must accept that Jesus “was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary …” and the Nicene Creed is worded in a similar way. As for type of birth? I’ve never heard that the Church defined it so I wonder how the question originated.

I find this view disturbingly Docetic. But, again, it seems like a silly thing to hold out on if one is generally convinced of the trustworthiness of the Catholic Church.

The Immaculate Conception causes me fewer problems–I incline toward St. Thomas’s opinion purely as a matter of my own theological judgment, but I don’t have strong convictions either way.

The only problem I have with the Assumption is one of evidence. I can’t see that it offers any theological difficulties at all.

Edwin

 

[wheels10]

"wheels10:

The disadvantage of going straight to Jesus is that if our Love for Him is imperfect, we end up hurting Him even more.
When Mary goes to Jesus on our behalf, Her perfect Love for Him brings nothing but joy into His Heart.

OK, I’ll put that in my own words and you tell me if I’m correct. (I figure if one can put something into their own words and the mentor is satisfied with the explanation, one can say one understands.)
**So if I go straight to Jesus, I will find Him but my love for Him will be imperfect and He will be hurt that I didn’t go through His beloved Mother Mary. **I’ll have to get to Linda Marie later.

Thanks. God be with you today, my brothers & sisters!

I cannot say that your Love for Jesus is imperfect. What I said that IF one’s Love for Jesus is imperfect, one ends up hurting Jesus even more. This is an example of when going directly to Jesus would be a disadvantage.

When we ask Our Blessed Mother Mary to go to Jesus on our behalf, we can rest assured that She will not hurt Jesus. Every words of Mary to Jesus are words of perfect Love for God and neighbor.

Mary is a very dear and beautiful Gift God has given to the world!

 

[Contarini]

I cannot say that your Love for Jesus is imperfect. What I said that IF one’s Love for Jesus is imperfect, one ends up hurting Jesus even more. This is an example of when going directly to Jesus would be a disadvantage.

I have trouble with the idea of our imperfect love hurting Jesus.

There’s a certain strand of Catholic piety (particularly dominant in the 19th century, it seems to me) that seems really concerned with Jesus’ feelings. I know that when I am over-sensitive to perceived hurts from those who love me, I am not in a holy frame of mind. So it’s hard for me to imagine that this attitude on my part has some analogy to something in Jesus Himself. I recognize that that’s not what you intend to say, but it’s hard for me to interpret this idea any other way.

A truly lovinghuman beingaccepts imperfect love and doesn’t brood over the “hurt” of not being loved perfectly. And I don’t think this is just because we are imperfect and don’t deserve perfect love. I think that this attitude on the part of a psychologically and spiritually healthy human being derives from the strength of one’s love. Since Jesus is the perfect Lover, it seems inappropriate to attribute to Him an attitude that is found in humans in proportion as their own love is imperfect.

Edwin

 

[Cal_Fullerton]

Back in the days of the Kingdom of Israel, the Gebirah had a great deal of power. One could get in to see the King, but it took time, a lot of time. If one went through the Gebirah, they could get quick access. It got to where no one went any other way. If someone wanted an audience with the King, they applied to the Queen Mother.

It is the same now, you don’t ‘need’ Mary to reach Jesus, but that is doing it the hard way. She facilitates getting closer to Him.

For instance, the Rosary which so many think is about Mary, is actually about Jesus. There are two parts to the rosary prayers, one is the verbal recitation of the rosary prayers, and the second, more important part, is the meditation on the life of Jesus, from His Incarnation, to His Passion and death on the cross. The last 2 mysteries, the Assumption of Mary into heaven and the crowning of Mary as Queen of Heaven, are not only about Mary’s position in Heaven, but also about what we can expect as followers of Christ. We also will be reunited with our bodies and will be given the place in heaven that Jesus has been preparing for us. The Rosary is all about the Gospel. Mary helps, facilitates getting closer to Jesus in these meditations, helping our hearts to be transformed.

Mary was quite instrumental in my conversion, firstly, Our Lady of Lourdes and then, Our Lady of Fatima. These apparitions are fully approved by the Church.

My BIL had Duchennes Muscular Dystrophy. When I first met him, although I had compassion for his condition, he was extremely unpleasant to be around. He knew what was happening to him and he was angry and bitter. He was foul mouthed and very bad tempered. Then his mother had my other BIL take him to Lourdes. He complained bitterly the whole way. “Dunking him in some pool was not going to cure him.” The whole trip was an extreme trial since he didn’t appreciate being carted around like a lump with no free will. Well, he did not receive a physical cure, but his heart was transformed. The next time I saw him, he was entirely changed. He had come to peace with his condition. He was no longer foul mouthed or bitter. He was now good to be around. He had received a spiritual cure through the intercession of Mary.

This was my first introduction to what Mary can do for us. It was one of those :newidea: moments for me and I wasn’t a Catholic nor even a Christian at the time. Mary brought me to Jesus.

I recommend that you learn about the devotions to the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary

Your comments are so helpful I’ve saved them in a personal file.

I’m glad Mary brought you to Jesus. Hard to argue with that! Come to think of it, you might say I came to Jesus through Kenneth Hagin. I was inspired by a booklet by him.

Thanks, Linda Marie.

 

[Contarini]

**

Odd, but I’ve never heard any Catholics discuss this notion. ALL Catholics must accept that Jesus “was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary …” and the Nicene Creed is worded in a similar way. As for type of birth? I’ve never heard that the Church defined it so I wonder how the question originated.

**It’s certainly the traditional belief that Mary was a virgin ante partum, in partu, post partum. You find this reaffirmed in rather vague language in CCC 499. Precisely in what sense Catholics are now required to believe this does indeed seem to be in some doubt. But the traditional belief identified Mary’s “virginal integrity” with an intact hymen, so that Jesus was thought to have passed through His mother in such a way as to leave this “integrity” untouched.

Edwin

 

[Cal_Fullerton]

I think there was a bit of misunderstanding: the Church’s teaching on Mary is true. To be a faithful Catholic, one needs to show deference to the Church’s wisdom even if one cannot understand with one’s current knowledge. That does NOT mean that “agreeing to disagree” is permissible.

A plainer way to put it: "OK, I don’t get why the Church teaches this about Mary, and it personally doesn’t make sense to me whatsoever and even seems wrong to me, but I’ll still believe it because I know the Church knows better than I do." That’s not the same as “OK, I don’t get why the Church teaches this about Mary [etc], but I’ll just silently disagree because I cannot in good conscience accept that teaching.”

Nice to meet you, Acarlson.

I understand what you’re saying. There was a time when I lined up with Kenneth Hagin’s view on the baptism of the Holy Spirit because of my respect for him. Later, the Holy Spirit impressed on me that his view wasn’t entirely correct. I was glad I had remained open minded. (I still have great respect for Kenneth Hagin, though.)

Today I hear a lot of respectable ministers saying that if America doesn’t support Israel, judgment will fall on us—such as tornadoes, terrorist’s attacks. I lean toward their view out of respect for them even though it doesn’t make sense to me.

The solution, as you indicated, is to press into God until He reveals to your conscience what the truth is.
Until everyone does that, denominational divisions remain intact because people are following their church on some issues, rather than Christ.
There is no substitute for getting close to Jesus, is there?

 

[catharina]

**

**It’s certainly the traditional belief that Mary was a virgin ante partum, in partu, post partum. You find this reaffirmed in rather vague language in CCC 499. Precisely in what sense Catholics are now required to believe this does indeed seem to be in some doubt. But the traditional belief identified Mary’s “virginal integrity” with an intact hymen, so that Jesus was thought to have passed through His mother in such a way as to leave this “integrity” untouched.

Edwin

Of course, the prayers that name “Blessed Mary, ever virgin,” are
commonly accepted as proof of her ongoing virginity - yet I’ve never
heard Catholics discuss the notion that this is questionable.

On the contrary, it is readily accepted without question.
In any event it is a part of the Catholic faith as many Catholic prayers attest.

 

[Contarini]

Of course, the prayers that name “Blessed Mary, ever virgin,” are
commonly accepted as proof of her ongoing virginity - yet I’ve never
heard Catholics discuss the notion that this is questionable.

On the contrary, it is readily accepted without question.
In any event it is a part of the Catholic faith as many Catholic prayers attest.

Catharina, I’m a bit confused. Are you saying that all Catholics accept without question that the birth itself was miraculous (as in Jesus passing through Mary’s body supernaturally)? If so, why did you say in your earlier post that the Church hadn’t defined the “type of birth”? If Catholics have to believe that Mary’s body was unchanged by the birth, then the Church has defined that the birth involves some kind of miraculous transportation of Jesus out of Mary’s body.

Edwin

 

[catharina]

Catharina, I’m a bit confused. **Are you saying that all Catholics accept without question that the birth itself was miraculous (as in Jesus passing through Mary’s body supernaturally)? ** No. If so, why did you say in your earlier post that the Church hadn’t defined the “type of birth”? **The Church has defined that Mary, a virgin, remained a virgin. The “how” is unknown to me. I believe it’s considered a mystery. I’ve never felt a need for ‘the details.’ I’m surprised if others have felt that need. ** If Catholics have to believe that Mary’s body was unchanged by the birth, then the Church has defined that the birth involves some kind of miraculous transportation of Jesus out of Mary’s body.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

May I ask what theological arguments in favor of women priests are not remotely adequately addressed?

For a summary of the main argument as I see it, I refer you to post #8 in this thread. If you wish to respond, maybe you should do so over there so as not to derail this one.

I see. Do you think the doctrine itself is unclear on whether she was a virgin before, during, and after Jesus’ birth, or are you just pointing out that many Catholics don’t know the answer?

It seems unclear to me whether the Catholic Church continues to insist on a definition of “virginity” that includes being physically unchanged by the experience of giving birth, yes. Most people today assume that “virginity” simply means that one hasn’t had sex. Whether the traditional assumption that it meant a kind of physically “intact” status is actually Catholic dogma or simply a cultural assumption no longer held is a point on which I would like to see more clarity.

Edwin