Would more Protestants become Catholic if it were not for Mary?

[rcwitness]

To answer directly, i would say yes…there are protestants that refuse the beliefs regarding Mary.

But that doesnt mean much, because then you have to ask,“Do some protestants join the Church because of Mary.”

Or…“Do any Catholics, remain so because of Mary, or do any Catholics leave because of Mary?”

It seems to me, that it quickly melts into the unknown.

I was raised Protestant, but a couple yrs out of high School was led to look into Catholicism. I personally never had a big problem with Mary. I did want to make sure she was not worshiped. Then, after becoming Catholic, I did struggle to understand devotions to her. In some ways, I still do. I still find devotions to saints,…questionable.

When we ask, “…if it were not for Mary?” That is a broad stroke.

One protestant friend simply stated,“God could have chosen any woman, Mary was not special.”

That’s just wrong to look at anything like that. That would be like, on Mother’s day, saying,“Mom, dad could have found a number of other girls to make me…but have a good day.”

The funny thing is, is that with all the structure of the Catholic Church…with all the images of strict nuns and ritual devotions. When I am in Mass and taking in the graces of God through His Church, I feel a comfort not only from God in His Son, but from God through a Motherhood of nurturing care. A family of God. Its not easy to describe! But a sense of receiving familial ties that would be impossible without the spirit of Motherhood.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Reunification Yes - but not on “Rome’s terms” - rather on God’s terms…
True unity does not come from “negotiations and conceding” but rather from prayerful discernment and consensus.
Peace
James

Come on, you knew what I meant!
Rome, referring to the Catholic Church and the See of Rome (Pope), is on
God’s terms, but “God’s terms” is a very debatable idea, which brought on
Lutheranism in the first place. So in light of that fact, do Lutherans believe
now that the Roman Catholic Church is correct, and that Lutheranism has
been wrong all along?

 

[JonNC]

Come on, you knew what I meant!
Rome, referring to the Catholic Church and the See of Rome (Pope), is on
God’s terms, but “God’s terms” is a very debatable idea, which brought on
Lutheranism in the first place. So in light of that fact, do Lutherans believe
now that the Roman Catholic Church is correct, and that Lutheranism has
been wrong all along?

On the topic of the Blessed Virgin.

Yes, we agree in the virgin birth, and the Holy Theotokos.

Beyond that, Lutherans view the marian doctrines as adiaphora. Individual Lutherans are free to agree or not agree with other beliefs regarding her. So, our main disagreement regarding these is not the beliefs, but the requirement of them. This is also true for Invocation.

Individually,
The vast majority of Lutheran theologians through history have believed in **perpetual virginity. ** The confessions confirm it, and C.F.W. Walther stated once that it was beyond questioning.

The IC and Assumption- Lutherans have varying views.

Few Lutherans practice Invocation of the Saints, though we recognize that the saints pray for us.

Jon

 

[JRKH]

Come on, you knew what I meant!

Well - I knew what you wrote…and I assume you meant what you wrote…

Rome, referring to the Catholic Church and the See of Rome (Pope), is on
God’s terms, but “God’s terms” is a very debatable idea, which brought on
Lutheranism in the first place. So in light of that fact, do Lutherans believe
now that the Roman Catholic Church is correct, and that Lutheranism has
been wrong all along?

Yes - “God’s terms” can indeed be a very debatable idea - and debate is a good thing so long as it is done in a humble and prayerful manner.
The thing that “brought on Lutheranism in the first place” was a lack of these virtues being exercised at the time - something that the Church and the Catechism recognizes as an underlying problem in ALL schisms.
Of course there were other factors at the time of the reformation that also contributed to the rise of protestantism in it’s varied forms…bu that is waaay beyond the scope of this discussion.

I think that in our modern ecumenical discussions it is not productive to think in terms of this group is “right” and the group is “wrong”. Things are not quite so black and white as that.
It has been my experience that in many cases - when discussing differences - the problems arise more form misunderstanding, variations in how words are used and defined, how or where this or that group places emphasis etc…

Consider the joint paper published by the Lutheran and Catholic Church on Justification. This statement is not a matter of one side saying "we’re right and you’re wrong…but rather it is a coming together and examining what is said, what is meant and how it is conveyed. Obviously there was a great deal of agreement found - thus the joint statement on Justification. Of course this is a small step - but an important step none the less.

So the bottom line is this…We remain open to dialogue and to debate - always in charity and always prayerfully and always humbly. In such dialogue and debate we seek to receive and to convey understanding…The rest we leave to the Holy Spirit.

Peace
James

 

[JonNC]

Well - I knew what you wrote…and I assume you meant what you wrote…

Yes - “God’s terms” can indeed be a very debatable idea - and debate is a good thing so long as it is done in a humble and prayerful manner.
The thing that “brought on Lutheranism in the first place” was a lack of these virtues being exercised at the time - something that the Church and the Catechism recognizes as an underlying problem in ALL schisms.
Of course there were other factors at the time of the reformation that also contributed to the rise of protestantism in it’s varied forms…bu that is waaay beyond the scope of this discussion.

I think that in our modern ecumenical discussions it is not productive to think in terms of this group is “right” and the group is “wrong”. Things are not quite so black and white as that.
It has been my experience that in many cases - when discussing differences - the problems arise more form misunderstanding, variations in how words are used and defined, how or where this or that group places emphasis etc…

Consider the joint paper published by the Lutheran and Catholic Church on Justification. This statement is not a matter of one side saying "we’re right and you’re wrong…but rather it is a coming together and examining what is said, what is meant and how it is conveyed. Obviously there was a great deal of agreement found - thus the joint statement on Justification. Of course this is a small step - but an important step none the less.

So the bottom line is this…We remain open to dialogue and to debate - always in charity and always prayerfully and always humbly. In such dialogue and debate we seek to receive and to convey understanding…The rest we leave to the Holy Spirit.

Peace
James

Well said, as usual, James.

Jon

 

[Della]

The IC and the Assumption are both completely unessential, and ultimately irrelevant to salvation. But the CC dealt the need to attach an anathema to it. Now to even doubt these doctrines in your mind leads to spiritual wreck according to the CC. But the CC felt the need to anathematize those who disagreed or doubted. So, yes they abandoned Augustine on this matter. I wouldn’t be surprised if they next defined 1+1=2, then they could anathematize all computer engineers that questioned them.

If you are a Catholic you are not writing as one. If you are a Protestant, you simply don’t understand how apostolic succession functions. Your or my personal opinions mean nothing whatsoever. When God tells either of us that he has promised to lead us into all truth, then we can take it upon ourselves to decide such matters. That promise was given to the Apostles who were the ones Christ commissioned with his authority. For a Catholic, that’s the end of the matter.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

As this Lutheran/ Roman Catholic document points out that nuanced devotion to Mary "need no longer be ‘church dividing’. Even to recite the second half of the angelus is acceptable to Lutherans within the context of the Augsburg Confession:

One of those ways, perhaps, is to highlight what, in fact, Lutherans and Roman Catholics have affirmed together about the Virgin Mary and the Saints today. In 1992 was published a joint statement, The One Mediator, the Saints, and Mary, in which at least enough theological convergence and clarity was noted to state that this issue need no longer be “church dividing” in the continued quest toward full and visible communion. With specific regard to the question even of the possible invocation(!) of Mary and the Saints in the Church, the statement notes that: “Saints on earth ask one another to pray to God for each other through Christ. They are neither commanded nor forbidden to ask departed saints to pray for them.”12 More recently, Lutheran theologian Robert Jenson has written with specific regard to invoking the Virgin Mary by means of the second half of the Hail Mary (i.e., “Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death”):

First, Mary is Israel in one person, as Temple and arch prophet and guardian of Torah. To ask her to pray for me is to invoke all God’s history with Israel at once, all his place-taking in this people, and all the faithfulness of God to this people as grounds for his faithfulness to me. It is to have Moses say, ‘Why should the heathen profane your name, because you leave your people in the lurch? Because you leave Robert Jenson in the lurch?” It is to send Aaron into the Tent of Meeting on my behalf. It is to quote all Scripture’s promises about prayer at once, as summed up by Jesus, **‘Whatever you ask the Father in my name will be done.’ **

‘Fiat mihi,’ Mary said, giving her womb as space for God in this world. After all the Lord’s struggle with his beloved Israel, he finally found a place in Israel that unbelief would not destroy like the Temple, or silence like the prophets, or simply lose, like the Book of the Law before Josiah. This place is a person. **To ask Mary to pray for us is to meet him there. **

Second. From the beginning of creation, heaven is God’s space in his creation. As a created space for God there must be a mysterious sense in which Mary is heaven, the container not only of the uncontainable Son, but of all his sisters and brothers, of what Augustine called the totus Christus, the whole Christ, Christ with his body. But Mary is a person, not a sheer container. That she contains the whole company of heaven must mean that she personally is their presence. To ask Mary to pray for us is to ask ‘the whole company of heaven’ to pray for us, not this saint or that but all of them together. It is to ask the church triumphant to pray for us.

Interestingly, Luther and Melanchthon were happy to say that the saints as a company pray for us, that the church in heaven prays for the church on earth. To invoke Mary’s prayer as the prayer of the Mater Dei, the prayer of the Container of the Uncontainable, is to invoke precisely this prayer. Perhaps, indeed, St Mary’s prayer, as the prayer of the whole company of heaven, is the one saint’s prayer that even those should utter who otherwise accept Melanchthon’s argument against invoking saints.

mcsletstalk.org/v12n16.htm

 

[jimmy]

If you are a Catholic you are not writing as one. If you are a Protestant, you simply don’t understand how apostolic succession functions. Your or my personal opinions mean nothing whatsoever. When God tells either of us that he has promised to lead us into all truth, then we can take it upon ourselves to decide such matters. That promise was given to the Apostles who were the ones Christ commissioned with his authority. For a Catholic, that’s the end of the matter.

I sound like me. I can’t submit myself to arbitrariness and someone lording their authority over me. If God can give us a reason for the laws he gives us, why can’t the Church give us valid reasons for their insistence on defining new dogmas? We are told that moral laws are all for our own good, and that none are given arbitrarily. Yet the Church can’t follow the same rule? They can’t refrain from arbitrarily defining new dogmas?

I am quite aware how apostolic succession works. My problem is with the modern perception of apostolic succession, and the progressive approach to tradition. Western Catholics have no real sense of tradition. They have reduced tradition to what ever they want it to be. If they decide tomorrow that 1+1 is part of tradition then Catholics must submit their mind and will. The only question is, what is the next popular idea that they are going to decide to force on everyone?

Regarding this idea that the Holy Spirit will lead us into all truth: does that include quantum mechanics, or astrophysics? How about space aliens and big foot? Is the pope going to make a sollemn pronouncement on the existence of intelligent life on other planets, or on the existence of Bigfoot or Nessie? Is he going to make a sollemn pronouncement on string theory or super symmetry? These are just as much of questions of truth as the IC or the Assumption is, and they are just as irrelevant when it comes to salvation.

And I owe JRKH some definitions. I need to define what I mean when I say the papal definitions are ‘arbitrary’. What I mean is that they are irrelevant to our salvation, and since there wasn’t a heresy they were refuting, they are arbitrary. There was no reason for the pope to make a sollemn pronouncement on these topics. The only reason why a persons assent to these doctrines matters is because the pope said it matters. Also when I say that they are a burden, I am simply thinking of the fact that failure to accept them carries an eternal condemnation according to Rome. What if someone has a real problem with these doctrines? Their salvation is in question over an arbitrarily defined doctrine. It isn’t even a question of whether the bishops and popes accept the burden; it isn’t a burden for them, because they are the ones who defined it according to their own belief. They already believe it, so there is no burden for them to bear. The anathema can only be directed at those who already question the doctrine.

Further, what is the point of defining something that everyone already believes and celebrates? The Dormition/Assumption has been celebrated for 1500 years, what is the point of defining it? Are we supposed to doubt the faith we live by until the pope gives his definition? Is the west that skeptical of themselves and that self-deprecating that they need an infallible authority to define everything in their lives before they can accept it? Or is it that they can’t accept that anyone might disagree on anything?

 

[JRKH]

Quite a post Jimmy…very direct and honest. Since you included a reply to me I’d like to address that portion…

(SNIP)

And I owe JRKH some definitions. I need to define what I mean when I say the papal definitions are ‘arbitrary’. What I mean is that they are irrelevant to our salvation, and since there wasn’t a heresy they were refuting, they are arbitrary. There was no reason for the pope to make a solemn pronouncement on these topics. The only reason why a persons assent to these doctrines matters is because the pope said it matters. Also when I say that they are a burden, I am simply thinking of the fact that failure to accept them carries an eternal condemnation according to Rome. What if someone has a real problem with these doctrines? Their salvation is in question over an arbitrarily defined doctrine. It isn’t even a question of whether the bishops and popes accept the burden; it isn’t a burden for them, because they are the ones who defined it according to their own belief. They already believe it, so there is no burden for them to bear. The anathema can only be directed at those who already question the doctrine.

Further, what is the point of defining something that everyone already believes and celebrates? The Dormition/Assumption has been celebrated for 1500 years, what is the point of defining it? Are we supposed to doubt the faith we live by until the pope gives his definition? Is the west that skeptical of themselves and that self-deprecating that they need an infallible authority to define everything in their lives before they can accept it? Or is it that they can’t accept that anyone might disagree on anything?

First - as regards “burdensome” you say above that:
“It isn’t even a question of whether the bishops and popes accept the burden; it isn’t a burden for them, because they are the ones who defined it according to their own belief. They already believe it, so there is no burden for them to bear.”
In response I would say that this is not so. The Bishops and the Pope who were in office at the time of the pronouncements are long gone…so it is entirely conceivable that there are bishops today who struggle with this. So - indeed it could very well be a burden for them to bear.

For myself - I ask another question. Is this teaching that I struggle with (whatever it is) worth abandoning God’s Holy Church for? Shall I abandon the Holy mass, Eucharist, the Ancient Church protected by the Holy Spirit? Shall I walk away like those in John 6 because I do not understand the reasoning for this or that teaching?
Perhaps God has decreed such teaching (and/or my inability to understand) as a test to see who will live up to His command in the Gospel that we listen to the Church.

No - speaking for myself - and as one who spent many years away from the Church and wandering in the wilderness - I will not abandon my Lord and His Church. I will not disobey His command to listen to the Church (Mt 18:17) which is the pillar and ground of Truth (1 Tim 3:15) and through which He has made known His manifold wisdom (Eph 3:8-12).

The Church - for all her problems - brings much clarity. Protestantism brings much confusion.

Peace
James

 

[Della]

I sound like me. I can’t submit myself to arbitrariness and someone lording their authority over me. If God can give us a reason for the laws he gives us, why can’t the Church give us valid reasons for their insistence on defining new dogmas? We are told that moral laws are all for our own good, and that none are given arbitrarily. Yet the Church can’t follow the same rule? They can’t refrain from arbitrarily defining new dogmas?

If you are a part of an Eastern church you are already submitting yourself to the authority of your own bishops on matters of faith and morals. Why shouldn’t Catholics do the same?

I am quite aware how apostolic succession works. My problem is with the modern perception of apostolic succession, and the progressive approach to tradition. Western Catholics have no real sense of tradition. They have reduced tradition to what ever they want it to be. If they decide tomorrow that 1+1 is part of tradition then Catholics must submit their mind and will. The only question is, what is the next popular idea that they are going to decide to force on everyone?

This is simply not true. Our Sacred Tradition has not changed nor is it in any way “modern” in the sense that it was simply made up out of thin air. I hope you aren’t implying this, because it would mean that there is no legitimate authority except what we personally will accept. And we both know that that isn’t right.

Regarding this idea that the Holy Spirit will lead us into all truth: does that include quantum mechanics, or astrophysics? How about space aliens and big foot? Is the pope going to make a sollemn pronouncement on the existence of intelligent life on other planets, or on the existence of Bigfoot or Nessie? Is he going to make a sollemn pronouncement on string theory or super symmetry? These are just as much of questions of truth as the IC or the Assumption is, and they are just as irrelevant when it comes to salvation.

I would have assumed you would know that the truths the Church has been given are in matters of faith and morals not of science, although some issues may have some cross over, such as the creation of man. C’mon, you have to know that what you are proposing is silly.

And I owe JRKH some definitions. I need to define what I mean when I say the papal definitions are ‘arbitrary’. What I mean is that they are irrelevant to our salvation, and since there wasn’t a heresy they were refuting, they are arbitrary. There was no reason for the pope to make a sollemn pronouncement on these topics. The only reason why a persons assent to these doctrines matters is because the pope said it matters. Also when I say that they are a burden, I am simply thinking of the fact that failure to accept them carries an eternal condemnation according to Rome. What if someone has a real problem with these doctrines? Their salvation is in question over an arbitrarily defined doctrine. It isn’t even a question of whether the bishops and popes accept the burden; it isn’t a burden for them, because they are the ones who defined it according to their own belief. They already believe it, so there is no burden for them to bear. The anathema can only be directed at those who already question the doctrine.

What is with your insistence that the Magisterium of the Church makes “arbitrary pronouncements” when you yourself admit that the beliefs that were defined as dogma were believed as doctrine since the early Church? Again, you know better than this, so why go on repeating the same old falsehood?

Further, what is the point of defining something that everyone already believes and celebrates? The Dormition/Assumption has been celebrated for 1500 years, what is the point of defining it? Are we supposed to doubt the faith we live by until the pope gives his definition? Is the west that skeptical of themselves and that self-deprecating that they need an infallible authority to define everything in their lives before they can accept it? Or is it that they can’t accept that anyone might disagree on anything?

The reason is to make it abundantly clear to all that this teaching is to be believed by all who hold to the Catholic faith. No one has asked non-Catholics to hold to this dogma, so why be concerned if it doesn’t concern you? If God were to call you into the Catholic Church, I know he would grace you with belief in this dogma–not because he would coerce you or our bishops would do so, but because you would want to accept the full authority of the Church to decide matters of faith and morals.

 

[jimmy]

What is the difference between a matter of faith and a matter of science? There was a time (and it is still the case in the east) when matters of dogma were those which are truely necessary for salvation? A failure to believe them destroys the whole economy of salvation. So the creed of Nicaea-Constantinople, the statement of faith at Chalcedon, the theology of icons and etc. was all concerned with the economy of salvation.

Even though it was celebrated, it still wasn’t dogma. No one considered attaching a condemnation to it of those who dare doubt or disagree with it. Many saints rejected the IC, and there was no necessity for everyone to celebrate it.

Even if there was no condemnation attached, the meanings of things are often changed when you define them. People sometimes refer to the Syriac fathers and liturgies and say, ‘look they support us.’ No they don’t. The truth is, by applying your definition to their words and worship you distort the meanings of what they say. On another thread someone quoted the Maronite liturgy in support of the idea of coredemptrix, but the problem is they took something with a poetic and a spiritual approach and applied a logical definition to it. The Syriac tradition is heavily saturated with a poetic spirit. By defining the doctrines you take them and drain them of their spirit and replace the spirit with a logical definition.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

“Mother Mary, come to me” commentary in ‘The Lutheran’ suggests that we embrace the blessed Virgin as Luther did:

Praying with saints

Luther supports praying with Mary and even to Mary, though this gets thumped out in the period of Lutheran Orthodoxy.

Luther and Philipp Melanchthon both believed the company of saints prayed for people on earth. In our communion liturgy we pray, “And so with Mary and Peter and all the witnesses of the Resurrection, with earth and sea and all their creatures, with angels and archangels, cherubim and seraphim we praise your name and join their unending hymn …”

We embrace the idea of praying with the saints and angels. We are part of the communion of saints.

It’s no stretch for the idea of praying with Mary. Praying to Mary is more debated. Luther did, and on our Lutheran/Roman Catholic dialogues, theologians have pointed out that there is no scriptural prohibition against praying to the saints.

The Magnificat is of course scriptural and can be prayed by Lutherans. Peipkorn says Lutherans can and should pray the pre-Reformation first half of the Hail Mary
livinglutheran.com/blog/2011/12/mother-mary-come-to-me.html.

 

[jimmy]

JRKH, you have a good point. It isn’t a reason to abandon the Church, but certainly does push me away toward those who don’t make demands that don’t make sense. I tend to see dogma as a necessary evil. It is never a good thing, unless needed to combat heresy. Even then it has within it a tendency to distort reality.

 

[Della]

What is the difference between a matter of faith and a matter of science?

You’re kidding, right?

There was a time (and it is still the case in the east) when matters of dogma were those which are truely necessary for salvation? A failure to believe them destroys the whole economy of salvation. So the creed of Nicaea-Constantinople, the statement of faith at Chalcedon, the theology of icons and etc. was all concerned with the economy of salvation.

And so do the Marian doctrines and dogmas of the Catholic Church. The onus is on you to prove, according to Catholic teaching, that they aren’t.

Even though it was celebrated, it still wasn’t dogma. No one considered attaching a condemnation to it of those who dare doubt or disagree with it. Many saints rejected the IC, and there was no necessity for everyone to celebrate it.

All the saints have said that when the Church speaks they obey, so this line of reasoning doesn’t wash.

Even if there was no condemnation attached, the meanings of things are often changed when you define them. People sometimes refer to the Syriac fathers and liturgies and say, ‘look they support us.’ No they don’t. The truth is, by applying your definition to their words and worship you distort the meanings of what they say. On another thread someone quoted the Maronite liturgy in support of the idea of coredemptrix, but the problem is they took something with a poetic and a spiritual approach and applied a logical definition to it. The Syriac tradition is heavily saturated with a poetic spirit. By defining the doctrines you take them and drain them of their spirit and replace the spirit with a logical definition.

Ah no. The Church is very precise in its definitions. Try again.

 

[jimmy]

You’re kidding, right?

And so do the Marian doctrines and dogmas of the Catholic Church. The onus is on you to prove, according to Catholic teaching, that they aren’t.

All the saints have said that when the Church speaks they obey, so this line of reasoning doesn’t wash.

Ah no. The Church is very precise in its definitions. Try again.

No, I’m not kidding. There is no difference between the existence of big foot or the truth of string theory on the one hand, and whether Mary was conceived Immaculately on the other. Both are irrelevant to the economy of salvation. What makes them different to you? Why is The IC a matter of faith?

The Marian dogmas destroy the economy of salvation? I would assume that you don’t believe that. The truth is that they are irrelevant to salvation. You ask me to prove a negative, which can’t be expected of anyone. It is actually your job to show that there is a necessary connection between the Marian dogmas and the economy of salvation. If it is my job to show that there is no connection, then the pope can truely define whatever they want because they don’t need any reason to make a new definition. They could define 1+1 tomorrow. Differences between science and faith no longer means anything.

Telling me they are precise doesnt help your case. The more precise the definitions get the more they distort the truth. The Syriac texts (they are just one example) aren’t ammenible to definitions. By making the definitions ‘precise’ you have excluded the Syriacs who refuse precision.

You speak of the Church as if it was something seperate from the saints. The saints are the bearers of tradition and they are the Church. The saints never considered the possibility that the Church might develop a progressive approach to dogma. As St Vincent said, they believed what was believed by all, at all times, and in all places.

 

[jmcrae]

Why is The IC a matter of faith?

Because it shows us that Jesus was the Word of God. If Mary were just a common sinner like the rest of us, then she was not the “New Ark of the Covenant” and Jesus when He was in her womb, was not the contents of the Ark of the Covenant (the word of God).

 

[jimmy]

Because it shows us that Jesus was the Word of God. If Mary were just a common sinner like the rest of us, then she was not the “New Ark of the Covenant” and Jesus when He was in her womb, was not the contents of the Ark of the Covenant (the word of God).

That is the type of response I am looking for. I can’t say I believe the implications yet, I have to think about it a little. But one question for now. Many of the Syriac fathers and saints spoke of the annunciation as the moment of both conception of Christ and the purification of Mary. Essentially, Christ’s presence in her womb purified her. Would it still lead to the same conclusion that Christ can’t be the Word because Mary wasn’t the spotless Ark?

 

[Della]

No, I’m not kidding. There is no difference between the existence of big foot or the truth of string theory on the one hand, and whether Mary was conceived Immaculately on the other. Both are irrelevant to the economy of salvation. What makes them different to you? Why is The IC a matter of faith?

Again, you are simply wrong. String theory may or may not be true, and we can hardly know what it has to do with our salvation. Only God can answer it’s relevancy. Surely, if string theory is true, then God created it for a good reason, which we may some day understand, God willing. But again, the Church does not speak on matters of science unless they have some relevancy to our salvation for the Church’s concern is for matters of faith and morals. Mary’s IC is quite relevant to our salvation. As the Church has said, it was fitting that she be preserved free of original sin because she was to conceive, not merely carry, Christ in her womb. This means that Jesus was flesh of her flesh and bone of her bone as Eve was flesh of Adam’s flesh and bone of Adam’s bone. She is the New Eve conceived in purity to make her fit to be the one from whom the Son of God would take his humanity. If that’s not sufficient for you, then that is for you to be concerned about and not me–not to put too fine a point on it.

The Marian dogmas destroy the economy of salvation? I would assume that you don’t believe that. The truth is that they are irrelevant to salvation. You ask me to prove a negative, which can’t be expected of anyone. It is actually your job to show that there is a necessary connection between the Marian dogmas and the economy of salvation. If it is my job to show that there is no connection, then the pope can truely define whatever they want because they don’t need any reason to make a new definition. They could define 1+1 tomorrow. Differences between science and faith no longer means anything.

Ah, again, no. I never wrote anything of the kind. If you want to infer that from my words, again, that is up to you. Indeed, you can’t prove anything (at least you got my point on that), so why say anything about that which you cannot prove? And again, no, the pope can never make any false declarations about matters of faith and morals because he is protected form doing so by the Holy Spirit. This is a part of the charism of his office. But surely you know this, so why say otherwise?

Telling me they are precise doesnt help your case. The more precise the definitions get the more they distort the truth.

You do know this statement refutes itself, don’t you? If this is the kind of illogical you follow no wonder you need to contend against what is plain and simple.

The Syriac texts (they are just one example) aren’t ammenible to definitions. By making the definitions ‘precise’ you have excluded the Syriacs who refuse precision.

So? The Church is quite precise so others can’t say they don’t understand what the Church means. Being precise does not take anything away from dogma, rather it deepens it to include all that we can know and get from it. But surely you know this, don’t you? Or don’t you?

You speak of the Church as if it was something seperate from the saints. The saints are the bearers of tradition and they are the Church. The saints never considered the possibility that the Church might develop a progressive approach to dogma. As St Vincent said, they believed what was believed by all, at all times, and in all places.

No, the saints have said/written a good many things that the Church does not hold us to. The saints do not decide matters of faith and morals. That is the duty and responsibility of the Magisterium of the Church, God help them. It doesn’t matter what theories the saints put forth about doctrine or dogma. Not even our greatest theologians, such a Augustine or Thomas Aquinas had the authority to declare dogma. In matters of doctrine/dogma they all bowed to whatever the Church proclaimed. Once a matter has been solemnly defined, that’s the end of it for all Catholics no matter how saintly, or otherwise, they may be.

I’m bowing out of this discussion now because we have taken it off topic and I’ve got other things I need to do with a husband home from major surgery. I hope you come to see the truth of this matter and that you will have peace.

 

[jimmy]

Della, I disagree with you on every point. I dont see any overlap. I don’t know where to go from here because an answer to each part would lead down a different road. Each part is enough for a discussion. And I agree that we need to end the discussion, it is way off topic. I hope your husband is doing well.

 

[jmcrae]

That is the type of response I am looking for. I can’t say I believe the implications yet, I have to think about it a little. But one question for now. Many of the Syriac fathers and saints spoke of the annunciation as the moment of both conception of Christ and the purification of Mary. Essentially, Christ’s presence in her womb purified her. Would it still lead to the same conclusion that Christ can’t be the Word because Mary wasn’t the spotless Ark?

I think in the same way that the Ark of the Covenant was made of materials that had been pure from their very beginning, it is fitting that Mary also be pure from her very beginning, and it perfects the analogy, that she was.

It (the IC) also allows her to be the New Eve, and to undo with her obedient “fiat” to the Angel what Eve (who was also conceived without sin) did with her disobedient “fiat” to the Devil.

Thus the Latin Fathers say, “Eva is undone by Ave.”