Questions Concerning the Marian Doctrines

[Mark121359]

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.

Yet she confirmed it to St. Catherine Laboure and St. Bernadette!

 

[mark_a]

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.

My understanding of Catholic dogma is that it may not be necessarily well studied and understood by the average faithful, but that it must not be denied.

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

I know of no hierarchy of dogmas. Generally speaking, dogmas arise out of denial of certain beliefs by the faithful.

I would suggest you listen to Scott Hahn’s talks about Mary. Perhaps the scriptural and typological basis of his “discovery” of these dogmas and the ECF sources of Catholic belief will be more effective than arguments from a Joe Twelvepack like me.

I also find Dr. Billy Graham’s statement that as a reaction to Catholics, Protestants pay far too little attention to Mary to be very interesting.

And how would a Catholic shame of Mary be viewed by the Orthodox?

 

[garysibio]

Yet she confirmed it to St. Catherine Laboure and St. Bernadette!

A battle of the saints.

 

[garysibio]

My understanding of Catholic dogma is that it may not be necessarily well studied and understood by the average faithful, but that it must not be denied.

I know of no hierarchy of dogmas. Generally speaking, dogmas arise out of denial of certain beliefs by the faithful.

I would suggest you listen to Scott Hahn’s talks about Mary. Perhaps the scriptural and typological basis of his “discovery” of these dogmas and the ECF sources of Catholic belief will be more effective than arguments from a Joe Twelvepack like me.

I also find Dr. Billy Graham’s statement that as a reaction to Catholics, Protestants pay far too little attention to Mary to be very interesting.

And how would a Catholic shame of Mary be viewed by the Orthodox?

Where in the world do you get the idea that I am talking about ignoring Mary?

By hierarchy of dogmas I mean that some our more relevant to our salvation than others. For example, it’s more important to know that Jesus is the Son of God who died and rose again than it is to believe that Mary is in Heaven body and soul. It’s not a matter of one truth being more or less true than another. A simple statement (one proposition) can either be true or false but one truth can be more important than another.

 

[mark_a]

Where in the world do you get the idea that I am talking about ignoring Mary?

My bad. “Ignoring” was a poor choice of words.

By hierarchy of dogmas I mean that some our more relevant to our salvation than others. For example, it’s more important to know that Jesus is the Son of God who died and rose again than it is to believe that Mary is in Heaven body and soul. It’s not a matter of one truth being more or less true than another. A simple statement (one proposition) can either be true or false but one truth can be more important than another.

This whole argument reminds me of of recent statements by Republicans that we must make concessions on abortion in order to be more electable. Protestants who despise Mary or Jews that claim Jesus is a product of rape should stay in their respective belief systems.

John, who saw himself as symbolic of Christians, knows Jesus gave his Mother to all of us.

 

[garysibio]

My bad. “Ignoring” was a poor choice of words.

This whole argument reminds me of of recent statements by Republicans that we must make concessions on abortion in order to be more electable. Protestants who despise Mary or Jews that claim Jesus is a product of rape should stay in their respective belief systems.

John, who saw himself as symbolic of Christians, knows Jesus gave his Mother to all of us.

Then why did Sts. Thomas Aquinas and Catherine of Sienna, both Doctors of the Church, deny the Immaculate Conception. (I believe St. Bernard of Clairvaux was another Doctor who denied it but I’m not certain.) If they are so important, why did the Church wait so long to tell us?

Your abortion comparison is not valid. The prolife position is fundamental to conservatism. We are talking about doctrines which no one has shown to be anything but peripheral.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Then why did Sts. Thomas Aquinas and Catherine of Sienna, both Doctors of the Church, deny the Immaculate Conception. (I believe St. Bernard of Clairvaux was another Doctor who denied it but I’m not certain.) If they are so important, why did the Church wait so long to tell us?

Your abortion comparison is not valid. The prolife position is fundamental to conservatism. We are talking about doctrines which no one has shown to be anything but peripheral.

GS I don’t understand why you seem to assume that important things are only those that are trumpeted and cut into stone by authority?

When my mother passed away us children shared out the five rings dad had gifted her over their lifetime together. I was very happy to be left with her comparatively cheap and simple band - one of the oldest. My sisters went for the expensive “rocks” dad gave her in later years when he had more money.

Illogical, unimportant, peripheral? Not really. I always remembered her hands nursing me when was a child and this ring is imprinted in those memories of her.

Clearly in the Church, like my sisters, like life in general, there are things not everybody understands or appreciates for a variety of reasons even in the same family.

“The Church” only tends to make an “official” song and dance about such things when they are in danger of being maligned or misunderstood or de-valued.

It sounds like you may be in the latter camp? If so, trying to ignore them as optional beliefs looks like a dead-end re trying to come to terms with the illogical emotion we have towards them that seems out of balance with your logical analysis of their “importance.”

Such difficulties may indicate a need for growth in the area of the heart and a turning down of the volume re the head.

 

[mark_a]

Then why did Sts. Thomas Aquinas and Catherine of Sienna, both Doctors of the Church, deny the Immaculate Conception. (I believe St. Bernard of Clairvaux was another Doctor who denied it but I’m not certain.) If they are so important, why did the Church wait so long to tell us?

The Church decides doctrine, not individual doctors of the Church.

The prolife position is fundamental to conservatism.

No. No. Ask McCain and Gingrich.

We are talking about doctrines which no one has shown to be anything but peripheral.

They are not peripheral. Ask any Protestant.

To me, your question boils down to whether or not the Church has the authority it claims to have.

 

[dmar198]

Then why did Sts. Thomas Aquinas and Catherine of Sienna, both Doctors of the Church, deny the Immaculate Conception. (I believe St. Bernard of Clairvaux was another Doctor who denied it but I’m not certain.) If they are so important, why did the Church wait so long to tell us?

Because doctrines become more clear as the Church grows older, and before a thing is declared formally, you sometimes find people lining up on opposite sides in good faith. Nothing is more fundamental than the Trinity, right? Well St. Justin Martyr, in the second century, before the dogma was promulgated, affirmed an understanding of Jesus’ divinity that was incompatible with the dogma of the Trinity. St. Epiphanius of Salamis and Eusebius the great Church historian were opposed to sacred imagery in the ages before the Second Council of Nicaea, where sacred imagery was declared acceptable. If you want to know why doctrine develops, and thus why in some ages a Father or a Doctor might believe something that is later declared heretical, St. Thomas Aquinas talks about the necessity of this in the Summa Theologica. Although the faith never changes, the articles of faith are brought out more clearly in successive ages, and thus before they are brought out most clearly, some people might be found who misunderstood what was not yet fully explained. And this is why St. Thomas himself did not believe in the Immaculate Conception, even though it would later be declared doctrine. As regards the substance of the articles of faith, they have not received any increase as time went on: since whatever those who lived later have believed, was contained, albeit implicitly, in the faith of those Fathers who preceded them. But there was an increase in the number of articles believed explicitly, since to those who lived in later times some were known explicitly which were not known explicitly by those who lived before them.
Source: Summa Theologica, second part of the second part, question 1, article 7c

 

[yellow8yellowM]

…We are talking about doctrines which no one has shown to be anything but peripheral.

Garysibio, could you please list the other peripheral doctrines which disrupt the unity of the Church?

 

[garysibio]

GS I don’t understand why you seem to assume that important things are only those that are trumpeted and cut into stone by authority?

When my mother passed away us children shared out the five rings dad had gifted her over their lifetime together. I was very happy to be left with her comparatively cheap and simple band - one of the oldest. My sisters went for the expensive “rocks” dad gave her in later years when he had more money.

Illogical, unimportant, peripheral? Not really. I always remembered her hands nursing me when was a child and this ring is imprinted in those memories of her.

Clearly in the Church, like my sisters, like life in general, there are things not everybody understands or appreciates for a variety of reasons even in the same family.

“The Church” only tends to make an “official” song and dance about such things when they are in danger of being maligned or misunderstood or de-valued.

It sounds like you may be in the latter camp? If so, trying to ignore them as optional beliefs looks like a dead-end re trying to come to terms with the illogical emotion we have towards them that seems out of balance with your logical analysis of their “importance.”

Such difficulties may indicate a need for growth in the area of the heart and a turning down of the volume re the head.

I’m concerned because the Church’s decision do elevate the Marian beliefs to the status of dogma has contributed to disunity in the body of Christ. As I’ve mentioned several times, Jesus thought unity was important enough to make it a focus of His prayer the night before His crucifixion. It seems to me that the down-side outweighs the up-side.

 

[garysibio]

Garysibio, could you please list the other peripheral doctrines which disrupt the unity of the Church?

I already did. See msg #1.

 

[garysibio]

The Church decides doctrine, not individual doctors of the Church.

No. No. Ask McCain and Gingrich.

They are not peripheral. Ask any Protestant.

To me, your question boils down to whether or not the Church has the authority it claims to have.

No, the question is has it used its authority wisely.

 

[garysibio]

Because doctrines become more clear as the Church grows older, and before a thing is declared formally, you sometimes find people lining up on opposite sides in good faith. Nothing is more fundamental than the Trinity, right? Well St. Justin Martyr, in the second century, before the dogma was promulgated, affirmed an understanding of Jesus’ divinity that was incompatible with the dogma of the Trinity. St. Epiphanius of Salamis and Eusebius the great Church historian were opposed to sacred imagery in the ages before the Second Council of Nicaea, where sacred imagery was declared acceptable. If you want to know why doctrine develops, and thus why in some ages a Father or a Doctor might believe something that is later declared heretical, St. Thomas Aquinas talks about the necessity of this in the Summa Theologica. Although the faith never changes, the articles of faith are brought out more clearly in successive ages, and thus before they are brought out most clearly, some people might be found who misunderstood what was not yet fully explained. And this is why St. Thomas himself did not believe in the Immaculate Conception, even though it would later be declared doctrine. As regards the substance of the articles of faith, they have not received any increase as time went on: since whatever those who lived later have believed, was contained, albeit implicitly, in the faith of those Fathers who preceded them. But there was an increase in the number of articles believed explicitly, since to those who lived in later times some were known explicitly which were not known explicitly by those who lived before them.
Source: Summa Theologica, second part of the second part, question 1, article 7c

Again, I’m not concerned with whether the Marian doctrines are true. I’m saying that it might have been a mistake to make thair acceptance mandatory under pain of excommunication. We got along fine without that for quite some time. The only result of this action has been to bring more disunity to the body of Christ. Also, there are quite a few Catholic teachings which are not dogmas so making the Marian teachings mandatory was not necessary.

 

[nicolakirwan]

This is a difficult question because many Catholics don’t feel at liberty to question such things. The question exists in that space between infallibility and impeccability. Even if the dogma itself is true, does that mean it was prudent to pronounce it? That is the question. Oftentimes I find the tension between infallibility and impeccability to be like a tightrope.

What I tend to think is really the issue regarding unity (or rather, disunity) is the way in which popular forms of piety can end up hijacking the Catechism to the extent that it is assumed that certain expressions of Catholicism are themselves exemplary of healthy Catholic doctrine even though they may not be.

 

[dmar198]

Again, I’m not concerned with whether the Marian doctrines are true. I’m saying that it might have been a mistake to make thair acceptance mandatory under pain of excommunication. We got along fine without that for quite some time. The only result of this action has been to bring more disunity to the body of Christ.

Again, can you name one group that split from the Church over these issues? To me, the Immaculate Conception at least brought observable unity over the difficult factional problem between the Dominicans and the Franciscans. In addition, since these doctrines can actually be demonstrated to be revealed by God, it would be a terrible sin to refrain from proclaiming that, it would be leaving a part of the Word of God out of our proclamation simply out of a desire to preserve unity, and that kind of unity is false unity. God has harsh words for prophets who refuse to proclaim what He has revealed.

Also, there are quite a few Catholic teachings which are not dogmas so making the Marian teachings mandatory was not necessary.

Perhaps there are some things which during this time period are not explicitly understood to be a part of the deposit of faith, but which we will gain further understanding about in the future. In that case it should come as no surprise that they are not declared as such, since the Magisterium doesn’t yet have an explicit formula concerning all the articles of faith, and still awaits that increased understanding which God promises to always bring to His Church. But since it became clear in the 19th century that the Immaculate Conception is definitely a part of the deposit of faith, and in the 20th century that the Assumption is as well, it would be a terrible sin for the Church not to proclaim that. Rather, we must proclaim what God has revealed, in whatever time He has given His Church the full understanding of it.

 

[TimothyH]

Then why did Sts. Thomas Aquinas and Catherine of Sienna, both Doctors of the Church, deny the Immaculate Conception. (I believe St. Bernard of Clairvaux was another Doctor who denied it but I’m not certain.) If they are so important, why did the Church wait so long to tell us?

Your abortion comparison is not valid. The prolife position is fundamental to conservatism. We are talking about doctrines which no one has shown to be anything but peripheral.

St. Thomas was incorrect about the immaculate conception. It’s just that simple.

He taught much truth, but the Church never said that everything the man said was infallible, and does reject his teaching that Mary was not immaculately concieved.

Many don’t like to hear that, and get all bent out of shape, but that is reality. Doctors of the Church like St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Catherine of Siena are many things, but infallible is not one of them.

-Tim-

 

[garysibio]

This is a difficult question because many Catholics don’t feel at liberty to question such things. The question exists in that space between infallibility and impeccability. Even if the dogma itself is true, does that mean it was prudent to pronounce it? That is the question. Oftentimes I find the tension between infallibility and impeccability to be like a tightrope.

What I tend to think is really the issue regarding unity (or rather, disunity) is the way in which popular forms of piety can end up hijacking the Catechism to the extent that it is assumed that certain expressions of Catholicism are themselves exemplary of healthy Catholic doctrine even though they may not be.

Thank you. I was beginning to think I was the only one who thought this.

 

[garysibio]

Again, can you name one group that split from the Church over these issues? To me, the Immaculate Conception at least brought observable unity over the difficult factional problem between the Dominicans and the Franciscans. In addition, since these doctrines can actually be demonstrated to be revealed by God, it would be a terrible sin to refrain from proclaiming that, it would be leaving a part of the Word of God out of our proclamation simply out of a desire to preserve unity, and that kind of unity is false unity. God has harsh words for prophets who refuse to proclaim what He has revealed. Perhaps there are some things which during this time period are not explicitly understood to be a part of the deposit of faith, but which we will gain further understanding about in the future. In that case it should come as no surprise that they are not declared as such, since the Magisterium doesn’t yet have an explicit formula concerning all the articles of faith, and still awaits that increased understanding which God promises to always bring to His Church. But since it became clear in the 19th century that the Immaculate Conception is definitely a part of the deposit of faith, and in the 20th century that the Assumption is as well, it would be a terrible sin for the Church not to proclaim that. Rather, we must proclaim what God has revealed, in whatever time He has given His Church the full understanding of it.

I don’t think I ever said that anyone broke away from the Church over the Marian dogmas but they are interfering with attempts at reconciliation. If you listen to the conversion or reversion stories on “The Journey Home” it is extremely common to hear how the Marian dogmas were a huge stumbling block. I don’t remember for certain but I believe that Scott Hahn had problems with them when he was looking into Catholicism.

 

[garysibio]

St. Thomas was incorrect about the immaculate conception. It’s just that simple.

He taught much truth, but the Church never said that everything the man said was infallible, and does reject his teaching that Mary was not immaculately concieved.

Many don’t like to hear that, and get all bent out of shape, but that is reality. Doctors of the Church like St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Catherine of Siena are many things, but infallible is not one of them.

-Tim-

My point was that today they would be excommunicated, not considered to be Doctors of the Church.