The four Marian dogmas

  • Thread starter Thread starter Scottgun
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’m glad to see this sparked some decent discussion. I’m bowing out as my internet surfing is getting out of hand. Yes, the Church teaches these four doctrines. Yes they are binding on the Catholic faithful. Yes, you can probably find a few Catholics who say they are not required belief. As others have documented, they are just plain wrong.

Scott
 
jmcrae said:
Mary herself identified herself to St. Bernadette as “the Immaculate Conception” meaning that #4 is, in fact, true - we have Mary’s own word on that. The others, we can prove from Scripture and from the Holy Tradition.
Click to expand...
In that case, I have one more reason not to be Byzantine Catholic.

But for the sake of this thread, I will agree. #1 - #4 is part of Roman Dogma.
 
noma said:
As this thread was created for dialogue, and as I would contend that #4 is not required to be believed by all Catholics (unless given some qualifiers), I feel it my responsibility to post here.

I would suggest revising the list of dogmas to #1, #2, #3, and maybe #4.

That’s what I think; take it or leave it.
Click to expand...
I think the 4 Marian dogmas are required for but they are not necessary for salvation. It is part of the deposit of faith. I will have to do some research more on this and ask around.

What is required of salvation is to follows the commandments given to us by God, and use the seven sacraments. That itself is a different subject which I am not going to get into more detail.

As I state, I think they are required for Catholics to believe but not necessary for salvation.
 
Scottgun said:
On another thread, a non-Catholic is trying to claim that Catholics are not required to believe things like the Assumption and perpetual virginity. Cobblers.

The four Marian dogmas are:
  1. Mary conceived by the Holy Ghost without the cooperation of man. (De fide.)
  2. Also after the Birth of Jesus Mary remained a Virgin. (De fide.)
  3. Mary was assumed body and soul into Heaven. (De fide.)
  4. Mary was conceived without stain of original sin. (De fide.)
De fide teachings are formally defined teachings and as such Catholics must believe them both exteriorally and interiorly. Lips and hearts in a manner of speaking.

RED DISCLAIMER: This thread is NOT about arguing the truth of the dogmas themselves. Plenty of other threads do that. The purpose of this thread is see if anyone seriously denies that the Church teaches these as binding on the Catholic faithful and on what grounds.

Scott
Click to expand...
The first dogma, “Mary, the Mother of God,” was proclaimed by the Council of Ephesus in AD 431.

The second dogma, the “Immaculate Conception,” was proclaimed in 1854 by Pope Pius IX in Ineffabilit Deus. It proclaimed that the Virgin Mary, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by the merits of Jesus Christ, Saviour of the human race, was preserved immune from all stain of original sin. (Catechism of the Catholic Church # 491)

The third dogma, the “Assumption of Mary,” was proclaimed in 1950 by Pope Pius XII in Lumen Gentium. It proclaimed that the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death. (Catechism of the Catholic Church # 966)
 
**CCC#508 ***From among the descendants of Eve, God chose the Virgin Mary to be the mother of his Son. “Full of grace”, Mary is “the most excellent fruit of redemption” (SC 103): from the first instant of her conception, she was totally preserved from the stain of original sin and she remained pure from all personal sin throughout her life.
*
 
Hello,
noma said:
As this thread was created for dialogue, and as I would contend that #4 is not required to be believed by all Catholics (unless given some qualifiers), I feel it my responsibility to post here.

I would suggest revising the list of dogmas to #1, #2, #3, and maybe #4.

That’s what I think; take it or leave it.
Click to expand...
All four are infallible magisterial teachings. When Pope Pius IX, in 1854, pronounced and defined the Immaculate Conception, he was not only speaking to Latin Rite Catholics. He was speaking to the Universal Church, and the Universal Church is bound to believe in the Immaculate Conception with divine and Catholic faith.

As for the Eastern Catholics (and Orthodox) - some of the most beatiful writings on the purity of Mary have come from Eastern Christians (i.e. Ephraim the Syrian, Jacob of Sarug, John Damascene, Theodotus of Ancyra, etc.). The fact that the Orthodox are opposed to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception has to do a little with a differing view of Original Sin (how much is true difference and how much is misunderstanding?) and, in my opinion, a desire to seperate as much from Rome as possible (from historical injuries and from not being involved in its defining).
 
JMJ_coder said:
As for the Eastern Catholics (and Orthodox) - some of the most beatiful writings on the purity of Mary have come from Eastern Christians (i.e. Ephraim the Syrian, Jacob of Sarug, John Damascene, Theodotus of Ancyra, etc.).
Click to expand...
This I would definitely assent to. I do not believe that Mary actually sinned. But as I do not accept Augustine’s teaching on Original Sin, I do not accept the immaculate conception. But this is another discussion.
 
Hello,
noma said:
But as I do not accept Augustine’s teaching on Original Sin, I do not accept the immaculate conception.
Click to expand...
Did you say that you were an Eastern Catholic? And if yes, why if I may ask, do you not accept the Church’s teaching on Original Sin?
 
JMJ_coder said:
Hello,

Did you say that you were an Eastern Catholic? And if yes, why if I may ask, do you not accept the Church’s teaching on Original Sin?
Click to expand...
noma is an ex-Catholic. He has issues with the Pope’s authority on certain moral issues…
 
noma said:
This I would definitely assent to. I do not believe that Mary actually sinned. But as I do not accept Augustine’s teaching on Original Sin, I do not accept the immaculate conception. But this is another discussion.
Click to expand...
I thought Catholics believed that these two go hand in hand? :confused:
If you believe one, don’t you have to believe both?
 
hoosierdaddy said:
No, they can appeal to the patron saint of “free will”…whomever that may be.
Click to expand...
It isn’t “free will” that dissident Catholics appeal to but “conscience.” What they mean by that is they have the freedom to pick and choose which of the Church’s doctrines and dogmas they will accept. However, they forget that our consciences are as fallen as the rest of us and need to be properly formed. I’m afraid they are being influenced by the culture around them in their rejection of their own Church’s teachings. They want to be married to the “spirit of the age” instead of Christ. This is what G. K. Chesterton meant when he wrote: “He who marries the spirit of the age will find himself a widower in the next [age].”
 
Blue_Serenity said:
The only one of those that I have a problem with is #4. The translations have pointed out the vagueness of that claim.
Other than that, I’m with the Catholics 100% on the rest of it. 👍
Click to expand...
Why?
The angel said “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women”. Notice Mary is called full of grace BEFORE she says “ Behold the handmaid of the Lord” Obviously she was special BEFORE she carried Jesus in her womb. God didn’t save her from the moment she said yes and held Jesus in her Womb but when he created her otherwise why would an angel….a spoke person for God say that she is full of grace???

papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9ineff.htm
**The Annunciation **
When the Fathers and writers of the Church meditated on the fact that the most Blessed Virgin was, in the name and by order of God himself, proclaimed full of grace[22] by the Angel Gabriel when he announced her most sublime dignity of Mother of God, they thought that this singular and solemn salutation, never heard before, showed that the Mother of God is the seat of all divine graces and is adorned with all gifts of the Holy Spirit. To them Mary is an almost infinite treasury, an inexhaustible abyss of these gifts, to such an extent that she was never subject to the curse and was, together with her Son, the only partaker of perpetual benediction. Hence she was worthy to hear Elizabeth, inspired by the Holy Spirit, exclaim: “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb.”[23]
 
Della said:
It isn’t “free will” that dissident Catholics appeal to but “conscience.” What they mean by that is they have the freedom to pick and choose which of the Church’s doctrines and dogmas they will accept. However, they forget that our consciences are as fallen as the rest of us and need to be properly formed. I’m afraid they are being influenced by the culture around them in their rejection of their own Church’s teachings. They want to be married to the “spirit of the age” instead of Christ. This is what G. K. Chesterton meant when he wrote: “He who marries the spirit of the age will find himself a widower in the next [age].”
Click to expand...
Dissident Catholics weren’t the topic though. The poster said she thought Catholics had to agree on both those things.

Since we can be deceived by our own hearts, by men, by religious organizations, the only source we can go to is the Bible. In reading the Bible we can pray to God to teach us. He can use teachers but when they teach error they are to be rejected. Isn’t it a bit cultic to threaten people for not accepting their “Church’s teachings”? The Church can be in error, Scripture is never wrong.
 
hoosierdaddy said:
Dissident Catholics weren’t the topic though. The poster said she thought Catholics had to agree on both those things.

Since we can be deceived by our own hearts, by men, by religious organizations, the only source we can go to is the Bible. In reading the Bible we can pray to God to teach us. He can use teachers but when they teach error they are to be rejected. Isn’t it a bit cultic to threaten people for not accepting their “Church’s teachings”? The Church can be in error, Scripture is never wrong.
Click to expand...
Show me where the Church has been in error. Show me a declaration from the church that goes against something in Scripture. If your going to throw statements out then you need to prove them
 
SIDE NOTE!!!

I think it is very important for people to actually read the documents themselves. Otherwise the miss a lot

Please check out the papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9ineff.htm
THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION

** Ineffabilis Deus **

Apostolic Constitution issued by Pope Pius IX on December 8, 1854.

"The same Roman Church, therefore, desired nothing more than by the most persuasive means **to state, to protect, to promote and to defend the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. **This fact is most clearly shown to the whole world by numerous and significant acts of the Roman Pontiffs, our predecessors. To them, in the person of the Prince of the Apostles, were divinely entrusted by Christ our Lord, the charge and supreme care and the power of feeding the lambs and sheep; in particular, of confirming their brethren, and of ruling and governing the universal Church. "

Doesn’t sound like to me that the pope woke up and decided to make up something about Mary but that it was a belief held from early Christians.
 
hoosierdaddy said:
Dissident Catholics weren’t the topic though. The poster said she thought Catholics had to agree on both those things.

Since we can be deceived by our own hearts, by men, by religious organizations, the only source we can go to is the Bible. In reading the Bible we can pray to God to teach us. He can use teachers but when they teach error they are to be rejected. Isn’t it a bit cultic to threaten people for not accepting their “Church’s teachings”? The Church can be in error, Scripture is never wrong.
Click to expand...
The Church and Christ cannot be separated.
 
beckers said:
Show me where the Church has been in error. Show me a declaration from the church that goes against something in Scripture. If your going to throw statements out then you need to prove them
Click to expand...
Purgatory ring a bell? The perpetual Virginity of Mary? The sinlessness of Mary? None are Scriptural. Challenge met. Have a good day.
 
fix said:
The Church and Christ cannot be separated.
Click to expand...
Amen! And since I am in Christ and in His Church I am not separated from Him, nor can I ever be. You just got a whole theological lesson in one sentence. I’ll give you a free indulgence but next time you have to pay.😃
 
Doesn’t sound like to me that the pope woke up and decided to make up something about Mary but that it was a belief held from early Christians.

Then they forgot to put it down in the most important source…the written Word of God. How could they be so silly as to forget to do such a vital thing as that?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top