Questions Concerning the Marian Doctrines

[yellow8yellowM]

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

Obviously we can’t get make dogma not dogma, but if you were to get rid of the Assumption for ecumenism, then you would have keep chipping away at other dogma and eventually you would be left with no Communion of Saints at all. You would be finally left with just Jesus, and you would have some sort of religion like a lot of the new non-denominationals.

I think the reason nobody responded is because in the end they would have to defend every single dogma and doctrine that wasn’t directly related to Jesus.

 

[garysibio]

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.

There are plenty of threads discussing whether or not the doctrines are true. I want to know why they are considered important enough that the Church is willing to sacrifice the unity of the body of Christ for their sake.

 

[garysibio]

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

Again, I’m not looking to discuss the evidence here. It’s the importance the Church places on them that I would like to discuss.

 

[garysibio]

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

Huh?

 

[garysibio]

Obviously we can’t get make dogma not dogma, but if you were to get rid of the Assumption for ecumenism, then you would have keep chipping away at other dogma and eventually you would be left with no Communion of Saints at all. You would be finally left with just Jesus, and you would have some sort of religion like a lot of the new non-denominationals.

I think the reason nobody responded is because in the end they would have to defend every single dogma and doctrine that wasn’t directly related to Jesus.

I’m not suggesting we get rid of anything. The Church existed for 18 centuries without making a belief in the Assumption mandatory and 19 for the Immaculate Conception. We got on quite well without being dogmatic about them. Are they important enough to stand in the way of unity? Why?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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

Yes that was the old scholarship.
Reading I did some 6 months ago (I cannot source this at the moment) has moved on from this position. Apparantly these very popular writings have been copied and recopied and exegesis is almost as complicated as sourcing the Gosepels! It seems expert opinion is slowly accepting at least the possibility of a much earlier date than previously thought possible.

I believe this re-assessment was triggered by the relatively recent discovery of very ancient pertinent Coptic manuscript fragments.

 

[yellow8yellowM]

I’m not suggesting we get rid of anything. The Church existed for 18 centuries without making a belief in the Assumption mandatory and 19 for the Immaculate Conception. We got on quite well without being dogmatic about them. Are they important enough to stand in the way of unity? Why?

Are you suggesting they be made non-dogmatic? Or are you simply posing this question for the sake of the discussion?

If nobody answers the why question, I will, eventually, but it might be lengthy as I posted before.

 

[dmar198]

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?

This is the relevant text from Fr. Longenecker’s blog: I realize that our non-Catholic brethren have a real problem with the Assumption because it isn’t in the Bible. In fact, the evidence for the historicity of the Assumption is pretty scant in the early centuries as well.
What I love about Pius XII’s statement in Munificentissimus Deus is how he piles up the truths of the incarnation and says how the Assumption was ‘necessary’.
source: here You’ll notice first of all that he says early evidence is “scant” not non-existent. You’ll notice second of all that he says the document Munificentissimus Deus explains the necessity of the Assumption by drawing from the truth of the Incarnation.

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was the first dogma promulgated simply by an infallible papal decree (rather than through a Council), and it came at a time when Papal infallibility was being questioned. It thus served the purpose, in addition to promoting an important doctrine drawn from the meaning of the Incarnation, of illustrating the extent of papal infallibility.

The doctrine of the Assumption was promulgated in response to secularist attempts to deny the sanctity of the body and the existence of the soul. These ideas were influencing Catholic theologians who started to doubt the meaning of Mary’s sanctity which is a picture of the sanctity imparted to every Christian by baptism. It remains relevant because it shows us that God wants to save the whole human person, body and soul.

These doctrines also reveal to us that Christ came to destroy sin (the Immaculate Conception) and death (the Assumption). Thus they are stamped with the very meaning of the Redemption. God reveals things to us in many ways, not just by telling us but by showing us. Thus He showed us that Jesus is His own Son by having Him born of a virgin. Strictly speaking, He did not need Mary to have been a virgin; Jesus could have been born without a human father even if Mary had already had several children. But God shows us the importance of Christ in a more glorified way by having Him born of one who never had sex at all, and never after. A lot of people say these doctrines aren’t necessary and the implication is that God could still have saved us without doing things the way He did. That may be true, but it’s irrelevant. God has chosen to save us this way, and revealed these doctrines to teach us what salvation means. We ought to rejoice in this, and that is why they have been promulgated to the level of dogma.

I hope that helps. God bless!

 

[Nita]

It’s also true that three is the square root of nine but the Church never declared that dogmatically.

Of course not; it has nothing to do with faith and morals.

There are quite a few things that Catholic believe are true, even spiritual things, which have never been raised to the level of dogma.

Then that is because it is not God’s will that His Church declare it as dogma – at least for the time being.

It is Our Lord’s Church and it is He who does the “building” (…and on this rock, ** I ** will build My Church}.

And for me, that answers why the Marian Doctrines were defined, why they are true and should be believed, and why they should be incorporated into the faith life/practice of the Church, and the personal lives and practices of Church members. The Dogmas are there because Jesus wanted them (“built”) to be officially declared. And He doesn’t make mistakes,

Better questions to ponder are: “Why did Jesus want those dogmas to be part of the faith foundation of His Church?” What differences did/does He want it to make in our lives? etc.

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.

Immaterial. God did not grant governance of His Church and the charism of infallibility to them.

If it is necessary to believe in that, are all of the early believers in Hell?

Of course not – which I’m sure you already knew. How could they be guilty of denying or teaching against a Church dogma when the dogma didn’t even exist yet? I’m sure you’re aware of the requirements for a sin to be mortal.

 

[garysibio]

Are you suggesting they be made non-dogmatic? Or are you simply posing this question for the sake of the discussion?

If nobody answers the why question, I will, eventually, but it might be lengthy as I posted before.

Discussion. My proposition is that since the Church went so long without at least two of the Marian dogmas, why not “un-dogma” them for the sake of unity, something Jesus clearly considered to be very important.

While thinking about this I thought of another relevant factor. Usually the Church establishes a dogma when a controversy arises over a doctrine. For example, it addressed the Trinity after the Arians attacked it. Trent defined many dogmas after the Protestant Reformation. However, there was no controversy surrounding the dogmatizing of the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption. Why do it?

 

[garysibio]

This is the relevant text from Fr. Longenecker’s blog: I realize that our non-Catholic brethren have a real problem with the Assumption because it isn’t in the Bible. In fact, the evidence for the historicity of the Assumption is pretty scant in the early centuries as well.
What I love about Pius XII’s statement in Munificentissimus Deus is how he piles up the truths of the incarnation and says how the Assumption was ‘necessary’.
source: here You’ll notice first of all that he says early evidence is “scant” not non-existent. You’ll notice second of all that he says the document Munificentissimus Deus explains the necessity of the Assumption by drawing from the truth of the Incarnation.

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was the first dogma promulgated simply by an infallible papal decree (rather than through a Council), and it came at a time when Papal infallibility was being questioned. It thus served the purpose, in addition to promoting an important doctrine drawn from the meaning of the Incarnation, of illustrating the extent of papal infallibility.

The doctrine of the Assumption was promulgated in response to secularist attempts to deny the sanctity of the body and the existence of the soul. These ideas were influencing Catholic theologians who started to doubt the meaning of Mary’s sanctity which is a picture of the sanctity imparted to every Christian by baptism. It remains relevant because it shows us that God wants to save the whole human person, body and soul.

These doctrines also reveal to us that Christ came to destroy sin (the Immaculate Conception) and death (the Assumption). Thus they are stamped with the very meaning of the Redemption. God reveals things to us in many ways, not just by telling us but by showing us. Thus He showed us that Jesus is His own Son by having Him born of a virgin. Strictly speaking, He did not need Mary to have been a virgin; Jesus could have been born without a human father even if Mary had already had several children. But God shows us the importance of Christ in a more glorified way by having Him born of one who never had sex at all, and never after. A lot of people say these doctrines aren’t necessary and the implication is that God could still have saved us without doing things the way He did. That may be true, but it’s irrelevant. God has chosen to save us this way, and revealed these doctrines to teach us what salvation means. We ought to rejoice in this, and that is why they have been promulgated to the level of dogma.

I hope that helps. God bless!

Thank you for, at least, responding to my question.

I’m reading this on my phone so I can’t go digging for exact quotes but the Longenecker’s quote I was referring to came not from his blog but I book he wrote which was a collection of letters in which he debated with a friend from his Protestant days. I don’t know which source is later.

You suggest that the dogma of the Assumption was established to combat certain modernist ideas. Then why not address those ideas directly instead of couching it in what was certain to further divide the universal church? Same thing for the other dogmas.

 

[Usagi]

Discussion. My proposition is that since the Church went so long without at least two of the Marian dogmas, why not “un-dogma” them for the sake of unity, something Jesus clearly considered to be very important.

I don’t think it’s possible to “un-dogmatize” a dogma. We’ve already said we’re sure about it and placed it on the level of revealed truth. Going back and saying it’s optional, even if we don’t expressly deny it, calls the entire teaching role of the Church into question.

While thinking about this I thought of another relevant factor. Usually the Church establishes a dogma when a controversy arises over a doctrine. For example, it addressed the Trinity after the Arians attacked it. Trent defined many dogmas after the Protestant Reformation. However, there was no controversy surrounding the dogmatizing of the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption. Why do it?

Popular demand, as I understand it. Those dogmas are unusual because, as you say, they were defined not as a result of people prominently denying them, but almost the reverse. The Popes of the respective eras consulted with all their brother bishops (after, I presume, getting lots of letters from ordinary Catholics) as to whether the time was right and received enthusiastic responses.

I do sometimes wish we hadn’t gone there, for the sake of Christian unity (like you), but I am neither God nor the Pope, and now that we’ve done it I don’t think we can undo it. We just have to explain the doctrines in ways our fellow Christians can understand.

BTW, as I understand it, Ephesus defined Theotokos as applying to Mary because that was what was being denied. That Jesus had both human and divine natures had already been defined, but the Nestorians still argued (as some Protestants do today) that Mary was properly the mother of His human nature only. Thus the Council’s way of specifying that the two natures cannot be so separated was to declare that Mary is rightfully called God-bearer, not merely Christ-bearer.

Usagi

 

[dmar198]

While thinking about this I thought of another relevant factor. Usually the Church establishes a dogma when a controversy arises over a doctrine.

Well with the Immaculate Conception that part at least was certainly true. At the time it was promulgated Dominicans and Franciscans had been bitterly attacking each other over the issue for generations. Franciscans were sworn defenders of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception whereas the Dominicans never accepted it until it was declared dogma. The amount of ink spilled over the issue, and the bitter denunciations of the two parties, led to deep divisions until the Popes started intervening to force them not to denounce each other. But the divisions still lingered. In that sense, the declaration of the doctrine actually settled an important issue and brought the Dominicans and Franciscans together. It was a unifying event.

You suggest that the dogma of the Assumption was established to combat certain modernist ideas. Then why not address those ideas directly instead of couching it in what was certain to further divide the universal church? Same thing for the other dogmas.

I don’t think the doctrines of the Assumption and Immaculate Conception were foreseen to divide the Church. When people have problems with those doctrines their problems can usually be shown to go deeper – to the heart of whether the Church has divine authority, or, less deeply, to the significance of Mary in the history of salvation. By proclaiming these doctrines the Church was inviting people to have faith in her authority and to join closer to Mary, which is a devotional purpose that brings union rather than division. There can be more reasons for proclaiming a dogma than just that the truth itself is an important part of salvation. The Marian dogmas are important in systematizing our theology of salvation, but there is also a significant devotional purpose: both documents, I think, contained exhortations to Christians to become more dedicated to the Marian feasts and Marian prayers, which is of enormous spiritual benefit to the Church.

Also, the Church did address the modernist ideas through other means. Vatican 1 tackled the question of papal infallibility and Vatican 2 addressed the proper understanding of human nature and its deep goodness. But the fact that the Magisterium took more than one route toward the same end is no reason to doubt the prudence of proclaiming the Marian dogmas. The resurgence of Marian piety has been an important spiritual benefit to the Church. I think the Church of later years will be able to see more clearly the tremendous impact that it has had on the piety of individual Catholics, not to mention on regional churches.

Anyway, those are the thoughts that come to my head immediately.

 

[garysibio]

I don’t think it’s possible to “un-dogmatize” a dogma. We’ve already said we’re sure about it and placed it on the level of revealed truth. Going back and saying it’s optional, even if we don’t expressly deny it, calls the entire teaching role of the Church into question.

So pride over looking bad takes precedence over truth and Christian unity??? Hmm. I don’t think that’s what you meant but that’s what it boils down to.

I’m not so certain lifting the penalty of excommunication for rejecting a doctrine is all that bad. It’s been done before. In the late 16th century one pope imposed excommunication for the use of artificial birth control and that penalty was removed by the next pope. (He didn’t change the fact that it’s still a mortal sin.)

Let’s face it. The Catholic Church is not enjoying great esteem at the moment. The sex abuse scandals have done a number on us. The recent revelations about Mahoney will stir up the issue again. Making this change is not going to hurt us any more than that already has. Also, we are facing the very real possibility that we may have to close down Catholic social services rather than comply with the Obama administration’s contraception mandate. While I believe that, if forced into a corner, that is what we have to do, it’s not going to win us any popularity contests.

Popular demand, as I understand it. Those dogmas are unusual because, as you say, they were defined not as a result of people prominently denying them, but almost the reverse. The Popes of the respective eras consulted with all their brother bishops (after, I presume, getting lots of letters from ordinary Catholics) as to whether the time was right and received enthusiastic responses.

Personally, this seems like the absolute worst possible motivation for dogmatizing a belief. Truth is not determined by popular vote.

BTW, as I understand it, Ephesus defined Theotokos as applying to Mary because that was what was being denied. That Jesus had both human and divine natures had already been defined, but the Nestorians still argued (as some Protestants do today) that Mary was properly the mother of His human nature only. Thus the Council’s way of specifying that the two natures cannot be so separated was to declare that Mary is rightfully called God-bearer, not merely Christ-bearer.

Usagi

That is correct, this dogma was created to combat a heresy, but why couch it in Marian terms? Why not just say Jesus was fully God and fully man, one person with two natures?

Of the four doctrines, I think this is the least divisive. Once you explain to a Protestant that it does not mean that Jesus got His divine nature from Mary, they are almost always fine with it in my experience. (I have had a few hard-cores who still reject it but they are the ones who believe all Catholics will burn in Hell for all eternity just for being Catholic.)

 

[garysibio]

Well with the Immaculate Conception that part at least was certainly true. At the time it was promulgated Dominicans and Franciscans had been bitterly attacking each other over the issue for generations. Franciscans were sworn defenders of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception whereas the Dominicans never accepted it until it was declared dogma. The amount of ink spilled over the issue, and the bitter denunciations of the two parties, led to deep divisions until the Popes started intervening to force them not to denounce each other. But the divisions still lingered. In that sense, the declaration of the doctrine actually settled an important issue and brought the Dominicans and Franciscans together. It was a unifying event. I don’t think the doctrines of the Assumption and Immaculate Conception were foreseen to divide the Church. When people have problems with those doctrines their problems can usually be shown to go deeper – to the heart of whether the Church has divine authority, or, less deeply, to the significance of Mary in the history of salvation. By proclaiming these doctrines the Church was inviting people to have faith in her authority and to join closer to Mary, which is a devotional purpose that brings union rather than division. There can be more reasons for proclaiming a dogma than just that the truth itself is an important part of salvation. The Marian dogmas are important in systematizing our theology of salvation, but there is also a significant devotional purpose: both documents, I think, contained exhortations to Christians to become more dedicated to the Marian feasts and Marian prayers, which is of enormous spiritual benefit to the Church.

That dispute went on for centuries and I really doubt the average Catholic gave a red rat’s rear end. As has been pointed out by others, the impetus for dogmatizing the Immaculate Conception was popular demand.

One of the points I’m trying to make is that all of the reasons behind the Marian doctrines, while valid, could have been addressed more directly.

You mentioned that the Church did not foresee the divisions caused by these dogmas. Isn’t that exactly why John Paul II would not dogmatize Mary as Co-Redemptrix? Also, if these dogmas were created as a result of God’s leading of the magisterium, are we saying that the division took God by surprise as well? Or has God changed His mind about the importance of Christian unity?

To be honest I have a hard time believing that the popes did not think that the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption would not bring further division. These are smart men.

Also, the Church did address the modernist ideas through other means. Vatican 1 tackled the question of papal infallibility and Vatican 2 addressed the proper understanding of human nature and its deep goodness. But the fact that the Magisterium took more than one route toward the same end is no reason to doubt the prudence of proclaiming the Marian dogmas. The resurgence of Marian piety has been an important spiritual benefit to the Church. I think the Church of later years will be able to see more clearly the tremendous impact that it has had on the piety of individual Catholics, not to mention on regional churches.

Anyway, those are the thoughts that come to my head immediately.

“Say something once, why sy it again?” (Talking Heads, "Psycho Killer)

I made a joke but I think it’s also a valid point. If the issues which the Marian doctrines addressed were or could be addressed more directly, why not do so?

 

[Mark121359]

So pride over looking bad takes precedence over truth and Christian unity??? Hmm. I don’t think that’s what you meant but that’s what it boils down to.

Boy, that’s a bold statement! You’re saying that The Roman Catholic Church, the Church founded by Jesus Christ should admit its mistake (in your view) and make changes for the sake of the other denominations that made THE mistake to split from One True Church?

Let’s face it. The Catholic Church is not enjoying great esteem at the moment. The sex abuse scandals have done a number on us. The recent revelations about Mahoney will stir up the issue again. Making this change is not going to hurt us any more than that already has. Also, we are facing the very real possibility that we may have to close down Catholic social services rather than comply with the Obama administration’s contraception mandate. While I believe that, if forced into a corner, that is what we have to do, it’s not going to win us any popularity contests.

This is just never going to happen. Nor should it! Realize, that there will always be voices calling for the Church to change… as if its some sort of democratic institution. But I never get too worked up over these cries of desperation. I always come back to the reassuring words of Our Savior who proclaimed: ***“And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” Matthew 16:18 ***

 

[dmar198]

That dispute went on for centuries and I really doubt the average Catholic gave a red rat’s rear end.

Well, as has been pointed out by others, the Church doesn’t exactly determine truth by popular vote, so to me it doesn’t matter whether the populace gives a rat’s rear or not. To bring unity on this issue to the scholastic theologians is a noble point of importance by itself. Nevertheless there is evidence that it was cared about quite a bit by the average Catholic. In the document Munificentissimus Deus, the Pope requested information from every bishop on whether or not they and their flocks desired a definition of the dogma. And the response was almost unanimously in the affirmative. So the pew-sitters seemed to take an active interest in seeing the doctrine defined.

As has been pointed out by others, the impetus for dogmatizing the Immaculate Conception was popular demand.

Popular belief in the doctrine was a part of the reason for defining it, yes, but there is much more to it than that. The Church wasn’t just sitting on sunshine wondering what the pew-sitters were dreaming about today. “Oh I guess they want to define the Immaculate Conception. Sounds good, here you go!” There was immense divisive theological controversy regarding the doctrine, there was a growing popular dissent from the authority of the Pope to issue doctrinal pronouncements, there was a need for developing the popular piety of the people, and the decision to promulgate the doctrine was a way of bringing all this into orthodox focus while at the same time leading to a deeper devotion to Mary for the benefit of the Church.

One of the points I’m trying to make is that all of the reasons behind the Marian doctrines, while valid, could have been addressed more directly.

And they were. But you are looking at things from a perspective that sees the broad swing of history and identifies the most decisive points: if people were doubting papal authority, they should have promulgated something about papal authority, right? But although we see that historical reality as pretty cut-and-dry right now, when you’re in the middle of the development of an idea (or the development of dissent, in this case), various threads get jumbled around and mixed up with one another. You have theologians who are doubting papal authority and using the controversy of Marian theology as a wedge issue to play to party prejudices. “Well you Dominicans shouldn’t have to follow the authority of this Franciscan pope. When he was in college, he defended the Immaculate Conception!” When you’re in the middle of various controversies things become very complicated. They aren’t cut-and-dry the way we see them from our later perspective. Today people are denying the existence of God, and this comes out in the way they deal with issues such as same-sex “marriage” and abortion. Technically, the issues are almost completely unrelated, and an atheist can be perfectly pro-life and pro-marriage. But if the USCCB issues a document defending marriage, someone in later years might say they missed the point: they should have talked about the existence of God, since that’s what drives the secularists and their redefinition of society. Well, that may be true, but marriage was one strand of that overall confusion surrounding God and His role in society, and so defending marriage is part and parcel of defending God. That’s how it was then, except with Mary’s Immaculate Conception and the authority of the Pope instead of marriage and the existence of God. The issues seem unrelated, but in the mix of ideas they get connected.

You mentioned that the Church did not foresee the divisions caused by these dogmas. Isn’t that exactly why John Paul II would not dogmatize Mary as Co-Redemptrix?

I don’t think so, no. I think it’s because Catholics are not even there yet. They wouldn’t know what to do with a definition of Mary when they are in the middle of a heresy about secularism and moral relativism.

Also, if these dogmas were created as a result of God’s leading of the magisterium, are we saying that the division took God by surprise as well? Or has God changed His mind about the importance of Christian unity?

The division didn’t take God by surprise, but it happened in a historical context and God dealt with it in its time. It’s the same reason He waited 2500 years after Moses before He sent His Son to issue a new Covenant. “Why not just institute the perfect Covenant right away? Why even deal with an imperfect one like the Mosaic covenant?” Because God walks with people and knows how they will develop and deals with everything in its proper time.

To be honest I have a hard time believing that the popes did not think that the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption would not bring further division. These are smart men.

The Popes might have anticipated some reaction by the Dominicans when they defined that they had been wrong about the Immaculate Conception. But we can praise the Dominicans for being more submissive to the Pope than they were to their own more ancient theologians. The result was unity – the exact thing that’s supposed to happen when the Church defines a dogma. Can you name a group that split from the Church over the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption? I don’t think those doctrines caused any disunity at all – but even if they did, that would have been the fault of those who fell away, and not of the Popes. You might as well say they should never have defined Monophysicism to be a heresy, since those who leaned Monophysite split from the Church over the issue. After all, it’s unity over everything else, right? No, it’s unity in truth. Truth is a more important virtue than a false unity built on error.

 

[garysibio]

Boy, that’s a bold statement! You’re saying that The Roman Catholic Church, the Church founded by Jesus Christ should admit its mistake (in your view) and make changes for the sake of the other denominations that made THE mistake to split from One True Church?

This is just never going to happen. Nor should it! Realize, that there will always be voices calling for the Church to change… as if its some sort of democratic institution. But I never get too worked up over these cries of desperation. I always come back to the reassuring words of Our Savior who proclaimed: ***“And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” Matthew 16:18 ***

Saints like Thomas Aquinas and Catherine of Sienna denied the Immaculate Conception. The latter said that Mary herself appeared to her in a vision and said it was not true. They’ve only been dogmas for a little over 150 years in the case of the Immaculate Conception yet amazingly the Church soldiered on. I’m not suggesting anything be denied, just the punishment for rejecting it as has been done before.

 

[garysibio]

To clarify, I never said that the average Catholic didn’t care about whether or not the Immaculate Conception was true; I said they didn’t care if the Franciscans and the Dominicans argued about it.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

There are plenty of threads discussing whether or not the doctrines are true. I want to know why they are considered important enough that the Church is willing to sacrifice the unity of the body of Christ for their sake.

Gary I am not discussing whether they ae true or not.
I am challenging the unlikely assertion that noone heard anything about it in the first 300 years of the Church.

I understand this is not what you personally initiated fo discussion. Unfortunately threads often take on a life of their own with parallel conversations. Important side-comments that are not entirely up with the play cannot be left unchallenged even if off-topic. Thanks.