Questions Concerning the Marian Doctrines

[bzkoss236]

Gary, would you sacrifice Truth for the sake of unity, or would you sacrifice unity for the sake of Truth?

Jesus said that families would be divided because of him, and he is Truth.

By siding on the side of Truth, you bring yourself closer to Jesus, and by seeking after Truth, you seek after Jesus.

Truth and the acceptance of it has its price.

 

[garysibio]

Gary, would you sacrifice Truth for the sake of unity, or would you sacrifice unity for the sake of Truth?

Jesus said that families would be divided because of him, and he is Truth.

By siding on the side of Truth, you bring yourself closer to Jesus, and by seeking after Truth, you seek after Jesus.

Truth and the acceptance of it has its price.

One more time… I’m not suggesting we change any beliefs, only that we do not excommunicate people who have issues with them. This can happen, it’s happened before. A pope in the 16th century decided that those who used birth control should be excommunicated. This was undone by another pope.

While truth is truth no matter what anyone thinks, some truths are more important than others and the Marian dogmas are not that important. The truths about Jesus they impart could easily be stated without couching them in Marian language. It is more important that the various Christian bodies reconcile than we excommunicated people who have a problem with the Immaculate Conception.

 

[nicolakirwan]

To speak of not sacrificing truth for unity reminds me of the Orthodox arguments against Catholicism. Does the Spirit proceed from the Father or the Father and the Son? Of course there is a truth there, but when all stand before the judgment seat of Christ to give an account for their lives, is He going to quiz us on such matters?

Did anyone who approached Him in faith have to dot all their Ts and cross all their Is just right in order to be accepted by Him? Or did they simply need to believe on Him and obey His word?

How much time and energy Christians have spent alienating one another over things that, whether believed or not, will have no impact on one’s relationship to Christ!

 

[garysibio]

To speak of not sacrificing truth for unity reminds me of the Orthodox arguments against Catholicism. Does the Spirit proceed from the Father or the Father and the Son? Of course there is a truth there, but when all stand before the judgment seat of Christ to give an account for their lives, is He going to quiz us on such matters?

Did anyone who approached Him in faith have to dot all their Ts and cross all their Is just right in order to be accepted by Him? Or did they simply need to believe on Him and obey His word?

How much time and energy Christians have spent alienating one another over things that, whether believed or not, will have no impact on one’s relationship to Christ!

The world is circling the toilet and Jesus is the only solution yet the ones who are supposed to be proclaiming Him are too busy arguing over esoteric points of theology. This is not what Jesus wanted.

 

[davidv]

One more time… I’m not suggesting we change any beliefs, only that we do not excommunicate people who have issues with them. This can happen, it’s happened before. A pope in the 16th century decided that those who used birth control should be excommunicated. This was undone by another pope.

While truth is truth no matter what anyone thinks, some truths are more important than others and the Marian dogmas are not that important. The truths about Jesus they impart could easily be stated without couching them in Marian language. It is more important that the various Christian bodies reconcile than we excommunicated people who have a problem with the Immaculate Conception.

On what basis can you dare to make the bolded assert above. This seems to be the hight of arrogance. On what rational basis can you declare a definitive dogma as “not that important”?

 

[JM3]

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 problem I see here is an incomplete understanding of history. The fact that saints and doctors of the Church differed on the Immaculate Conception is because of their limited medical knowledge. It was thought, at the time, that ensoulment happened sometime after conception and this was the reason why many could not reconcile what they thought to be true with the Immaculate Conception. With the Dogma, the Church put to rest the arguments by stating that ensoulment happens at the moment of conception (this is just one aspect of the dogma).

I would suggest you read “The Mystery of Mary” by Paul Haffner. You will discover that Mary and Jesus are linked in many ways. To diminish one is to diminish the other.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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.

OK, now I better understand where you are coming from.
It does sound like you are saying that your main concern is not the doctrine’s themselves but less than astute “political timing” on the part of the See of Peter in proclaiming them?
The value you see endangered is Catholic unity.

Yes that is a coherent position.
But in the end dosn’t this position only carry greatest weight with those who disagree with the teaching in question - it doesn’t get to the heart of the matter of why such persons disagree. Don’t you need to dig deeper?

Clearly there are values more important that total unity in Christianity. It appears that more than half of Jesus’s disciples left him when he gave his Eucharistic teaching. And when his closest disciples remonstrated with him, as you do now, Jesus repeated that teaching in even more unpalatable fashion to them.

I suppose the bottom line is, if “the boss” says something is important then it is important. Loving hearts will follow, those who stand on their own personal “wisdom” will not. Christians can expect to have their hearts/minds purified in this manner.

As Jesus basically said at the end of John’s Gospel … don’t worry about how I treat othe people, that is none of your business, Just do what I ask of you.

On another tack.
The Creed, the Catechism, even the NT. Can not all these be seen as instruments of dis-unity also if people will not bow their heads? What is the purpose of Peter’s teaching mandate if it can only be exercised when everybody agrees anyway?

Saying that a particular dogmatically defined teaching is “unimportant” may be just another way for us not wanting to take the narrow, hard path. We all know following Jesus shouldn’t be easy - he told us so.

Maybe the hard path for you at the moment is to come to terms with the fact that these doctrines are important even if you cannot see it. We all have our blindspots … yet the whole point of “faith” is that it is “faith” not vision. Loyal hearts keep walking the same old path whether through daylight, mist or nighttime.

 

[brb3]

Eve came from Adam’s side/rib…
The CHURCH came from Christ’s spear-pierced side.

THE CHURCH is the New Eve …the Bride of Christ. Mary, as Mother of Jesus, Most-Blessed of women, plays a key role serving Christ & the CHURCH Militant. She is also viewed by some as the NECK of the CHURCH Body …although didn’t Paul teach that the hand is as necessary as the foot, the eye as the ear, etc ?

Thus, I think some Protestants naturally will be ‘put off’ by perceived Catholic over-emphasis on Mary as the ONE, ‘essential’ Saint. Rightly or wrongly, they view her as non-essential to their Salvation. Many won’t even agree that she is the New Ark.

But, we can’t change our doctrines to please them. If the CHURCH ever backs away from her major Doctrines …then she is compromised, no longer infallible.

 

[JM3]

the Marian dogmas are not that important.

The Mystery of Mary, p. 121

The fundamental reason for the importance of the doctrine of the Theotokos is that the Christological doctrines rest upon it. The dogma of Mary’s divine motherhood was for the Council of Ephesus and is for the Church like a confirmation of the dogma of the Incarnation, in which the Word truly assumes human nature into the unity if His person, without cancelling out that nature.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031987_redemptoris-mater_en.html

1. The Second Vatican Council prepares us for this by presenting in its teaching the Mother of God in the mystery of Christ and of the Church. If it is true, as the Council itself proclaims,8 that “only in the mystery of the Incarnate Word does the mystery of man take on light,” then this principle must be applied in a very particular way to that exceptional “daughter of the human race,” that extraordinary “woman” who became the Mother of Christ. Only in the mystery of Christ is her mystery fully made clear. Thus has the Church sought to interpret it from the very beginning: the mystery of the Incarnation has enabled her to penetrate and to make ever clearer the mystery of the Mother of the Incarnate Word. The Council of Ephesus (431) was of decisive importance in clarifying this, for during that Council, to the great joy of Christians, the truth of the divine motherhood of Mary was solemnly confirmed as a truth of the Church’s faith. Mary is the Mother of God (= Theotókos), since by the power of the Holy Spirit she conceived in her virginal womb and brought into the world Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who is of one being with the Father.9 "The Son of God…born of the Virgin Mary…has truly been made one of us,"10 has been made man. Thus, through the mystery of Christ, on the horizon of the Church’s faith there shines in its fullness the mystery of his Mother. In turn, the dogma of the divine motherhood of Mary was for the Council of Ephesus and is for the Church like a seal upon the dogma of the Incarnation, in which the Word truly assumes human nature into the unity of his person, without cancelling out that nature.

 

[Mark121359]

While truth is truth no matter what anyone thinks, some truths are more important than others .and the Marian dogmas are not that important

Huh? Says who?..You?..Oh boy.

 

[Mark121359]

On what basis can you dare to make the bolded assert above. This seems to be the hight of arrogance. On what rational basis can you declare a definitive dogma as “not that important”?

Scary!..Isn’t it?

 

[nicolakirwan]

What is the “end” of doctrine? “End” meaning its purpose? What does someone need to do to be pleasing to God? Is it to “understand all mysteries and all knowledge” or is it to have faith, hope and love? To obey Christ?

The Marian dogmas do not contradict this, and Mary’s example encourages it, but one can certainly do good works, loving God and neighbor, without, say, knowing anything about the Assumption or the Immaculate Conception. So to draw a line in the sand between oneself and another Christian over whether or not Mary was taken into heaven has the effect of centering our faith around beliefs that are actually not central to our acceptance before God. (If they were central to it, then believers before those dogmas were decreed would have needed to know it as well).

And that seems to be more the trouble with the progressive nature of the dogmas. It often serves the purpose of drawing increasingly smaller circles that exclude anyone who cannot/will not assent to this concept that, before the proclamation, was not deemed necessary to believe.

For instance, looking forward, what would happen should the Church decide on the title Co-Redemptrix? Don’t we already know (and Pope Benedict has affirmed) that such would cause immense troubles within Catholicism and Christendom generally? But notice that the question of the prudence of making such a declaration is a separate question from whether or not it is true. And Pope Benedict is sensitive to that. So it’s not that the Church should change it’s beliefs for the sake of unity, its whether everything that is true needs to be made a basis for full communion.

(And I do not mean to imply that I believe in the title “Co-Redemptrix” for Mary)

 

[mark_a]

It is more important that the various Christian bodies reconcile than we excommunicated people who have a problem with the Immaculate Conception.

But we’re not talking about just the IC. Your list included:

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

Mary as Mother of God comes from an early council.

 

[dmar198]

If they were central to it, then believers before those dogmas were decreed would have needed to know it as well.

Then what about the Trinity, which was only made dogma after the Council of Nicaea? What about the hypostatic union, which was only made dogma at the Council of Ephesus? Should we determine that these things weren’t central because those who believed before them didn’t fully understand them? Your comment shows that you do not fully understand the concept of doctrinal development. Our Church has always understood that the faith develops in such a way that the number of articles of faith grows over time even though the faith remains the same. This is because what was once contained implicitly in the belief of the ancient fathers is unfolded over time as the faithful ponder its mysteries. It does not mean that the later articles are less central than the more ancient articles – it only means they were not yet fully explicated.

What is the “end” of doctrine? “End” meaning its purpose? What does someone need to do to be pleasing to God? Is it to “understand all mysteries and all knowledge” or is it to have faith, hope and love? To obey Christ?

It is interesting that you would say this as evidence against being dogmatic about Mary, because in reality you’re making our point for us. Your job is not necessarily to understand why the Marian doctrines are central to our faith, or to question it and probe to find out the reasons. Your first job is to have faith, hope and love, and obey Christ and the Church on this matter. Only with that as a foundation should you go looking into the mysteries of the faith. “Faith seeking understanding” – that’s the Catholic way. So you should accept that the Marian doctrines are central to our faith, even if you don’t yet see why, and from that perspective you should try to look into the reasons why and share what you find. Not shoot holes in it and say it cannot be, simply because you think the early fathers didn’t explicitly name these things under the articles of faith.

 

[garysibio]

Huh? Says who?..You?..Oh boy.

Conversely, who says they are important? You? So what?

 

[brb3]

This new 150 ft statue of Mary in Ecuador bothers me …now she is competing against Christ’s statue in Rio.
South America seems to over-emphasize Mary …IMO.

 

[garysibio]

This new 150 ft statue of Mary in Ecuador bothers me …now she is competing against Christ’s statue in Rio.
South America seems to over-emphasize Mary …IMO.

I hadn’t heard about this particular statue and its builders may not be wanting to over-emphasize Mary (I can’t read their minds) but it certainly does make it look to non-Catholics that we think Mary is more important than Jesus. We need to be careful about this.

 

[Mark121359]

Conversely, who says they are important? You? So what?

No not me, the Catholic Church does! Something that you appear to know very little about.

 

[garysibio]

No not me, the Catholic Church does! Something that you appear to know very little about.

Since you’ve decided to start making personal attacks I’ll be adding you to my ignore list. Life is too short to spend it dealing with people like you.

 

[Mark121359]

Since you’ve decided to start making personal attacks I’ll be adding you to my ignore list. Life is too short to spend it dealing with people like you.

I’m sorry you see it as a personal attack. But when you make a statement declaring that " Marian Dogmas aren’t important"…What would you expect Catholics who embrace all of Church teachings to respond with. You see, I don’t approach Catholic Church teachings like I’m in a supermarket. Yeah, I’ll have a little of this and a little of that. But I don’t care much for this and that. I embrace all the truths the CCC teaches… and that includes all of the teachings on Mary. So if you want to put me on the ignore list for that, then Amen, so be it! Have at it.