Mary Quite Contrary

[MJDorry]

Hello all!

I’m certain there are innumerable threads almost exactly like my own, but a quick search was not quite satisfying. Please excuse the title. I mean no disrespect by it.

I’ve been slowly transitioning into Catholicism, having attended more than a few handfuls of Latin Masses. I was vaguely “Born-Again” as a young boy because of a few Summers with my father, but it never stuck. By my late teens, I was anti-Christian and what can best be described as Agnostic. I won’t go into what I believed specifically, but it was of the “God is Love and Love is God”, but God is disinterested variety. Then I slowly became a non-believing sort of apologist in college, having lifted a few ideas from Aquinas and Augustine, and having read CS Lewis’s “The Problem of Pain”. I came into faith by necessity–Up until October of 2011, I had been into smoking cannabis, but after a short series of none-too-pleasant experiences, my last one left me feeling as though reality would disintegrate in front of my very eyes. I had nothing left of me, except one small hardly-alive grain of something that said to start praying.

I never received any sort of relief from prayer and still haven’t. I suffer de-realization, and it seems to be chronic as opposed to acute. But even though my transition has been arid and almost without a single quenching droplet, I am almost certain that this is it. Catholicism is It. That said, I have many doubts. One of the highest among them is Marian devotion.

I want to be clear that I understand–and by extension, myself try to impress–the significance of Mary as a stainless human, the Mother of God and Mother to all, the woman to give Christ his humanity, the intimate relationship between the two, and the intercession of Saints. Although I find the evidence for the latter to be scant, I accept that it has essentially been dogma from almost the beginning. That said, I simply cannot find it within myself to accept as true Mary’s Assumption and even more, her proposed position as Queen of Heaven.

While these were almost held by all in mainstream Catholic thought, if not more so in extreme contemplative circles, it wasn’t dogma until the 1950s. I understand Papal Infallibility, but I still find the decree questionable and at this point, I don’t see that Mary’s Assumption was implicit in any of the Sacred Scripture used to support the claim. I don’t see it, and it’s most certainly not explicit.

If someone could take the time to explain it all, thoroughly and patiently, I would greatly appreciate it. One of my greatest concerns is inadvertently offending Christ, so I currently find myself in a bit of spiritual bind.

 

[Kopratic]

I’m sure someone else can explain it better, but I’ll give it a shot.

With regards to Mary’s queenship, her son Jesus comes from the Davidic line. In the Old Testament, the queen would not be the queen’s wife. Instead, she would be the king’s mother – hence, the term “queen mother.” This can be seen in the Book of Kings {1st and 2nd I think} with Bathsheba as the queen mother of King Solomon. Mary, the Mother of God – who is the King of Heaven – would thus be the Queen of Heaven.
Yes, the Fourth Marian Dogma {The Assumption} wasn’t officially established until 1950. However, that doesn’t make it any less true. In fact it had been a belief since the early Church Fathers. Here’s part of the Fourth Marian Dogma from the Vatican’s website.

St. Germanus of Constantinople considered the fact that the body of Mary, the virgin Mother of God, was incorrupt and had been taken up into heaven to be in keeping, not only with her divine motherhood, but also with the special holiness of her virginal body. “You are she who, as it is written, appears in beauty, and your virginal body is all holy, all chaste, entirely the dwelling place of God, so that it is henceforth completely exempt from dissolution into dust. Though still human, it is changed into the heavenly life of incorruptibility, truly living and glorious, undamaged and sharing in perfect life.”(18) And another very ancient writer asserts: “As the most glorious Mother of Christ, our Savior and God and the giver of life and immortality, has been endowed with life by him, she has received an eternal incorruptibility of the body together with him who has raised her up from the tomb and has taken her up to himself in a way known only to him.”

As to why it wasn’t made dogma until 1950, I cannot say. However, I’m sure someone else will be able to answer that.

Also, the Catholic Church does not rely on scripture alone when it comes to the truth.

I’m not too great at explaining things, though. Like I said earlier, I’m sure someone else will be able to explain these things much better. :}

 

[midori]

If it helps any, the Feast of the Assumption (aka the Dormition) itself has been celebrated as a universal feast on August 15th since at least the 6th-7th centuries.

I know others can give you better background in development & theory. But sometimes it can be hard to appreciate something that’s sitting isolated, by itself. If it helps, there are different grades of “theological certainty.” The one that applies here:

1. The highest degree of certainty appertains to the immediately revealed truths. The belief due to them is based on the authority of God Revealing (fides divina), and if the Church, through its teaching, vouches for the fact it a truth is contained in Revelation, one’s certainty is then also based on the authority of the Infallible Teaching Authority of the Church (fides catholica). If Truths are defined by a solemn judgment of faith (definition) of the Pope or of a General Council, they are “de fide definita.”

But there are lesser levels, such as doctrines which are generally accepted to be true Revelation, but the Church hasn’t officially defined it as such yet; as well as common teachings, which are generally accepted opinions; and many, many others, all the way down to teachings which are weakly-founded-yet-tolerated.

Examples of teachings at these lower levels include things such as “Despite men’s sins God truly and earnestly desires the salvation of all men” (sententia fidei proxima) or “God gives all the faithful who are sinners sufficient grace for conversion” (sententia communis) and “Since Mary’s Assumption into Heaven no grace is conferred on man without her actual intercessory co-operation” (sententia pia et probabilis), etc.

So it helps to understand that dogma just doesn’t arise from nowhere, even if it takes a long time for the Church to formally vouch for it as Truth. A theological thought-- “If God demanded a full atonement the Incarnation of a Divine Person was necessary” (sententia communis) – might never progress past doctrine status, and other things that are taken for granted-- “The individual bishop receives his pastoral power immediately from the Pope” (sententia probabilior) – are just classified as varying levels of theological opinion in the grand scheme of things.

A nice list here. A search for “theological grades of certainty” can help you appreciate not just this dogma, and the fact that it’s been able to advance to this level of promulgation, but also understand a lot of the background of what sort of beliefs set Catholicism apart.

 

[Jitterbug]

Well, you kinda hit the nail on the head for your own question. It WAS pretty much believed by every Catholic, which is WHY it wasn’t dogma.

Look at it this way. To my knowledge, the Divinity of Christ wasn’t dogma until the fourth century(Correct me if I’m wrong. That’s what I’ve seen said at least). The reason being it wasn’t questioned by anyone, so there was no NEED to make it a dogma.

I assume it’s the same with the Fourth Marian Dogma…