What Marian Dogmas are Problematic?

[mozart-250]

I think some of the difficulties that you have is that some of the teachings of the Church are based on Sacred Tradition. The Catholic Church preserved the Tradition handed down, in much the same way some of the Old Testament Scriptures were passed on.

I understand that. To me “Tradition” is a very nebulous and undefined term. Without definition, it can mean just about anything the one who uses the term wants it to mean.

I do understand apostolic oral tradition, which is the tradition that Scripture tells me to regard. However, I don’t know what that is outside of the New Testament.

In this tradition, when the Blessed Virgin Mary (BVM) died, most of the Apolstles, at least those who had not yet been martyred, were able to come before she she passed. She was entombed, as in a normal burial. However when her casket was opend, and I do not recall why, a few days later, instead of her body, they found the casket full of flowers, mostly roses. There was no body. Thus the bodily assumption of Mary was derived from this Traditional teaching.

Thanks for sharing that. Interesting. I was not aware of that.

Is this written down in the ECF somewhere?

I am aware of some miraculous accounts in the Early Church that on the surface seem incredulous. But if you believe in a God that does miracles, they are not difficult to believe.

Lemme think of some

• The martyrdom of St. Polycarp
• The appearance of St. Ignatius to the disciples after his martyrdom
• The deliverance of St. John from being boiled in oil.

There are probably more if I were to research these.

I have no reason to disbelieve any of these, and being a simple and easy to believe guy, my inclination is to believe all of them. So I have no difficulty putting the assumption of Mary into the bucket of Early Church miraculous accounts along with the rest of these.

I guess then my only problem with this is why this is “De Fide” dogma.

I guess my second problem is why this account of Mary from tradition is equal to the written word of God in authority; but that is a separate issue.

As for the Immaculate Conception, that is MAry was conceived without the stain of Original Sin, that is based on, among other things, some theological deductions. (I may not be stating this entirely accuratly so I apologize if I get parts of this wrong.) Mary was going to be the person who, more than any other person, would make the Incarnation of the Second Person of the Trinity a reality; thus she had to be as pure as possible. To that End, God granted her a unique grace, one given to no other person, that would enable her to carry out this wonderous task, carrying and giving birth to her own creator. If someone as holy as Moses could not look on the face of God, how could a woman, no matter how pious, carry in her womb the very person of God? So through a special grace from God, she was delivered from Original Sin before she was concived so she could carry out this singular and utterly unique role. It predisposed her to be in a holy state where she could accept the Holy Spirit when the Angel Gabriel came to her and told her she would bear Jesus.

I understand this is the teaching of Catholicism.

But I could just as easily ask “If God incarnate was physically touched by sinful humans, why would Mary need to be without original sin in order to bear Christ?”

If you want to believe in a very holy and pious Mary, I can think of other alternatives that really do not appear to stretch other parts of the written Word of God.

As for devotion, in Catholic teaching, there is a big difference between deviotion and worship. I would say that Catholic definitions for certain words, (prayer, devotion, honor, praise, to name a few) is significantly different than Protestant definitions. That may be part of the difficulty that many non-Catholic Christian have. We use the same words to mean different things.

I understand that. If you say that you do not worship Mary, I will take you at your word.

I still don’t understand what devotion to somebody in heaven means.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I would say that Catholic definitions for certain words, (prayer, devotion, honor, praise, to name a few) is significantly different than Protestant definitions.

This, of course, is very true. The problem that I as a Catholic have with these ‘differing’ definitions is that, in all case cases above, the ‘first’ or original definition is what has ‘remained’ as the Catholic definition. So it’s still “good.” Now comes the question as to why those good definitions were ‘changed.’

Prayer. You see this word used in Shakespearean plays and even beyond (and by Shakespeare’s time England was officially Protestant and Catholics were not permitted free exercise of their faith, so one cannot argue that Shakespeare ‘had to use’ the original definition because the Protestants were not in power, for example). And the way the word is used is quite particularly in the sense “to ask”. “Prithee” means, “pray thee” and it is not ever directed as ‘pray to God alone’ but instead is addressed to plain old ordinary people, and in the sense of “I ask you”.

Devotion. Honor. Praise. We ‘devote’ time to our studies even today; devotion is not solely to “God alone”. We ‘honor our father and mother’ (and that’s Biblical). We call a judge “Your Honor”. We have students on “the honor roll”. we do not give honor to “God alone.” We praise everything from a well-sung song to a well-cooked meal; we don’t give praise to “God alone.”

Worship. In the British Isle, judges are called “your Worship” but we don’t think they are God. In our popular songs we speak of 'worshipping the ground someone walks on" but we don’t think by this that they are God.

The Protestant definitions are not only much more recent than the original, they were quite deliberately fashioned to be ‘exclusive’. Basically to exclude Catholics. . . Because in ‘redefining’ words to what they wanted, they could then turn around and use the newly defined words to ‘prove’ Catholics wrong.

If worship, devotion, honor, praise etc DO mean “to God alone” then any reference or thought of worship etc. expressed to anybody else becomes wrong by that definition. Of course, you’ll notice that few people will demand that British judges cease to be called “Your Worship”, or that few will demand that the ten commandments be rephrased to “acknowledge your father and mother, because honor of course is only for God.” You will, though, notice that any reference to Mary or the saints (Catholic and/or Orthodox in the main) is where people start to go ballistic. Personally, I think the main reason people don’t spend as much time yelling at the Orthodox is that not only have they fewer people, and have attempted to keep a lower profile, but that they are also perceived of as having ‘protested’ against us big bad heretical Catholics. If somehow Catholicism was completely driven underground, you can bet the Orthodox and High Church Episcopalians and Lutherans would be next on the “you worship saints, you heathens” list. . .

 

[mozart-250]

Regarding the Immaculate Conception, and your reference to Rom.5:12 and 5:18, we must first learn what “all” means. Look at v18, where it says “so one man’s act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all”. We know that not all people will gain eternal life, so “all” must mean something less than “everyone”.

I understand that the word “all” Biblically is not the smoking gun that some would like to believe.

However the teaching of Romans 3 and 5 is the heart of the Christian message. Without the foundation of all being under sin (original sin for aborted foetuses, sins done for everybody here), there is really no need for the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ. We could all attain eternal life just by being good people.

Given that this is foundational teaching of the New Testament, I really want to see a very good reason before I start believing that God made exceptions to the rule.

The timeline put forward by the Church (and elevated to dogma ), is that Mary was cleansed of original sin and the effects of original sin which would have taken effect were all wiped out at the moment of her conception. Read Luke 1:26-38, and focus on Gabriel’s words, and contemplate what kind of person might merit those words from an archangel.

I think I understand the teaching of Catholicism on Luke 1:26-38.

But it just seems like a logical stretch to go from “Hail Mary full of Grace” to “therefore Mary was cleansed at the moment of her conception from original sin.”

Sort of like when the Darbyists quote the scripture “God has not destined us for wrath” and conclude "therefore, Christians who are alive will be raptured at the start of the tribulation 7 years prior to the return of Christ.

I can think of alternatives where Mary is still “full of Grace” that really do not stretch the New Testament foundational message of the universality of sin.

 

[joshua_b]

I understand that the word “all” Biblically is not the smoking gun that some would like to believe.

However the teaching of Romans 3 and 5 is the heart of the Christian message. Without the foundation of all being under sin (original sin for aborted foetuses, sins done for everybody here), there is really no need for the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ. We could all attain eternal life just by being good people.

Given that this is foundational teaching of the New Testament, I really want to see a very good reason before I start believing that God made exceptions to the rule.

I think I understand the teaching of Catholicism on Luke 1:26-38.

But it just seems like a logical stretch to go from “Hail Mary full of Grace” to “therefore Mary was cleansed at the moment of her conception from original sin.”

.

Catholics would agree with your commentary on Romans, and would further that it is only through Christ that the stain of sin is revmoved from our soul. This holds true for every human being throughout history…including Mary. Every Catholic will tell you this. The Catholic teaching is that God the Father applied Christ’s sacrifice retroactively to Mary specifically so that she could be fit to conceive and give birth to Jesus, just as the sacrifice at Calvary is applied to us 2000 years later.

As far as the words of the Archangel Gabriel, I believe the verbage in the original greek was actually “Hail, full of grace”. Catholics hold this wording as extremely signifigant for two reasons. First, it is the only time in Scripture where an angel of the Lord ever says “Hail” in regard to any human being, and to refer to her as “full of grace” as opposed to using her name and applying “full of grace” as an adjective carries some very serious implications. Something I’m not so sure of (maybe some of our Bible scholars out there will help us out) is whether the word “grace” was used in Scripture in regards to anyone prior to Mary. My understanding of grace is that it is only available to us through Christ, and the topic of grace is found abundantly in the New Testament, but I don’t think its a concept that is really touched on at all prior to this passage, and I’m fairly certain that grace is not a concept that the Jewish people are familiar with in any regard. The whole point being, if that is the case, then something truly unique would have to have been in place for the angel to use the words that were spoken.

This is a beautifully refreshing thread…let’s pray that the tone here remains the same.