|
|
 |
Brijn wrote: |
|
Hi, guys —
I am a Protestant. I worship God, not Mary. I do not think Mariology, such as the Perpetual Virginity, Immaculate Conception, and bodily Assumption, are important, nor are they matters of morality as it has nothing to do with me. My faith is in God, not Mary, so matters of Mary are not matters of faith. This would mean that the Immaculate Conception and bodily Assumption are not matters of faith and morals and so could not have been defined infallibly.
- How could a pope make an infallible statement defining the Immaculate Conception and bodily Assumption of Mary if it is not a matter of faith and morals?
It would seem such statements are opinions on history, not infallible statements on faith and morals.
I tried asking Catholic Answers this question, but because it was the second question I asked in a short time, they didn't answer it. They also seemed to misunderstand my question. This is a question about papal infallibility, not a question about Mary.
I said I worship God, not Mary, which is what I believe Catholics also believe, but I don’t see how Mariology is a matter of faith or morals.
I don't think the Mariology issues I specified are important. Meaning I don't see how they practically relate to daily life in the 21st century, and don't see how disagreement could fit the criteria for a mortal sin. By saying it has nothing to do with me, I meant that a historical fact about someone being immaculately conceived, perpetually a virgin, or bodily assumed into heaven, around 2,000 years ago, isn't parallel, in a practical way, to anything I could personally face or involve behavior I could act, or refrain from acting, in my personal life. For that reason, I don't need moral instruction from the Church for my personal decisions and behavior. I can see how these issues in Mariology can be matters of history but not matters of morality.
- If infallible statements must be universal statements on faith and morals, and opinions on historical facts aren't infallible, how do the historical claims about someone, who is not divine and is not worshipped and is not trusted in for salvation, fall into matters of faith and morals?
The question was trying to gain an understanding of how to distinguish between:
- infallible statements, and
- opinions of popes.
I was told that before I say, "Catholicism has contradictions", I should allow a Catholic to explain the apparent contradictions. There are teachings Catholics claim to be infallible that seem to fall outside the charism of infallibility when the limiting factor of faith and morals is applied.
I’m just trying to understand.
Brijn
|
| { How do historical issues, related the Blessed Mother, fall into the category of faith and morals? } |
Eric replied:
|
OK,
Let me ask you a single question:
- Is the historical fact that Jesus rose from the dead a matter of faith and morals, and thus subject to being proclaimed infallibly?
Eric Ewanco
|
Brijn replied
|
Yes,
because Jesus is God, and the Resurrection ratifies the New Covenant and demonstrates that death is conquered and we too will rise. Also, it makes Jesus the First Fruits and Prime Inheritor of the Kingdom of God, which relates to the "Son of God" title and authority in Jewish law. If Christ is not risen, then our faith is in vain, and we are most to be pitied (1 Corinthians 15:14-19).
I worship Jesus, He is divine, and my faith is in Jesus, I look to Him and trust in Him for salvation, so matters of Christology are matters of faith and morals. Jesus is the Creator. Mary was created. The metaphysical distance between Mary and Jesus is the (Creator/creature divide) and is infinite. My faith is in Jesus, and that includes believing He, as God, was the divine sacrifice for my sins, and that therefore He died for my sins and rose from the dead and will be the one to raise me from the dead.
The historical fact that Enoch was bodily assumed into Heaven and did not die is not a matter of faith and morals as far as I can tell. Historical facts about how Apostles were martyred might be good information for encouraging my faith, but I would not consider them matters of faith and morals.
My faith is encouraged by science, and my faith is encouraged when I see the beauty in God's design in metallography, yet I would not consider facts about isothermal transformation of ferrous metals to be a matter of faith and morals.
The historical fact that Athanasius stood against the empire and the world, encourages my faith, but is not a matter of faith. It could be a matter of morals because I too should hold fast to the faith in the face of heresy and persecution.
Brijn
|
Eric replied:
|
Ok, fair enough.
- Would you consider the historical fact of the existence of Mary to be a legitimate object of faith?
You claim that:
I don't think the Mariology issues I specified are important. Meaning I don't see how they practically relate to daily life in the 21st century.
That's because you're not steeped in the profound implications of Mariology.
But beyond that, I fail to see how being aware of how a dogma is practical and relevant to you today is a requirement for a dogma to be able to be infallibly proclaimed.
Let me quote the 2nd century St. Irenaeus of Lyons:
Just as Eve, by disobeying, became the cause of death for herself and the whole human race, so Mary, betrothed to a predestined man and yet a virgin, by obeying, became the cause of salvation for herself and the whole human race. This is why the law gives the name ‘wife’ to a woman who is betrothed to a man but still a virgin, thereby indicating the circular movement from Mary back to Eve.
What was bound could not be untied without a reversal of the process of entanglement. The first bonds had to be untied by the second, so that the second might set free the first. And, in fact, this is what happened: the first entanglement was untied by the second bond, the second bond playing the role of loosener of the first. This is why the Lord said that the first would be last and the last first (cf. Matthew 19:30; Matthew 20:16). And the prophet made the same point when he said: ‘Instead of fathers sons shall be born to you’ (Psalm 44:17). For the Lord, born as ‘the first-born from the dead’ (Colossians 1:18), took to His bosom the ancient ‘fathers’ and regenerated them into the life of God. He became the beginning of those who live, as Adam had been the beginning of those who die.
St Luke, therefore, begins his genealogy with the Lord and then takes it back to Adam, thereby showing that it was not the fathers who gave life to the Lord but the Lord who gave them rebirth in the Gospel of Life. Similarly, the knot of Eve’s disobedience was untied through the obedience of Mary. For what the virgin Eve tied through unbelief, the Virgin Mary set free through faith.
Saward, John, translator, The Scandal of the Incarnation: Irenaeus: Against the Heresies (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1990), IV.33.11 |
St. Jerome, the greatest biblical scholar in history, said:
"Death came through Eve, but life has come through Mary." (Letter XXII.21)
If Mary was not immaculately conceived, she could not have been in the same state of innocence as Eve, and hence could not have untied the knot of disobedience as she did. This has an impact on your salvation.
As for her perpetual virginity, I'd submit that this is clinical proof of the virginal conception of Jesus, which is related to his divinity. Also, it emphasizes that she's the Ark of the New Covenant (See Revelation 12:1 and compare 2 Samuel 6:9-11 to Luke 1:39-56 with the three months and "how is it that the [ark/mother of my Lord] should come to me.") which underscores Christ's divinity. Her virginity is also a model of total self-giving and radical openness to God's will, and a sign of chastity and self-denial, which is very practical in today's world. Symbolically, Mary is entirely faithful to and consecrated to God; she is a type of the church which has one husband, God.
As for her Assumption, this affirms the destiny of us all, to be resurrected in the pattern of Jesus. The resurrection wasn't just for Jesus; it was for *us*. The Assumption proclaims: Death is not the end. It provides hope.
We live in an age of:
- Obsession with physical appearance,
- Gender confusion and body dysphoria,
- Exploitation and commodification of the body,
- Fear of death and decay.
The Assumption reminds us:
- The human body is not trash to be discarded but a temple destined for resurrection and glory.
- Mary shares now in what we hope to receive at the resurrection of the dead. (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:52–53)
Practical takeaway:
Your body matters. What you do with it matters. It’s made not for use (not made for exploitation, objectification, or temporary pleasure), but for glory.
Eric |
Brijn replied:
|
Dear Eric and company,
Thank you for helping me gain a better understanding of Catholicism. It is very helpful to work through this so I can understand and try to resolve apparent contradictions in Catholicism.
As a Protestant there is a lot about Catholics I don't understand, but you are helping me understand more.
Brijn
|
Mike replied:
|
Brijn,
You said:
- How could a pope make an infallible statement defining the Immaculate Conception and bodily Assumption of Mary if it is not a matter of faith and morals?
Because these Marian dogmas and doctrines ARE matters of faith and morals!
They are part of the Church's teaching because they defend Christological doctrines of Christ. Marian dogmas and doctrines say something about:
- Who is Jesus Christ? and, because the Blessed Virgin Mary is REALLY His mother, says something about who Mary is.
On issues related to historical facts:
- What if the legacy, mainstream media built up former President Bill Clinton as someone who lived a life like Mother Teresa of Calcutta, then people worldwide questioned issues about his life based on these media reports?
With time, people would see that what is being reported, is not the truth, and conclude Bill Clinton is not anything close to Mother Teresa of Calcutta.
What we say about Mary, including historical facts about her life are extremely important to the faith of Catholics worldwide from 33 A.D. to this day because again, they directly or indirectly say something about Jesus and/or Mary and who they are.
Because the only Christian Church Jesus founded is proclaiming this glorious event, the Assumption, really happened, the faithful down through the centuries and for that matter our secular culture accept that this is a real event that really happened. Why? Because it did!!!
Christian believers worldwide are just protecting and safeguarding what we know his been true from the time of Jesus Himself.
What
we (say or teach) about Mary reflects on what we (say or teach) about Jesus.
You can't separate the flesh and bones of a mother from those of her Son. Those that tried, ended up in numerous heresies in the early centuries of the Church.
If the Church did not ensure the truth of historical facts about Mary, enemies of the Church could distort it to the detriment of the Church's official teachings on Jesus.
You said:
What is declared a Catholic truth one day could be decried the next as an error that was never actually defined infallibly.
- How can I know what truth is?
Look to Jesus and His Church that HE founded on St. Peter and his successor. When you don't believe in the teachings of Jesus's One Church, the Catholic Church, you really don't totally believe in Jesus.
You are playing a spiritually deadly game of personal pope which, in the Church we call Moral Relativism.
Based on your other replies to Eric, you may find these web postings interesting reading:
I recommend you search our database of questions and answers. We have over 6,000 of them.
Just use related search words to find similar questions that are on your mind:
"Those who persevere in pursuing the faith, will be blessed." — Mike Humphrey, so keep searching and know we are here to help!!!
Mike
|
|
|
|
