E
eucharist04
Guest
I read from a Christian forum that the Marian doctrines was grievous error.
- Status
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Non-Catholics reject Marian dogmas.I read from a Christian forum that the Marian doctrines was grievous error.
Do you have a question about them?
D
DavidFilmer
Guest
This is a Catholic Apologetics forum. We’ve ALL seen stuff like that (often right here - you don’t need to go to another website to find such discussions).
You’ll find the same claims about the Papacy, Purgatory, the Communion of Saints, and just about everything else distinctly Catholic.
What’s your point?
M
MaryandJoseph
Guest
Concepts–Ideas–Beliefs are often attacked when not fully and CORRECTLY understood
Some (but not all) protestants truly believe that anything Mary (except at Christmas of course) gets in the way of “Me and Jesus” How sad, if only those apposed to Marian doctrines would understand that those doctrines actually have Jesus at the center and its about Him moreso then Mary.
I Love our Blessed Mother Mary, and it was through HER motherly intervention that I came to Jesus and His Church.
Some (but not all) protestants truly believe that anything Mary (except at Christmas of course) gets in the way of “Me and Jesus” How sad, if only those apposed to Marian doctrines would understand that those doctrines actually have Jesus at the center and its about Him moreso then Mary.
I Love our Blessed Mother Mary, and it was through HER motherly intervention that I came to Jesus and His Church.
T
Todd977
Guest
Could you be a little more specific about which Marian doctrines you would like help with?
For instance, the Church teaches that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit. In support of this particular Marian doctrine, you simply need to refer to Matthew 1:18-25 and Luke 1:26-38, where the conception of Jesus is described.
For instance, the Church teaches that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit. In support of this particular Marian doctrine, you simply need to refer to Matthew 1:18-25 and Luke 1:26-38, where the conception of Jesus is described.
E
eucharist04
Guest
It was all of them.
T
Todd977
Guest
Could you be a little more specific about which Marian doctrines you would like help with?
For instance, the Church teaches that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit. In support of this particular Marian doctrine, you simply need to refer to Matthew 1:18-25 and Luke 1:26-38, where the conception of Jesus is described.
For instance, the Church teaches that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit. In support of this particular Marian doctrine, you simply need to refer to Matthew 1:18-25 and Luke 1:26-38, where the conception of Jesus is described.
T
Todd977
Guest
The Church teaches quite a bit about Mary and to adequately address all of them in a single post would be impossible. I suggest you read through the many Catholic Answers tracts available on Mary and various Marian doctrines and, if you still have unanswered questions, then come back here and post them one at a time.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
The Four Marian Dogmas
catholicnewsagency.com/resource.php?n=424
There are four dogmas stating Mary’s personal relationship with God and her role in human salvation.
- Divine Motherhood
Various names are used to describe Mary’s role as mother of Jesus. She is called “Mother of God” which translates the more accurately stated Greek term “Theotokos” or “Birthgiver of God.”
The Council of Ephesus (431) attributed to Mary the title, Mother of God. This needs to be read against the Council’s declaration that in Christ there are two natures, one divine and one human, but only one person. Indeed, according to the Council the holy virgin is the Mother of God since she begot according to the flesh the Word of God made flesh. This decision was further explained by the Council of Chalcedon (451) which says with regard to Mary’s divine motherhood:
“…begotten from the Father before the ages as regards his godhead, and in the last days, the same, because of us and because of our salvation begotten from the Virgin Mary, the Theotokos, as regards his manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only-begotten…”
Mary’s Divine Motherhood was not the object of an independent or exclusive dogmatic declaration. The statement is embedded in texts defining the person and natures of Jesus Christ. Thus, the dogma of Divine Motherhood becomes an integral part of the christological dogma. This does not diminish its definitive and binding character. The dogma of Divine Motherhood is generally accepted by all Christian denominations.
- Perpetual Virginity
Although never explicated in detail, the Catholic Church holds as dogma that Mary was and is Virgin before, in and after Christ’s birth. It stresses thus the radical novelty of the Incarnation and Mary’s no less radical and exclusive dedication to her mission as mother of her Son, Jesus Christ. Vatican II reiterated the teaching about Mary, the Ever-Virgin, by stating that Christ’s birth did not diminish Mary’s virginal integrity but sanctified it . The Catechism of the Catholic Church ponders the deeper meaning of the virgin bride and perpetual virginity (499-507). It also maintains that Jesus Christ was Mary’s only child. The so-called “brothers and sisters” are close relations.
(cont.)
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
- Immaculate Conception
More specifically, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception states “that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege from Almighty God and in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, was kept free of every stain of original sin.”
This dogma has both a “negative” and a “positive” meaning which complement each other. The “negative” meaning stresses Mary’s freedom from original sin thanks to the anticipated or retroactive (here called preventive) grace of Christ’s redemptive act. By the same token, the dogma suggests Mary’s all-holiness. This “positive” meaning is the consequence of the absence of original sin. Mary’s life is permanently and intimately related to God, and thus she is the all-holy.
Although difficult to explain, original sin provokes disorderliness in thought and behavior, especially with regard to the primacy of God’s presence in our life. Consequently, in declaring Mary immaculately conceived, the Church sees in Mary one who never denied God the least sign of love. Thus, the dogma declares that from her beginning Mary was exceptionally holy and in constant union with the sanctifying grace of the Holy Spirit.
- The Assumption
A distinction needs to be made between Ascension and Assumption. Jesus Christ, Son of God and Risen Lord, ascended into heaven, a sign of divine power. Mary, on the contrary, was elevated or assumed into heaven by the power and grace of God.
The dogma states that “Mary, Immaculate Mother of God ever Virgin, after finishing the course of her life on earth, was taken up in body and soul to heavenly glory.” This definition as well as that of the Immaculate Conception makes not only reference to the universal, certain and firm consent of the Magisterium but makes allusion to the concordant belief of the faithful. The Assumption had been a part of the Church’s spiritual and doctrinal patrimony for centuries. It had been part of theological reflection but also of the liturgy and was part of the sense of the faithful.
This dogma has no direct basis in scripture. It was nonetheless declared “divinely revealed,” meaning that it is contained implicitly in divine Revelation. It may be understood as the logical conclusion of Mary’s vocation on earth, and the way she lived her life in union with God and her mission. The assumption may be seen as a consequence of Divine Motherhood. Being through, with, and for her Son on earth, it would seem fitting for Mary to be through, with, and for her Son in heaven, too. She was on earth the generous associate of her Son. The Assumption tells us that this association continues in heaven. Mary is indissolubly linked to her Son on earth and in heaven.
In heaven, Mary’s active involvement in salvation history continues: “Taken up to heaven, she did not lay aside her salvific duty … By her maternal love she cares for the brothers and sisters of her Son who still journey on earth” (LG). Mary is the “eschatological icon of the Church” (CCC 972), meaning the Church contemplates in Mary her own end of times.
The definition of the dogma does not say how the transition from Mary’s earthly state to her heavenly state happened. Did Mary die? Was she assumed to heaven without prior separation of soul and body? The question remains open for discussion. However, the opinion that Mary passed through death as her Son did, has the stronger support in tradition.
Glorified in body and soul, Mary is already in the state that will be ours after the resurrection of the dead
I
ibecharlie
Guest
All of a sudden I have been having a crisis in belief regarding parts of the Marian doctrine.
For instance Mary born without sin flys in the face of free choice. If Mary was 100% human she had sin AND had free choice given to her by God as we all have AND she could have said no. In my own weird way I always thought (in my own belief system at least) that God favored her by what He saw in her kindness, gentleness, love of Him…all the good reasons in and under heaven. And when Gabriel announced God’s favor upon her and she said yes by free choice, then all of the graces and riches of heaven fell upon her and she became a pure and holy vessel, without sin (sin having been removed at this time), to accept the purity of Christ that was to be born within her. If God gave us free will, why doesn’t this make sense? With dogma the way it is, everything was pre-determined and she really had no say in it at all. Thank goodness for all of us that she said yes, and I think her specialness and place of honor lies in that she did have a choice, and did say yes and turned herself over to God of her own free will…
For instance Mary born without sin flys in the face of free choice. If Mary was 100% human she had sin AND had free choice given to her by God as we all have AND she could have said no. In my own weird way I always thought (in my own belief system at least) that God favored her by what He saw in her kindness, gentleness, love of Him…all the good reasons in and under heaven. And when Gabriel announced God’s favor upon her and she said yes by free choice, then all of the graces and riches of heaven fell upon her and she became a pure and holy vessel, without sin (sin having been removed at this time), to accept the purity of Christ that was to be born within her. If God gave us free will, why doesn’t this make sense? With dogma the way it is, everything was pre-determined and she really had no say in it at all. Thank goodness for all of us that she said yes, and I think her specialness and place of honor lies in that she did have a choice, and did say yes and turned herself over to God of her own free will…
H
Heart_Foam
Guest
I think it needs to be acknowledged that no one will believe the Marian dogmas who doesn’t already believe in the authority of the RCC. Rome claims to know for sure that Mary was assumed into heaven, but can’t say with certainty whether or not she was alive at the time or not - the “Dormition”. Catholic Bible translations prefer to follow the Vulgate and say Mary is “full of grace”, and Protestant Bibles tend translate the verse as saying Mary is “highly favoured”. The Catholic usage of “grace” in Luke 1:28 has all sorts of ramifications regarding Mary’s justification. Grace is treated as something like the commodity of salvation, and whoever has enough grace is saved. I think I’m right in saying that in Catholic theology grace can increase and decrease. Let’s hypothetically say 10 units of grace = salvation, and if Mary was “full of grace” then she had 10 units. If she had more, they would go to the Treasury of Merit, if she had less, then the RCC could give her some grace through the sacraments. So when Catholic translations use the word grace, there’s a lot going on. The usual Protestant rendering of Luke 1:28 which we think is more faithful to the oldest texts is just that Mary was “highly favoured”. And she was, but that doesn’t say anything about her salvation, or take away her free will. Even in the Roman Catholic tradition, original sin is inherited by the child from the father. Not the mother. So Mary being sinless is not necessary for Christ to be sinless. The Marian dogmas don’t seem to have any bearing on the nature of Christ or on salvation.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Source, please?
This is correct.
However, it was certainly fitting for Mary to be pure, holy and sinless, for He who could not be contained was contained in the womb of Mary.
Here you are incorrect.
All Marian teachings enhance, nourish and highlight our understanding of Christ.
Any Muslim can ask you, quite validly, “How is it that you see your Jesus as divine? How fitting is it that his own mother was dirty and sinful, while she carried ‘divinity’ in her womb for 9 months?”
Catholics have a good answer for the Muslim.
Mary’s immaculate-ness only points to the fact that Jesus was divine.
A
AmbroseSJ
Guest
You belief system is not logical. Why would Gabriel have announced God’s favor upon Mary, if she still was with sin? That shows no favor at all.
Rather consider that the virgin Mary was conceived without original sin (the Catholic belief) and now we see how she was highly favored.
Does being born without original sin remove one’s free will? No, of course not. All we have to do is look at Adam and Eve. They were both created without original sin, and they were both highly favored with all of God’s graces. Yet they sinned.
So just because the Virgin Mary was conceived without original sin does NOT mean that she lost her free will. On the contrary. She used her free will (and the grace and favor given to her by God) to avoid ALL SINS. Does this seem to hard to believe?
H
Heart_Foam
Guest
That surely leads to an infinite regression. It was certainly fitting for Mary’s mother to be pure, holy, and sinless, because she was carrying pure, holy, sinless Mary. It was also fitting that Mary’s grandmother to be pure, holy, and sinless, because it she was carrying the pure, holy, sinless Mary’s mother. Ad infinitum.
Even if your claim is granted, it wouldn’t in consequence mean that believing them should be dogma necessary for salvation. You could nourish your understanding of Christ by reading Scripture - why is that not a legalistic requirement for salvation but holding beliefs about Mary’s married sex life is? Rhetorical question.
P
PRmerger
Guest
No, Not fitting.
It is only fitting for the one who carries He who could not be contained.
When one is carrying insider her womb Divinity, it is fitting to be pure and holy.
When one is carrying something pure and holy, it is not fitting to be pure and holy, One can be tainted with original sin and be quite a fitting vessel.
H
Heart_Foam
Guest
And how could she be conceived without sin if her parents were imperfect? That either leads you down an infinite regression, or you say “it was a miracle” - notwithstanding the fact you have no record whatsoever about Mary’s birth and all this is just speculative theology. But if you allow that Mary could be born sinless of two imperfect parents who had the stain of original sin, then you should have no difficulty in believing that if Mary herself wasn’t perfect, that no sin was imparted to Jesus. That Mary was conceived without original sin is therefore an unnecessary derivative speculation - even within the Catholic paradigm.
S
stewstew03
Guest
Are you sure you are not a Mormon? In Christianity, we believe in recognizing a distinction between (a) God, and (b) a relationship with God. The latter does not imply the former.
Although Mary, by God’s grace, was immaculately conceived, it doesn’t follow that her parents must have also been immaculately conceived. Her mother did not carry a Divine entity in her womb; Mary did. While Mary was highly favored (or full of grace, depending on your translation), and set apart; it does not necessarily follow that her parents received the same graces.
A
AmbroseSJ
Guest
It’s too bad you have judged it to be unnecessary. But that is no reason to suppose it didn’t happen that way nonetheless. Can you realistically ascribe a “necessary” reason for everything that happens? I doubt it. Yet it happens despite your failing to understand the necessity.
I
Ion
Guest
Jesus loves and honors his Mother; do you think that this has nothing to do with you?I read from a Christian forum that the Marian doctrines was grievous error.
How do you honor Holy Virgin Mary?
- Status