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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dndspoon
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Contarini said:
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.

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
Click to expand...
Now, Edwin, you have made me smile.

You remind me of the legend of St Augustine on the seashore.
He wished more clarity on the status of the Blessed Trinity.
A little boy (an angel?) asked him what worried him.
Augustine explained his need for more clarity. The child responded:

“It would be easier for you to count the grains of sand on this beach
than to understand the totality of the Mystery of the Blessed Trinity.”
Code: 
End of story.
 
Contarini said:
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
Click to expand...
Would you not agree that sin hurts Jesus? Is not imperfect Love of God a sin?
 
Doesn’t Scripture say Jesus had brothers? How could Mary remain a virgin?
 
Cal_Fullerton said:
Doesn’t Scripture say Jesus had brothers? How could Mary remain a virgin?
Click to expand...
Scripture says Jesus had brothers.

But Scripture never says that Mary had other children.

So, there are several possibilities: “brothers”
  • is a cultural term which includes cousins
  • refers to Joseph’s sons from his previous marriage
  • refers to close tribal relations
 
I have other questions.

Is Mary considered greater than John the Baptist? Abraham? Moses? Any other human besides Jesus? angels?

My guess is she’s greater than all!

Do you think she was portrayed well in Mel Gibsons’ Passion of the Christ?
 
Cal_Fullerton said:
I have other questions.

Is Mary considered greater than John the Baptist? Abraham? Moses? Any other human besides Jesus? angels?

My guess is she’s greater than all!
Click to expand...
Well, this is mainly a question of semantics, no? It’s really not part of the Catholic lexicon to say that one human is “considered greater than” another.

But she is FULL of grace. She was IMMACULATELY CONCEIVED (that is, born without any stain of sin). She was the VESSEL which carried “Him whom the world could not contain”. She was BLESSED among all women.
 
PRmerger said:
Well, this is mainly a question of semantics, no? It’s really not part of the Catholic lexicon to say that one human is “considered greater than” another.

But she is FULL of grace. She was IMMACULATELY CONCEIVED (that is, born without any stain of sin). She was the VESSEL which carried “Him whom the world could not contain”. She was BLESSED among all women.
Click to expand...
… and in Catholic prayer, Mary
is titled Queen of angels, Queen of all saints.

Best known litany of Mary, the Litany of Loretto,
is a prayer filled with titles of Mary.

ewtn.com/faith/teachings/maryd6f.htm

Some of the litany follows:

" …

Holy Mary, pray for us.
Holy Mother of God, pray for us.
Holy Virgin of Virgins, [etc.]
Mother of Christ,
Mother of divine grace,
Mother most pure,
Mother most chaste,
Mother inviolate,
Mother undefiled,
Mother most amiable,
Mother most admirable,
Mother of good Counsel,
Mother of our Creator,
Mother of our Savior,
Virgin most prudent,
Virgin most venerable,
Virgin most renowned,
Virgin most powerful,
Virgin most merciful,
Virgin most faithful,
Mirror of justice,
Seat of wisdom,
Cause of our joy,
Spiritual vessel,
Vessel of honor,
Singular vessel of devotion,
Mystical rose,
Tower of David,
Tower of ivory,
House of gold,
Ark of the covenant,
Gate of heaven,
Morning star,
Health of the sick,
Refuge of sinners,
Comforter of the afflicted,
Help of Christians,
Queen of Angels,
Queen of Patriarchs,
Queen of Prophets,
Queen of Apostles,
Queen of Martyrs,
Queen of Confessors,
Queen of Virgins,
Queen of all Saints,
Queen conceived without original sin,
Queen assumed into heaven,
Queen of the most holy Rosary,
Queen of families,
Queen of peace,

…"
 
Cal_Fullerton said:
Doesn’t Scripture say Jesus had brothers? How could Mary remain a virgin?
Click to expand...
Brothers of Jesus, Not Sons of Mary**
**
Many non-Catholics deny the Perpetual Virginity of Mary by referring to passages of scripture that mention the “brothers” of Jesus. A rigorous analysis of scripture, however, proves their position is false. Consider the following:

1. Jesus had a “brother” named James.
"Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?”(Matthew 13:55)
2. James, the Lord’s “brother”, is an apostle.
“Then, after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother. (Galatians 1:18-19)

3. There are two apostles named James.
“When morning came, he called his disciples to him and chose twelve of them, whom he also designated apostles: Simon (whom he named Peter), his brother Andrew, James, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Simon who was called the Zealot, Judas son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.”(Luke 6:13-16)
4. One James (the brother of John) is not the uterine brother of Jesus; his father is Zebedee.
“James son of Zebedee and his brother John (to them he gave the name Boanerges, which means Sons of Thunder)” (Mark 3:17)
5**. The other apostle named James is not the uterine brother of Jesus; his father is Alpheus.**
“And when it was day, he called his disciples, and chose from them twelve, whom he called apostles: Simon, whom he named Peter and Andrew his brother, and James and John and Philip and Bartholomew, and Matthew and James the son of Alpheus, and Simon who was called the Zealot, and Judas the son of James and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.” (Luke 6:13-16)

6. Therefore, neither apostle named James was a uterine brother of Jesus.

7. The man named Joseph (or Joses) is not the uterine brother of Jesus; his mother is Mary and his brother is James. Therefore, this Mary is the wife of Alphaeus.
“Many women were there, watching from a distance. They had followed Jesus from Galilee to care for his needs. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee’s sons.” (Matthew 27:55-56)

8. Judas is not a uterine brother of Jesus because he is the son of James.
“When they arrived, they went upstairs to the room where they were staying. Those present were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James.” (Acts 1:13)
  1. While Matthew 15:35 declares James, Joseph and Judas to be the “brothers” of Jesus, it has been demonstrated from scripture that they are NOT uterine brothers of the Lord. From this, it is apparent that scripture must be using the term “brothers” to mean relatives other than sons of Mary.
 
Contarini said:
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.
Click to expand...
Move on also to paragraph 510: Mary “remained a virgin in conceiving her Son, a virgin in giving birth to him, a virgin in carrying him, a virgin in nursing him at her breast, always a virgin” (St. Augustine, Serm. 186, 1: PL 38, 999): with her whole being she is “the handmaid of the Lord” (Lk 1:38)."Maybe you can help these unclear Catholics you run into and point this out.
 
Cal_Fullerton said:
Doesn’t Scripture say Jesus had brothers? How could Mary remain a virgin?
Click to expand...
Mark 3:31 And his mother and his bretheren came; and standing without, sent unto him, calling him. 32 And the multitude sat about him; and they say to him: Behold thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee. 33 And answering them, he said: Who is my mother and my brethren? 34 And looking round about on them who sat about him, he saith: Behold my mother and my brethren. 35** For whosoever shall do the will of God, he is my brother, and my sister, and mother. **
 
Contarini said:
is actually Catholic dogma or simply a cultural assumption no longer held is a point on which I would like to see more clarity.
Click to expand...
This whole “confusion” or “cultural assumption” business is simply a matter of people who have not read magisterial texts or think that only things that are “technically formal dogma” are required beliefs and the rest can be jettisoned.
 
Cal_Fullerton said:
I have other questions.

Is Mary considered greater than John the Baptist? Abraham? Moses? Any other human besides Jesus? angels?

My guess is she’s greater than all!

Do you think she was portrayed well in Mel Gibsons’ Passion of the Christ?
Click to expand...
Mary’s Love for God is greater than that of all human beings and angels.
Mary’s Humility is greater than that of all human beings and angels.
Mary is exalted above all in Heaven with the exception of The Holy Trinity.

So yes, other than God, Mary is greater than all.
 
I just came across this recently, part of a meditation I read. On Elizabeth’s greeting, Mary spontaneously says what is now called the Magnificat, beginning with, "And Mary said, My soul* magnifies** the Lord."* (Navarre NT, Luke 1:46) and in Latin Et ait Maria : Magnificat anima mea Dominum : and in Greek Scrivener 1894 Textus Receptus
“kai eipen mariam megalunei h yuch mou ton kurion.” showing that the verb is magnifies.

What does this mean?
What happens when we magnify something? Or ‘Zoom in’ on a section of a photograph?
We see what we are looking at more clearly, in more detail, close up.

Mary’s soul does this with God. The more we look at God through Mary, the better we see Him and come to know Him.
 
In response to my question, “Doesn’t Scripture say Jesus had brothers? How could Mary remain a virgin?” wheels10 quoted Mark 3:31-35 about those doing God’s will being Jesus’ mothers, sisters, and brothers.

Of course this doesn’t really address my question since we’re talking about natural relatives but it’s a good verse.
 
Randy_Carson said:
Brothers of Jesus, Not Sons of Mary**
**
Many non-Catholics deny the Perpetual Virginity of Mary by referring to passages of scripture that mention the “brothers” of Jesus. A rigorous analysis of scripture, however, proves their position is false. Consider the following:

1. Jesus had a “brother” named James.
"Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?”(Matthew 13:55)
2. James, the Lord’s “brother”, is an apostle.
“Then, after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother. (Galatians 1:18-19)

3. There are two apostles named James.
“When morning came, he called his disciples to him and chose twelve of them, whom he also designated apostles: Simon (whom he named Peter), his brother Andrew, James, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Simon who was called the Zealot, Judas son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.”(Luke 6:13-16)
4. One James (the brother of John) is not the uterine brother of Jesus; his father is Zebedee.
“James son of Zebedee and his brother John (to them he gave the name Boanerges, which means Sons of Thunder)” (Mark 3:17)
5**. The other apostle named James is not the uterine brother of Jesus; his father is Alpheus.**
“And when it was day, he called his disciples, and chose from them twelve, whom he called apostles: Simon, whom he named Peter and Andrew his brother, and James and John and Philip and Bartholomew, and Matthew and James the son of Alpheus, and Simon who was called the Zealot, and Judas the son of James and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.” (Luke 6:13-16)

6. Therefore, neither apostle named James was a uterine brother of Jesus.

7. The man named Joseph (or Joses) is not the uterine brother of Jesus; his mother is Mary and his brother is James. Therefore, this Mary is the wife of Alphaeus.
“Many women were there, watching from a distance. They had followed Jesus from Galilee to care for his needs. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee’s sons.” (Matthew 27:55-56)

8. Judas is not a uterine brother of Jesus because he is the son of James.
“When they arrived, they went upstairs to the room where they were staying. Those present were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James.” (Acts 1:13)
  1. While Matthew 15:35 declares James, Joseph and Judas to be the “brothers” of Jesus, it has been demonstrated from scripture that they are NOT uterine brothers of the Lord. From this, it is apparent that scripture must be using the term “brothers” to mean relatives other than sons of Mary.
Click to expand...
Thanks for this complete answer. I learned something.

My next question would naturally be, “Why would Joseph marry Mary if he knew he couldn’t you know what?” That’s quite a sacrifice for a man.
Of course it was a great privilege to be married to the Mother of God and he was a man of faith.
 
Cal_Fullerton said:
Thanks for this complete answer. I learned something.

My next question would naturally be, “Why would Joseph marry Mary if he knew he couldn’t you know what?” That’s quite a sacrifice for a man.
Of course it was a great privilege to be married to the Mother of God and he was a man of faith.
Click to expand...
As the Scriptures don’t really give us any insight into St. Joseph’s thoughts on this matter, we can only speculate, yes?

Perhaps he was an older man and had no desire to “you know what”.
Perhaps he understood implicitly what his role was as guardian to the Mother of God.
Perhaps he knew that he was marrying a person who had devoted her life to consecrated virginity and had made a similar vow himself.
 
In my mind, in the final analysis it doesn’t make much difference whether Mary ever joined herself to Joseph. If she had, it would not have tainted Jesus or Mary in any way. Joining yourself to your spouse is not a sin. First Corinthians 7 says it’s a sin not too!

Is my thinking way out of line with Catholicism?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top