Marian doctrines

[PRmerger]

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.

Because the Catholic lexicon doesn’t use terms such as “necessary for salvation”.

That is a Protestant paradigm that you are applying to our vocabulary.

Incidentally, did you know that Catholics may gain an indulgence from reading Scripture?

So it’s curious that you would posit that Catholics are not encouraged to read the Scriptures.

The Bible is our book, Stephen. It is a book written by Catholics, for Catholics, and produced by the Catholic Church.

 

[adrift]

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”.

I am surprised that no one has commented on this statement.
. Here is what the Catechism states

966 "Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death."508 The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son’s Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians:

Mary is alive what the Church doesn’t state is if she died. Maybe this is what you meant but it was false the way you stated it.

Catholic Bible translations prefer to follow the Vulgate and say Mary is “full of grace”,

Actually the NAB renders it

28

And coming to her, he said, “Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you.”

Immaculate Conception and Assumption gives a very good explanation of why full of grace is more accurate.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

adrift:

966 "Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death."508 The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son’s Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians:

Mary is alive what the Church doesn’t state is if she died. Maybe this is what you meant but it was false the way you stated it.

What is interesting about that quote from the Catechism, is that it states that the Assumption of the BVM is a SINGULAR participation in her Son’s RESURRECTION. This says to me that the BVM was raised from the dead soon after her death. This means that she both died and was raised from the dead (like her Son,) in a singular occurrence. So although the Church does not state that the BVM died EXPLICITLY in Munificentissumus Deus, yet she (the Church) does say so implicitly in quotes such as these, as well as the Definition itself, as well as the Pope JPII’s explicit declarations that she died. So yes, the Church DOES know that the BVM died. It is just speculation, based on a misunderstanding of Munificentissumus Deus that says we don’t know.

 

[BiffRuffle]

Scott Hahn gave a great explanation of Marian doctrines.

1. Jesus fulfilled the commandments perfectly, including honouring mother and father.
2. We imitate Christ.

The Church didn’t make up Marian devotion and teaching, Jesus beat us to it!

Also, in regards to the Immaculate Conception, early Christian fathers were teaching Mary’s sinlessness as early as the 200’s, such as, when referring to Mary, she was called Immaculate Mary - it was obvious the writer (I think it was Hippolytus) already understood Mary to be free from sin.

Also, reading from Pope Pius IX’s Ineffibilis Deus, one can see the procession through the ages of devotion, veneration, and celebration of Mary’s Immaculate Conception, held in highest honour with that of feasts of the saints. Indeed, reading the entire document can help one understand the Church’s teaching. It can be found here: ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P9INEFF.HTM

 

[Good_Fella]

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.

Mary wasn’t divine, but her Son was. Jesus was sinless by his substantial grace of union with the Father; Mary, on the other hand, was made sinless by God’s intervening grace.

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.

Understanding Christ isn’t a legalistic, but rather a spiritual and a moral requirement for salvation. Understanding who Mary was helps us better understand what is spiritually required of us human beings like herself to emulate her divine Son in his humanity in order for us to attain eternal life.

“Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb.”
Luke 1, 42

Filled with the Holy Spirit, Elizabeth deeply venerates Mary because of her exceptional holiness, and in the same breath she glorifies her divine Son because of his. She acknowledges that Mary in her holiness is greater than all women, including sinless Eve who eventually fell from God’s grace. And she refers to Jesus as the fruit of Mary’s womb, knowing that good fruit does not naturally come from a bad tree. (Mt 7:17-18).

“Thou alone and thy Mother are in all things fair; for there is no flaw in thee and no stain in thy Mother. Of these two fair ones, to whom are my children similar?”
Ephraem, Nisbene Hymns, 27:8 (ante A.D. 373)

PAX

 

[PRmerger]

Mary wasn’t divine, but her Son was. Jesus was sinless by his substantial grace of union with the Father; Mary, on the other hand, was made sinless by God’s intervening grace.

Exactly.

How does that saying go: we (and Mary) are by grace what He is by nature.

 

[Good_Fella]

Exactly.

How does that saying go: we (and Mary) are by grace what He is by nature.

So true a saying.

To those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God - children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.
John 1, 12-13

“For He was made man that we might be made God.”
St. Athanasius, Incarnation 54 (A.D. 318)

PAX

 

[MarcoPolo]

I read from a Christian forum that the Marian doctrines was grievous error.

Part of the problem in general is that many non-Catholic Christians do not read the Bible typologically. For example, Paul recognizes Biblical types between Jesus-Adam (Rom. 5:14) or between the Old and New Covenants and Sarah and Hagar (Gal. 4:21-31), etc… Catholics have recognized throughout history in the deposit of faith a number of Marian biblical types in the Old Testament. For example, the Ark of the Covenant bears unmistakable parallels to Mary (see chart here).

If we compare Eve to Mary we see more parallels. In Genesis Eve is described as a “Woman” who disobeyed God. Genesis describes one woman (Eve) and one man (Adam) who are created initially immaculate. The woman and man are approached by one angel (who is fallen, the Devil) and they choose freely to disobey God and eat one food from one tree that would cause death for a whole race. In Luke’s gospel the same is seen but only in reversed and redemptive way. In Luke one woman (Mary) is visited by one angel (who is holy, Gabriel) and this one woman freely chooses to obey and accept God’s plan for her, unlike Eve. This one women would give birth to one man Jesus Christ who would die for all on a tree and give the world one food to eat that would give life to the whole human race (Holy Communion Jn 6:54-58).

And remember, in Biblical typology, the later type is always superior to the former, i.e. Jesus is superior to Adam, etc…

When we see Mary as the new Eve, we see the Immaculate Conception, because Eve was formed without original sin. When we see the Ark in heaven in the book of Revelation, this fortifies the idea of the Assumption, that Mary is already in heaven. When we see Mary as the Ark, we recognize Mary as pure (clad in gold) and not to be touched (perpetual virgin), etc… There are other figures about Mary such as Mary as the Church that also reveal Catholic doctrines on Mary.

Once one recognizes the strength of typology between the Old and New Testament, a whole world of truth pours out from the texts and traditions. That is why Catholics often “see” things in Scripture that non-Catholics do not. It’s not that Catholics impose or violate the text. On the contrary, it is Catholics following the “pattern of sound teaching” that Paul set forth. It is Catholics delving into the parallels and context of the texts.