The Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of the Church?

[TriuneUnity]

Most of us are familiar with the Christmas staple Joyful, Joyful, We Adore Thee. Many Christians find it in their hymnals and probably know the words from the third verse, “Thou our Father, Christ our Brother”. This language and imagery of family is quite familiar. Christ Himself taught us to pray to God as “Our Father.” In his letter to the Galatians, Paul tells us we are adopted sons (and daughters) of God, redeemed by His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ. In this way Christ is our Brother for we share the same Father.

Yet this spiritual family is incomplete. I am bold enough to say that there has never been a person born of only a father. If God is our Father and Christ our Brother, who then is our Mother? Or are we some kind of spiritual orphans, or worse yet, spiritual monstrosities who have come into the world and will leave it without a mother?

North American Protestants are for the most part embarrassingly unprepared to answer such a question. In fact, most have probably never given the matter any thought at all. Yet it has not always been this way. The European Lutheran Churches during the Age of Lutheran Orthodoxy (16th and 17th centuries) could quite easily offer not one but TWO answers to this question. Our Mother is the Holy Church, and Our Mother is the Blessed Virgin Mary.

In English we are accustomed to speak of the Church as “it.” This is most unfortunate, for throughout the history of Christendom the Church has always been a “she”. The gender of the Greek word ekklisia is feminine, and Paul himself speaks of the Church as the “bride of Christ”, clearly indicating the Church is a ‘she’.

It is common to hear Roman Catholics speak of “Mother Church.” You might even hear a Lutheran use the phrase, although unfortunately as often in sarcasm as in sincerity. All Lutherans, however, should gladly embrace the language of the Church as Mother. We can find testimony to this understanding in no less a source than the Large Catechism. In the section “Of the Creed”, Luther speaks of the Church as

“the mother that begets and bears every Christian through the Word of God.”

The Church is the mother who begets and bears the Christian because the Church is the site and the means by which the Holy Spirit works in the life of the Christian. The Church with the Holy Spirit begets the Christian, and the Church bears the Christian in his or her growth “to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ.” (Eph. 4:13) The Church is that tender mother who nurtures us, teaches us, guides us, admonishes us, protects us, and most of all, through the sacraments which are her mark, administers to us the forgiveness of sins. As the Large Catechism continues,

“outside of this Christian Church, where the Gospel is not, there is no forgiveness, as also there can be no holiness.”

She does none of these things on her own authority, of course, but only on the authority of God Himself. Jesus Christ has given to her the keys to the kingdom (Matt. 16:19), and He has promised that the gates of hell shall not prevail against her (Matt. 16:18).

While this language of the Church as our Mother may be strange to the ears of a modern Lutheran, it was familiar to the lips of the early Lutherans during the Age of Orthodoxy. None have written more boldly and more succinctly than Johann Gerhard, one of the greatest Lutheran theologians, in his Sacred Meditations:

“No man will have God for his father in heaven who refuses to have the Church for his mother upon the earth.”

 

[TriuneUnity]

While the language of the Church as our Mother may sound vaguely acceptable to the Lutheran, the language of the Virgin Mary as our Mother is harder to swallow. And yet, what more easy conclusion can one draw then that, with Christ as our Brother and God our Father, our mother should therefore be the same mother which bore Christ and the same woman chosen by our Father to bear His Son? Martin Luther wrote that

“Mary is the Mother of Jesus and the Mother of all of us even though it was Christ alone who reposed on her knees . . . If he is ours, we ought to be in his situation; there where he is, we ought also to be and all that he has ought to be ours, and his mother is also our mother.”

Yet what is the contemporary Lutheran’s reaction to this statement? To run in fear from ‘Romanizing ideas’, or to embrace it in joy? If we listen to Luther, we hear that we are not motherless Christians. Rather

“This is the great joy, of which the angel [of the Lord (Luke 2:9-12)] speaks, this is the consolation and the superabundant goodness of God, that man (if he has this faith) may boast of such treasure as that Mary is his real mother, Christ his brother, and God his father. For these things are, all of them, true and they come to pass, provided we believe them.”

Do we Christians have two mothers or one? Just as there is “one God and Father of all” (Eph. 4:6), there is also one mother of the Christian. It is here that we begin to see the similarities between the Church and the Blessed Virgin Mary.

St. Ambrose, the fourth century Bishop of Milan, great opponent of the Arian heresy, and spiritual father of St. Augustine, maintained that “Mary is the type of the Church”. The Commission on Theology and Church Relations of the LCMS describes a type as

“a person, institution, or event which prefigures and foreshadows a new and greater reality (the antitype). The antitype historically and theologically corresponds to, elucidates, fulfills, and eschatologically completes the type. The antitype is no mere repetition of the type but is always greater than its prefigurement.”

Mary as the type of the Church flows from both Mary’s and the Church’s relations of mother, virgin, and bride. In the words of Johann Gerhard,

“The holy Church of God sustains the relations of mother, virgin, bride. She is as a mother because she daily bears spiritual sons to God. She is as a chaste virgin, because she keeps herself pure from all unholy alliances with the devil and the world. She is a bride, because Christ has betrothed her to Himself by an eternal covenant, and has given to her the pledge of the Spirit.”

How can we not see the Blessed Virgin here as well? Mary is the mother of Christ. She is the sole source of Christ’s human nature. She is the Theotokos, the bearer of God, of the Logos who “became flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14), just as the Church is the bearer of the Word of God and “begets and bears every Christian” through that Word.

Mary is the spotless virgin, who not only conceived as a virgin and bore her Son as a virgin, but remained a virgin until her falling asleep in the Lord. In the same way the Church is that virgin sanctified and cleansed by Christ, “that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish.” (Eph. 5:27)

 

[TriuneUnity]

Finally, Mary is the bride of God the Holy Spirit, for together they conceived God’s only Son. Likewise, the Church is the Bride of Christ, so close to him that she is His own flesh and bones whom He loves and for whom He gave himself up (Eph. 5:25, 28-32).

Lutheran hymnals acknowledge the singular place of the Blessed Virgin in the Church in verse 2 of Ye Watchers and Ye Holy Ones. Sadly, you will not find this verse in the butchered version of the hymn now found in Lutheran Worship, but you will find it in both Lutheran Book of Worship #175 and The Lutheran Hymnal #475. There the Church of the Augsburg Confession itself proclaims that the Blessed Virgin, “Thou Bearer of th’eternal Word”, leads the praises of the heavenly host, the “bright seraphs, cherubim and thrones”, the “dominions, princedoms, pow’rs, virtues, archangels, angels’ choirs.”

Moreover, we can say even that Mary is the personification of the Church in two ways. First, the Canticle of Mary, the Magnificat, is at the same time the Song of the Church. What Mary sings, so the Church sings in Vespers and in Evening Prayer, part of her daily office. When we sing

My soul magnifies the Lord
and my spirit rejoices in God, my Savior
for he has regarded the lowliness of his handmaiden.
For behold, from this day all generations will call me blessed.
For he who is mighty has done great things to me,
And holy is his name
. . .
He has remembered his mercy and sustained his servant Israel
as he promised to our fathers, to Abraham and his seed forever.

we sing as the Church, the Bride and Body of Christ who magnifies and rejoices in her Savior. We are the lowly handmaiden who has been chosen, just as Israel was chosen to be “a holy people” and servant of the Lord, sustained by the love of God (“The Lord did not set His love on you nor choose you because you were more in number than any other people, for you were the least of all peoples.” [Deut. 7:7]), and just as the Blessed Virgin Mary was chosen to be the “maidservant of the Lord” (Luke 1:38), regarded in her lowliness, sustained by God through whom nothing is impossible (Luke 1:37).

The Church follows Holy Scripture which itself suggests Mary is the personification of the Church. In Revelation 12, John tells us of “a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a garland of twelve stars.” (Rev. 12:1) The undivided Church considered this to be an allusion to the Virgin Mary. Note that the “woman clothed with the sun” bears and gives birth to a “male Child” whom “a great, fiery red dragon” seeks to consume. This son is “to rule all nations with a rod of iron. And her Child was caught up to God and His throne.” (Rev. 12:5) Luther followed this interpretation of the Church in one of his last hymns, To Me She’s Dear the Worthy Maid. In this hymn Luther sings:

She wears of purest gold a crown
Twelve stars their rays are twining;
Her raiment, glorious as the sun,
And bright from far is shining.
Her feet the moon, Are set upon.
She is the bride, with the Lord to bide.
Sore travail is upon her;
She bringeth forth a noble Son
Whom all the world must honor,
Their King, the only one.

Moreover, this woman is the symbol of the Church. The woman flees from the dragon into “the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God” (Rev. 12:6), “where she is nourished for a time and times and half a time, from the presence of the serpent.” (Rev. 12:14) Yet the dragon continues to pursue her and persecute her, and when he realizes he will not be able to destroy her, he goes out “to make war with the rest of her offspring, who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.” (Rev. 12:17) Is this not the Church who lives in the wilderness, this pilgrim people living off the bread of life provided by God Himself, not manna but now the very flesh and blood of Christ? Is this not the Church persecuted and pursued by the Devil, and yet the Church who will never see the gates of hell prevail against her? Is this not the Church who bears many children and against whom “the devil and all his works and all his ways” (Formula of Baptism) makes war?

 

[TriuneUnity]

What is the use in following St. Ambrose and saying Mary is the type of the Church? Through the Blessed Virgin we Christians come to know the nature of the Church, and as we ourselves are that Body of Christ, we come to know our own corporate identity and the promise of our own corporate future.

Mary, through her canticle, teaches us how to love and honor God. Her example teaches as well that the Church is not to expect power or riches or honor or glory from the world. She teaches that the Church is the bearer of the Word but not the source of the Word. She teaches that the Church is a mother and should raise Christians as any good mother would raise her own children. She teaches that the Church must be bold before Christ and intercede with Him for others (John 2). She teaches that the Church must not expect comfort but persecution, to expect not constant joy but sorrow and suffering as well. As Johann Gerhard writes,

"The Church is our spiritual mother, and yet like Mary, the mother of Christ, she must stand weeping at the cross of the Savior."

Mary is the symbol of the Church, the type. This does not mean that she is simply a sign, pointing the way toward something beyond herself. Instead, she both points toward the reality and at the same time contains that reality itself.

Here we see the importance of the four Marian teachings of her motherhood, her perpetual virginity, her sinlessness, her assumption. If we reject these ancient teachings of the Church, we become completely unable to see Mary as the type of the Church. Then in turn we begin to lose any sense of the nature and eschatological hope of the Church, and of our own corporate nature and identity.

In a way it is somewhat misleading to refer to Mary as ‘Mother of the Church,’ which Pope Paul VI formally declared for Roman Catholics in 1964. Instead, Mary is best thought of as the type of the Church not simply through her motherhood, but also through her identity as both virgin and bride. And being the type of the Church is not the same as saying Mary is a metaphor for the Church, for a metaphor does not contain the essential reality of that which it is describing. Jesus Christ tells (Matt. 13) the kingdom of heaven is like a sower who went out to sow; like a man who sowed good seed in his field, but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat; like a mustard seed which a man took and sowed in his field; like leaven which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal till it was all leavened. But of course the kingdom of heaven is not in fact a sower or a mustard seed or leaven. ‘Mary as the type of the Church’, on the other hand, says instead that Mary and the Church share an objective, a real, relation. Mary and the Church reveal the truth about one another.

CONCLUSION

We can love and honor and venerate the Blessed Virgin Mary while at the same time keep her completely distinct from and infinitely inferior to Christ precisely in understanding her in and through the Church. We know that the Church is the Body of Christ, not the Head. We know the Church is the Bride of Christ, not the groom. We know the Church is the vehicle for the Holy Spirit who sanctifies, and does not herself sanctify. At the same time, one cannot accept the Head and reject the Body. One cannot honor the Bridegroom and reproach the Bride. One cannot love the Father and despise the Mother.

If we retain a right understanding and a right praise of the Church, Our Mother whom we must find first if we are to find Christ!], could it be that we will find the generosity to try to understand the devotion of Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism to the Blessed Virgin? If we can proclaim after Johann Gerhard

"Contemplate, O devout soul, the exalted dignity of the Church, and render due thanks therefor to Almighty God. Great indeed are the benefits which God bestows upon us in and through the Church."

Can we perhaps also be moved to look upon those Roman Catholics who advance the conception of Mary as the ‘mediatrix of all graces’ with Christian charity? In my humble opinion, a Roman Catholic dogmatic declaration of the Blessed Virgin as Co-Mediatrix can only inflict more harm upon the Body of Christ, much as the unilateral papal declarations regarding her immaculate conception and her assumption have done. It has not been only the Protestants who have cursed the Church with schism! At the same time, it is imperative upon Lutherans to engage this pious opinion with the greatest charity, to assume the best intentions of our brothers and sisters in Christ.

It must always be clear, of course, that for a Lutheran, Mary Mother of the Church is at most a pious opinion, never to be imposed. We are free to hold it so long as that piety does not produce heretical conclusions or binding dogma. At the same time, let every Lutheran speak of his and her “Holy Mother Church” boldly, outside of whom there is no forgiveness of sins, no holiness, no sanctification, no truth, no salvation, no Christ.

 

[bnbkaine]

I guess I don’t understand why I can’t love Mary and Jesus; why the veneration of Mary somehow precludes the worship of Jesus. Perhaps that is not the thesis of your posts, but I am not going to give up my mom any more than Jesus did.

 

[cruisin]

Triune

How can the church be a mother and a bride at the same time?

If the church is here to teach us, what purpose does the Holy Spirit have for the Christian today?

maybe you have already answered this, but I am still muddleing thru 4 posts!!

I am not trying to take one side or the other here. Just asking what I beleive are some legitmate questions that have been raised in my mind.

 

[Non_Serviam]

It must always be clear, of course, that for a Lutheran, Mary Mother of the Church is at most a pious opinion, never to be imposed. We are free to hold it so long as that piety does not produce heretical conclusions or binding dogma. At the same time, let every Lutheran speak of his and her “Holy Mother Church” boldly, outside of whom there is no forgiveness of sins, no holiness, no sanctification, no truth, no salvation, no Christ.

Hi Triune,

You had my jaw clenched until this paragraph-it might have been better at the start of the thread. With this “limit” in place I can affirm value in most all of what you’ve written here. It seems that often in Catholicism that analogies and symbolism end up being treated as ontological realities. Mary is the mother of Jesus. She isn’t my mother in the same sense.

For those who are itching to dispute that point with me, consider this: If you claim that Mary is your mother in the same way, then the bridegroom and the bride have the same mother (cue: “duelling banjos”) Or if Mary “is” the church, then Jesus married his mother. And so on.

The Apostles and ECF’s who proposed such analogies of faith did so to help us understand certain aspect of the faith-Paul speaking of us as the body of Chirst in Corinthians to emphasive on aspect of the truth of our relationship to Christ and as the bride of Christ in Ephesians to emphasize another aspect-treating them as “realities” and trying to conflate them leads to Jesus marrying His own body. (In theory, it would also mean we could gnaw on each other at church if the Eucharist was absent for some reason).

Likewise, with Mary, you’ve well-stated that she is an image of the church, her qualities mirror those of the church and her motherly qualities and love certainly do extend to all those whom are loved by her Son. As such she makes a wonderful subject for contemplation and to cultivate similar temperments and qualities.

As you’ve wisely said, this attention must not go into the realm of harmful innovation or dogmatic assertion. Marian dogmas were not a primary part of the Apostolic kerygma, and while a healthy recognition of her role in salvation and the church were passed on to those who believed, along with other important secondary instruction, this came after their foundation in the Gospel of Christ and knowledge of God. To maintain this same balance today should be the goal of all who follow Christ.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Triune

How can the church be a mother and a bride at the same time?

The Church is the bride of Christ; not ours.

If the church is here to teach us, what purpose does the Holy Spirit have for the Christian today?

The Spirit works through the Church, in word and sacrament.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Hi Triune,

You had my jaw clenched until this paragraph-it might have been better at the start of the thread. With this “limit” in place I can affirm value in most all of what you’ve written here. It seems that often in Catholicism that analogies and symbolism end up being treated as ontological realities. Mary is the mother of Jesus. She isn’t my mother in the same sense.

For those who are itching to dispute that point with me, consider this: If you claim that Mary is your mother in the same way, then the bridegroom and the bride have the same mother (cue: “duelling banjos”) Or if Mary “is” the church, then Jesus married his mother. And so on.

The Apostles and ECF’s who proposed such analogies of faith did so to help us understand certain aspect of the faith-Paul speaking of us as the body of Chirst in Corinthians to emphasive on aspect of the truth of our relationship to Christ and as the bride of Christ in Ephesians to emphasize another aspect-treating them as “realities” and trying to conflate them leads to Jesus marrying His own body. (In theory, it would also mean we could gnaw on each other at church if the Eucharist was absent for some reason).

Likewise, with Mary, you’ve well-stated that she is an image of the church, her qualities mirror those of the church and her motherly qualities and love certainly do extend to all those whom are loved by her Son. As such she makes a wonderful subject for contemplation and to cultivate similar temperments and qualities.

As you’ve wisely said, this attention must not go into the realm of harmful innovation or dogmatic assertion. Marian dogmas were not a primary part of the Apostolic kerygma, and while a healthy recognition of her role in salvation and the church were passed on to those who believed, along with other important secondary instruction, this came after their foundation in the Gospel of Christ and knowledge of God. To maintain this same balance today should be the goal of all who follow Christ.

All very good points, brother. Of course, to claim they are ontological realities would be extravagante. I am not sure, however, that the antitypology is only that and nothing more. Perhaps it would have been easier for Protestants to take if it had been placed at the beginning of the post, to differentiate from the more typical Catholic view. I am not sure, though, that it would matter. Most are so opposed to the idea of any exalted place for Mary that simply breathing one of her virtues is cause for inquisition lol

 

[Non_Serviam]

All very good points, brother. Of course, to claim they are ontological realities would be extravagante. I am not sure, however, that the antitypology is only that and nothing more. Perhaps it would have been easier for Protestants to take if it had been placed at the beginning of the post, to differentiate from the more typical Catholic view. I am not sure, though, that it would matter. Most are so opposed to the idea of any exalted place for Mary that simply breathing one of her virtues is cause for inquisition lol

We agree far too much, Triune-you didn’t even force me to cite “I’m My Own Grandpa” in defense of my thesis.

Touché, the point about Protestants understanding better-I agree that reflection beyond that of antitype may prove fruitful, within the boundaries we’ve delimited. That’s why limiting dogma to Scriptural revelation is so freeing-you can speculate and meditate on ideas for insight without worrying that someone might one day found a contemplative order on them.

 

[hansard]

I’ve never understood why the church needs a mother. It’s an earthly organisation established by Christ to do his work; it doesn’t need a mother any more than any other organisation established for a specific purpose.

 

[TriuneUnity]

We agree far too much, Triune-you didn’t even force me to cite “I’m My Own Grandpa” in defense of my thesis.

Touché, the point about Protestants understanding better-I agree that reflection beyond that of antitype may prove fruitful, within the boundaries we’ve delimited. That’s why limiting dogma to Scriptural revelation is so freeing-you can speculate and meditate on ideas for insight without worrying that someone might one day found a contemplative order on them.

Very true. It is a shame that pious opinions cannot be kept such. Theotokos I would consider to be revealed doctrine, other than that, yes… In Christian freedom, we can be bound to the Scriptures and keep the rest as opinion. It also means, though, that in Christian freedom we can follow such pious opinions if it builds us up in the faith.

Of the four Marian doctrines, the Theotokos and semper virgo help my faith greatly because of the way they exalt the greatness of our Savior and His plan of redemption involving so lowly a vessel of His grace.

 

[Non_Serviam]

Very true. It is a shame that pious opinions cannot be kept such. Theotokos I would consider to be revealed doctrine, other than that, yes… In Christian freedom, we can be bound to the Scriptures and keep the rest as opinion. It also means, though, that in Christian freedom we can follow such pious opinions if it builds us up in the faith.

Of the four Marian doctrines, the Theotokos and semper virgo help my faith greatly because of the way they exalt the greatness of our Savior and His plan of redemption involving so lowly a vessel of His grace.

Agreed. On the point of Theotokos, I must say that I wish they’d not made it a title and instead simply accepted the doctrine as fact as the recognition of that first title has paved the way for the subsequent litany of Marian titles. I am much more comfortable with the idea of Mary as participant with Jesus in the plan of Redemption than I am with the title Co-Redmptrix and all the possible misunderstanding that will likely follow it. (Mediatrix of all graces is a whole other story )

I would also not break fellowship with someone who entertained the possibility that Mary did not remain a virgin after the birth of Jesus. There is enough ambiguity in the Scripture and early Fathers to lead some to that conclusion, and it is her pre-birth virginity that fulfilled prophecy and was noted in the Gospels.

 

[cruisin]

The Church is the bride of Christ; not ours. .

And the chruch is made of believers. so we are both mother and bride?

QUOTE=TriuneUnity;6639998]The Spirit works through the Church, in word and sacrament.

So you beleive that the only way a believer has access to the spirit is through the authoritative figures over the church? the believer then does not have one on one ( direct) access to the spirit? and then that really means I do not have direct access to God?

The spirit only lives in those chosen to lead authoritatively or does it live in all believers?

How do you define church as was used in the new testement?

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

…Can we perhaps also be moved to look upon those Roman Catholics who advance the conception of Mary as the ‘mediatrix of all graces’ with Christian charity? In my humble opinion, a Roman Catholic dogmatic declaration of the Blessed Virgin as Co-Mediatrix can only inflict more harm upon the Body of Christ, much as the unilateral papal declarations regarding her immaculate conception and her assumption have done…

As of a few years ago, I held a similar opinion to yours in that declaring Mary as Mediatrix of all Graces as potentially causing more harm than good. However, as I have grown to know my Lady better with each passing day, I am not opposed to such a declaration if it so pleases God to move the Catholic Church in that direction.

TriuneUnity:

…We are free to hold it so long as that piety does not produce heretical conclusions or binding dogma…

If the danger of heretical teaching reaches a grave potential, a magisterial declaration may become necessary. I don’t know if we have reached that point with the declaration of Mary as Mediatrix, but as I have studied and prayed on other proclamations of the Catholic Church, the timing of the declaration of Mary’s Immaculate Conception has been one that I personally am glad the Church, moved by the Holy Spirit, made along with the timing with which it was made.

 

[JonNC]

QUOTE=TriuneUnity;6639998]The Spirit works through the Church, in word and sacrament.

cruisin;6640293]

So you beleive that the only way a believer has access to the spirit is through the authoritative figures over the church? the believer then does not have one on one ( direct) access to the spirit? and then that really means I do not have direct access to God?

The only way one has a desire to “access” faith is by grace - the hearing of the word and reception of the sacraments. Christ established His Church to do just that _ preach the word and administer the sacraments. It is in the Church that the believer is absolved of sin, and strengthened in faith.
Does that mean the Spirit cannot guide a believer outside the Church? I suppose the Holy Spirit can do whatever He wishes, but the means of grace are readily available in His Church.

The spirit only lives in those chosen to lead authoritatively or does it live in all believers?

All believers, and the means of His grace are found in His Church.

Jon

 

[TriuneUnity]

And the chruch is made of believers. so we are both mother and bride?

QUOTE=TriuneUnity;6639998]The Spirit works through the Church, in word and sacrament.

So you beleive that the only way a believer has access to the spirit is through the authoritative figures over the church? the believer then does not have one on one ( direct) access to the spirit? and then that really means I do not have direct access to God?

The spirit only lives in those chosen to lead authoritatively or does it live in all believers?

How do you define church as was used in the new testement?

The Holy Spirit dwells in, gifts, and sanctifies all believers in the Church. It is not the authority of the Church hierarchy that does this. The ministers are passive means by which the Spirit works. We have direct one on one access to the Triune God; but that Triune God meets us in His gospel and in His sacraments. My personal piety, prayer life, etc, is not a means of grace.

 

[TriuneUnity]

As of a few years ago, I held a similar opinion to yours in that declaring Mary as Mediatrix of all Graces as potentially causing more harm than good. However, as I have grown to know my Lady better with each passing day, I am not opposed to such a declaration if it so pleases God to move the Catholic Church in that direction.

If the danger of heretical teaching reaches a grave potential, a magisterial declaration may become necessary. I don’t know if we have reached that point with the declaration of Mary as Mediatrix, but as I have studied and prayed on other proclamations of the Catholic Church, the timing of the declaration of Mary’s Immaculate Conception has been one that I personally am glad the Church, moved by the Holy Spirit, made along with the timing with which it was made.

I am opposed to it only inasmuch as I do not believe that God has directly revealed any of those teachings as dogma through the writings of His apostles. The problem then, is the teaching binding believers to it. As such, I don’t believe that such unilateral declarations of de fide revelation are appropriate. If the Church wishes to offer it as opinion, speculation, or as good and holy tradition, I am fine with it.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

I am opposed to it only inasmuch as I do not believe that God has directly revealed any of those teachings as dogma through the writings of His apostles.

The Truths about Mary were always there from the beginning, it wasn’t time to declare such teachings until a latter period in the life of the Church.

TriuneUnity:

The problem then, is the teaching binding believers to it. As such, I don’t believe that such unilateral declarations of de fide revelation are appropriate.

They would be appropriate if the lack of declaration could mislead the faithful to false teaching regarding Jesus Christ.

TriuneUnity:

If the Church wishes to offer it as opinion, speculation, or as good and holy tradition, I am fine with it.

It appears you disagree moreso with the Catholic Church’s certainty regarding Marian doctrines than with the doctrines themselves.

 

[TriuneUnity]

The Truths about Mary were always there from the beginning, it wasn’t time to declare such teachings until a latter period in the life of the Church.

Theotokos and Ever-Virgin are primitive teachings. The other two, not so much. To argue that they are is an argument from silence.

They would be appropriate if the lack of declaration could mislead the faithful to false teaching regarding Jesus Christ.

It’s more than that, though. If a teaching is not true, yet believers are required to adhere to it, they are being required to adhere to a teaching that isn’t true.

It appears you disagree moreso with the Catholic Church’s certainty regarding Marian doctrines than with the doctrines themselves.

Yes, absolutely. With the latter two Marian dogmas and the co-mediatrix/redemptrix doctrines… I don’t believe there’s sufficient certainty either from Scripture or the apostolic deposit (which I believe to be coinherent with Scripture).