Questions Concerning the Marian Doctrines

[garysibio]

I don’t mean to challenge the veracity of any of these teachings. I’m not looking for an argument or evidence pro (from Catholics) or con (from non-Catholics) about them. The doctrines I am talking about are:

• Mary as Mother of God (Theotokos)
• Mary’s Perpetual Virginity
• The Immaculate Conception
• The Assumption

1. What difference do they make?

Note: I understand that the declaration of Mary as the Theotokos was done to address a heresy which taught that Jesus had no human nature. By calling Mary the Mother of God it showed that Jesus had a human nature. However, why define it in terms of Mary? Why not just say “Jesus was fully divine and fully human”?

1. If they don’t make a difference, why did the Church raise them to the level of dogma?

Here I mean make a difference to our salvation, the sacraments, etc. In the eternal view of things, why do we care if they are true or not?

1. If they make no difference at the level of the eternal, should the Church consider making their acceptance optional (not denying them) for the sake of Christian unity?
2. If they do not make a difference but they should not be made optional, aren’t we then ignoring a command of Jesus (John 17) for the sake of a belief that doesn’t really matter?

Although I ask these questions primarily because I believe that, if Jesus spent the night before His death praying for unity, it must be important to Him but also because I believe that a lot of Catholics seem to focus on Mary a lot more than they focus on Jesus. (I’m not a mind reader but I am led to this conclusion based on what they say.) That kind of attitude is not spiritually healthy.

 

[robinn]

Before you go on to weather Mary is or is not good for salvation I would, if I were you Look into Mary’s apperitions Fatima, Lordes and many more, and ask youself these questions again I would ke to see your answers then ttfn

 

[Mark121359]

Although I ask these questions primarily because I believe that, if Jesus spent the night before His death praying for unity, it must be important to Him but also because I believe that a lot of Catholics seem to focus on Mary a lot more than they focus on Jesus. (I’m not a mind reader but I am led to this conclusion based on what they say.) That kind of attitude is not spiritually healthy.

Just curious, what do they say that leads you to you’re conclusion that they focus more on Mary than Jesus?

Peace, Mark

 

[garysibio]

Before you go on to weather Mary is or is not good for salvation I would, if I were you Look into Mary’s apperitions Fatima, Lordes and many more, and ask youself these questions again I would ke to see your answers then ttfn

Fatima, or any other apparition, is not doctrine. They are private revelation and is not binding on anyone. A faithful Catholic is free to believe that they are not true.

BTW, if that was Mary at Fatima, and I’m not saying either way, she was wrong. She said a greater war than WW1 would start during the reign of the next pope. Fatima took place during the papacy of Benedict XV. The next pope was Pius XI. World War II started on 01 Sep 1939 during the reign of Pope Pius XII.

 

[mark_a]

I don’t mean to challenge the veracity of any of these teachings. I’m not looking for an argument or evidence pro (from Catholics) or con (from non-Catholics) about them. The doctrines I am talking about are:

• Mary as Mother of God (Theotokos)
• Mary’s Perpetual Virginity
• The Immaculate Conception
• The Assumption

1. What difference do they make?

Note: I understand that the declaration of Mary as the Theotokos was done to address a heresy which taught that Jesus had no human nature. By calling Mary the Mother of God it showed that Jesus had a human nature. However, why define it in terms of Mary? Why not just say “Jesus was fully divine and fully human”?

1. If they don’t make a difference, why did the Church raise them to the level of dogma?

Here I mean make a difference to our salvation, the sacraments, etc. In the eternal view of things, why do we care if they are true or not?

1. If they make no difference at the level of the eternal, should the Church consider making their acceptance optional (not denying them) for the sake of Christian unity?
2. If they do not make a difference but they should not be made optional, aren’t we then ignoring a command of Jesus (John 17) for the sake of a belief that doesn’t really matter?

Although I ask these questions primarily because I believe that, if Jesus spent the night before His death praying for unity, it must be important to Him but also because I believe that a lot of Catholics seem to focus on Mary a lot more than they focus on Jesus. (I’m not a mind reader but I am led to this conclusion based on what they say.) That kind of attitude is not spiritually healthy.

Don’t you think that if the SBC, Evangelicalism, and Protestantism in general were wrong about abortion that maybe, just maybe, they are wrong about Mary too?

 

[garysibio]

Just curious, what do they say that leads you to you’re conclusion that they focus more on Mary than Jesus?

Peace, Mark

Didn’t anyone ever tell you you’re not supposed to answer a question with a question?

Let’s be honest. We all know Catholics who pray to Mary to the exclusion of praying to Jesus. I don’t have a problem with asking Mary or any other saint to intercede for you but we are also to pray to Jesus.

Maybe you don’t hear people who emphasize Mary to the exclusion of Jesus. I wish I could say that but, sadly, I cannot.

 

[garysibio]

Don’t you think that if the SBC, Evangelicalism, and Protestantism in general were wrong about abortion that maybe, just maybe, they are wrong about Mary too?

Every Evangelical I know opposes abortion so, if you think they are wrong, they you must be in favor of abortion.

At any rate, did you read my post? I don’t care who’s right and who’s wrong for the purpose of this discussion. It has nothing to do with my questions and the fact that you didn’t address the issues I brought up tells me that you have no good answer.

 

[devoutchristian]

She said a greater war than WW1 would start during the reign of the next pope. Fatima took place during the papacy of Benedict XV. The next pope was Pius XI. World War II started on 01 Sep 1939 during the reign of Pope Pius XII.

Some historians consider the war to have started in 1937, when Japan attacked China.

 

[yellow8yellowM]

I don’t mean to challenge the veracity of any of these teachings. I’m not looking for an argument or evidence pro (from Catholics) or con (from non-Catholics) about them. The doctrines I am talking about are:

• Mary as Mother of God (Theotokos)
• Mary’s Perpetual Virginity
• The Immaculate Conception
• The Assumption

1. What difference do they make?

Note: I understand that the declaration of Mary as the Theotokos was done to address a heresy which taught that Jesus had no human nature. By calling Mary the Mother of God it showed that Jesus had a human nature. However, why define it in terms of Mary? Why not just say “Jesus was fully divine and fully human”?

1. If they don’t make a difference, why did the Church raise them to the level of dogma?

Here I mean make a difference to our salvation, the sacraments, etc. In the eternal view of things, why do we care if they are true or not?

1. If they make no difference at the level of the eternal, should the Church consider making their acceptance optional (not denying them) for the sake of Christian unity?
2. If they do not make a difference but they should not be made optional, aren’t we then ignoring a command of Jesus (John 17) for the sake of a belief that doesn’t really matter?

Although I ask these questions primarily because I believe that, if Jesus spent the night before His death praying for unity, it must be important to Him but also because I believe that a lot of Catholics seem to focus on Mary a lot more than they focus on Jesus. (I’m not a mind reader but I am led to this conclusion based on what they say.) That kind of attitude is not spiritually healthy.

1. It makes a difference because it is true. All the other questions are answered by this answer. I don’t think it would help to have Protestants join Catholicism but not accept everything that is divinely revealed.

 

[BernadetteM]

I belong to a very traditional parish and have not seen what some claim that Catholics pray more to Mary or hold her in higher esteem than being the Mother of God who is Christ. Maybe in some cultures this is more apparent.

If an individual does focus more on the BVM than on Christ, then yes they do not have the correct understanding of what the Church teaches.

I also know several evangelicals/fundamentalists who are not concerned about abortion, nor sins that we consider mortal. Many feel no matter what they are saved. Of course this does not mean that all in these denominations believe this way, however, I don’t think it is preached on and taught as doctrine.

The Church is wise in saying that these apparitions are of a private nature and one can choose to believe or not to believe.

The fault lies with individuals and not the Church. At my parish, unless it is a holyday in honor of the BVM, she is rarely mentioned during the homily.

When she has appeared it is always to bring us to her Son.

Yours in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary

Bernadette

 

[garysibio]

Some historians consider the war to have started in 1937, when Japan attacked China.

Why not say that it started at the Spanish Civil War? Heck, let’s say WW1 never actually ended, it was just a temporary truce. Every source I’ve ever checked says 01 Sep 1939.

 

[garysibio]

1. It makes a difference because it is true. All the other questions are answered by this answer. I don’t think it would help to have Protestants join Catholicism but not accept everything that is divinely revealed.

It’s also true that three is the square root of nine but the Church never declared that dogmatically. There are quite a few things that Catholic believe are true, even spiritual things, which have never been raised to the level of dogma. BTW, there are saints who are called Doctors of the Church that did not believe in the Immaculate Conception. According to Fr. Dwight Longenecker (I hope I spelled that right) no one heard of the Assumption for the first 300 years of the Church. If it is necessary to believe in that, are all of the early believers in Hell?

 

[garysibio]

I belong to a very traditional parish and have not seen what some claim that Catholics pray more to Mary or hold her in higher esteem than being the Mother of God who is Christ. Maybe in some cultures this is more apparent.

If an individual does focus more on the BVM than on Christ, then yes they do not have the correct understanding of what the Church teaches.

I also know several evangelicals/fundamentalists who are not concerned about abortion, nor sins that we consider mortal. Many feel no matter what they are saved. Of course this does not mean that all in these denominations believe this way, however, I don’t think it is preached on and taught as doctrine.

The Church is wise in saying that these apparitions are of a private nature and one can choose to believe or not to believe.

The fault lies with individuals and not the Church. At my parish, unless it is a holyday in honor of the BVM, she is rarely mentioned during the homily.

When she has appeared it is always to bring us to her Son.

Yours in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary

Bernadette

The parishes I’ve attended since returning to the Catholic Church in 1987 have been highly Hispanic or Filipino. They tend to get a bit carried away with Marian devotions.

It’s one thing to not believe that pro-life issues have to be your primary focus but another to say you disagree with the Catholic Church.

 

[Mark121359]

Didn’t anyone ever tell you you’re not supposed to answer a question with a question?

Let’s be honest. We all know Catholics who pray to Mary to the exclusion of praying to Jesus. I don’t have a problem with asking Mary or any other saint to intercede for you but we are also to pray to Jesus.

Maybe you don’t hear people who emphasize Mary to the exclusion of Jesus. I wish I could say that but, sadly, I cannot.

Boy, I must be in the minority then, because I’ve yet to meet one personally. But since I’m one of those who has done the de Montfort’s method of devotion known as “Total Consecration,” , I’m probably one of those “suspicious” Catholics that a lot of these threads frown upon because they happen to love Our Lady deeply. But that’s fine. It’s funny, but since I’ve become close to Mary, She’s led me to a relationship with Jesus the likes of which I’ve never experienced. And I’ve read that many of the Saints have said that Mary will always draw you nearer and dearer to her Son. Go figure! For the life of me, I cannot figure out why there’s so much uneasiness about such a beautiful creature as Mary! But, that’s just me.

Peace, Mark

 

[mark_a]

Every Evangelical I know opposes abortion so, if you think they are wrong, they you must be in favor of abortion.

The key word in my statement is “were”.

At any rate, did you read my post?

Yes

It has nothing to do with my questions

Here’s what I got from your post (Please tell me if I’m wrong):

The Church should put aside Marian dogma for the sake of ecumenism.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

. According to Fr. Dwight Longenecker (I hope I spelled that right) no one heard of the Assumption for the first 300 years of the Church. If it is necessary to believe in that, are all of the early believers in Hell?

I don’t think this will fly. While Catholics are not limited to defining truths that are not mentioned in Scripture…it would be very surprising indeed if the Assumption was not a teaching/conviction strongly held by persons with authority in the Early Church.

Like the perpetual virginity of Mary some truths may be like personal family secrets that never get put into writing but are nevertheless handed down from generation to generation if one is trusted. I suggest John the Apostle, who took Mary into his home, was privvy to these personal matters and may not have communicated them to his trusted disciples until near the end of his long life.

I believe the Transitus writings, (spurious apochryphal writings going into detail about Mary’s asumption) can be dated as early as 160AD. While they cannot be accepted as historical they clearly show that Assumption stories were well circulating and quite evolved at this time. The Assumption didn’t come from a clear blue sky late in the day.

 

[mark_a]

Like the perpetual virginity of Mary some truths may be like personal family secrets that never get put into writing but are nevertheless handed down from generation to generation if one is trusted. I suggest John the Apostle, who took Mary into his home, was privvy to these personal matters and may not have communicated them to his trusted disciples until near the end of his long life.

I believe the Transitus writings, (spurious apochryphal writings going into detail about Mary’s asumption) can be dated as early as 160AD. While they cannot be accepted as historical they clearly show that Assumption stories were well circulating and quite evolved at this time. The Assumption didn’t come from a clear blue sky late in the day.

The fact that no Orthodox or Catholics have or claim to have her bones is another strong indicator.

 

[brb3]

I don’t think this will fly. While Catholics are not limited to defining truths that are not mentioned in Scripture…it would be very surprising indeed if the Assumption was not a teaching/conviction strongly held by persons with authority in the Early Church.

Like the perpetual virginity of Mary some truths may be like personal family secrets that never get put into writing but are nevertheless handed down from generation to generation if one is trusted. I suggest John the Apostle, who took Mary into his home, was privvy to these personal matters and may not have communicated them to his trusted disciples until near the end of his long life.

I believe the Transitus writings, (spurious apochryphal writings going into detail about Mary’s asumption) can be dated as early as 160AD. While they cannot be accepted as historical they clearly show that Assumption stories were well circulating and quite evolved at this time. The Assumption didn’t come from a clear blue sky late in the day.

Too early a date for TRANSITUS VIRGINIS…more like 400 plus

 

[garysibio]

The key word in my statement is “were”.

Yes

Here’s what I got from your post (Please tell me if I’m wrong):

The Church should put aside Marian dogma for the sake of ecumenism.

Well, I wasn’t making a statement, I was asking a question. I’m also not saying that that the Church should now deny these teachings, just not make them binding dogmas like they were before 1854 and 1950.

I find it interesting that no one has addressed the issue of how relevant these beliefs are to our spiritual life.

 

[JM3]

Like the perpetual virginity of Mary some truths may be like personal family secrets that never get put into writing

Ezechiel 44:2 - And the Lord said to me: This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it: because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it, and it shall be shut