Mary - The Mother of Our Lord

[Albion]

I addressed MC's point, which you conveniently did not (or, at least, addressed what you felt like...). I'll scrub your quote from my response. Besides, there has been more than enough discussion around the potential errors that have been made about Protestants (or anyone) being "allowed to adore" Mary that MC's continued objection should not be a surprise.

Edit: Fixed.

Not exactly fixed, although I'm not overly concerned about how you alter your post.

The point was that you have been directing your objections to me, although I am one person here who has never commented one way or the other on the issue you are concerned about.

 

[Josiah]

[MENTION=389]Albion[/MENTION] [MENTION=55]ImaginaryDay2[/MENTION]


Frankly, we may need to wait for our friend ImaginaryDay to get back on this. It MAY be that he demands that I 'prove' a general observation I made about what PROTESTANTS are PERMITTED/ALLOWED to DO (praxis) as if it were de fide dogma, which is obviously impossible since practices are not teachings. We'll see. It's appropriate to give our friend the time he needs to read post #51 and our exchanges that follow; he is a wise and excellent poster. He has a number of posts to read first. I asked him what his views are on these, and I'm sure that's coming; I look forward to that.


IMO, point of post #1 is obvious and declared: it is a discussion of Christian theology, namely, the current Marian De Fide Dogmas of the individual RC Denomination and specifically whether such TEACHINGS are true and to the level and mandate claimed. So far, it seems no Catholic has engaged in such, rather we had the declaration from one that these matters which his denomination mandates and requires be issues of highest concern and importance possible to be "of little interest and no concern" in his view. It's a view I don't share. Now, in the footnotes, I did bring up that Catholics do NOT worship - adore - venerate - revere ( all practices ) Mary AS GOD, AS DIVINE but I think it obvious that this footnote is NOT to change the topic from the dogmas to various practices but rather to underline my point that these current Marian De Fide Dogmas do not teach that Mary is divine or God in any sense. I specificially stated that NO CHRISTIANS (Protestant or Catholic or whatever) teach that Mary is in any sense The Lord God or divine, so among NONE is this "respect, adoring, revering, honoring" something directed to Mary AS GOD (that point I made clearly and boldly - and should be kept in mind and not ignored).

Now, in conveying my point that Protestants GENERALLY don't hold these varies teachings to be de fide dogma OR heresy, I mentioned that PROTESTANTS generally are permitted and allowed to honor - adore - respect - revere Mary (as fully and only human, obviously), but not specifically forbidden OR mandated to do so. Now, if you are aware that most Protestant denominations officially MANDATE or PROHIBIT their members from respecting Mary, that's news to me and I'd be interested in the support for that (because I know of NO such denomination, much less that this is MOST denominations). It was a general observation to underline a point of "middle ground". I admit I cannot PROVE that EVERY ONE of the 400,000,000 or so Protestants of the world have some official, formal declaration from their denomination to "ALLOW" such (but then I can't prove that for allowing them to admire Mother Theresa or to drink coffee or drive a car or have a dog but IMO the general comment that generally denominations allow this is valid even if not dogmatically proven), it was a general observation making a point: one that generally in Protestantism, there is no formal, official, dogmatic, mandated prohibition OR requirement vis-a-vis Our Lady (I'm pretty sure ImaginaryDay2 knows that).


He furthermore chose to underline another parenthetical point that I MAY have more respect for MC's denomination than MC does (for example, I'd never even entertain the thought that the RCC places atheists in charge of teaching Catholic theology to children, much less presume it) and that I MAY have a more "Catholic" Marian perspective than he does since his stated view is that it is "of little interest and no concern" whether these current Marian De Fide Dogmas are true. IMO, it does matter. Let me explain it this way: I love my wife. I adore her, I revere her. Now, it matters to me if people shout false things about her - especially if they declare such as matters as of highest importance, concern and certainty. Make sense? In my Catholic days, I always found it curious (and a bit troubling) how the issue of truth seemed to me to get a "pass" when it comes to Mary.... ESPECIALLY since since there is the claim (which I completely believe) that She is loved, adored, revered, honored, venerated? Shouldn't it be of MORE concern whether what is said of a loved one is true or not, precisely because the object is loved/adored/respected/honored? Wouldn't the reality that the object/subject is one greatly loved and respected make truth about him/her MORE of a concern, MORE important rather than thus of little interest and no concern? Shouldn't truthfulness in that case be of MORE concern, not of NO concern? Well, IMO, the answer is: yes. It is of MORE concern to me what is shouted as of upmost certainty and importance about my wife BECAUSE I love, adore, revere, respect and honor her. My love and adoration of her makes truthfulness about her of GREATER concern, not of NO concern. Make sense? Follow me? MC's position is that the entire topic of Mary is "of little interest and no concern." It's MY position that truthfulness in teaching about Mary IS a matter of concern, and the RCC holds that it is a matter of highest concern possible. Do you feel that MC or myself is closer to the RCC position in this regard? What do you think?


There is one issue before us: Whether the current Marian De Fide Dogmas of the RCC are true (and to the level and mandate declared)? On Catholic weighed into say "it is of little interest and no concern." We had one Protestant engage briefly on the PVM dogma but other than that....



Thank you!


Blessings!


- Josiah



.

 

[Josiah]

Will pick this up again after work. Imo, this is in line with the OP, as well as statements that were brought into the discussion by you (Josiah).

Edit - A small perusal of your last response has this:

"Whether these current Marian De Fide Dogmas of the RCC are true and to the level and importance declared/mandated by that singular denomination? MC has stated his view (one I disagree with; I think I have a much more Catholic view than he does)"

I believe that my questions are right on topic.

[MENTION=55]ImaginaryDay2[/MENTION]


Thank you.

Before you respond, I request that you please read posts 48, 51, 59 and 62. Fair? Thanks!

I look forward to your contribution.


- Josiah



.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Not exactly fixed, although I'm not overly concerned about how you alter your post.

The point was that you have been directing your objections to me, although I am one person here who has never commented one way or the other on the issue you are concerned about.

Fair enough. Teaches me not to address a post first thing in the morning. My apologies.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

[MENTION=55]ImaginaryDay2[/MENTION]


Thank you.

Before you respond, I request that you please read posts 48, 51, 59 and 62. Fair? Thanks!

I look forward to your contribution.


- Josiah



.

I recognize that my error is not differentiating between teaching and practice, which was your intent with the OP. My mistake. It was just that an odd statement caught me off guard, and the discussion did turn to practice for a bit (you'll have to give me that...) so I wanted to clarify. I'm not so sure that the two can be so easily extracted from one another - it would be hoped that practice follows from teaching. So if something is said that is not (as far as I know) generally accepted teaching, and presented as an acceptable practice, then ought we not question it? That was my point; But I'll leave it alone.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Josiah wrote in answer to ImaginaryDay2 "It may be that he demands that I 'prove' a general observation I made about what protestants are permitted/allowed to do (praxis) as if it were de fide dogma, which is obviously impossible since practices are not teachings". The truth is that protestants can do and believe anything they please and they demonstrate that by having dozens of major denominations, hundreds of mid-sized denominations, thousands of minor denominations, and tens of thousands of independent groups all professing to be Christian and to have returned to the gospel taught by Jesus and the apostles yet all disagreeing on matters ranging from who to baptise, when to baptise, what baptism means; is predestination both to heaven and to hell, is it to heaven alone, is it a doctrine of the devil; are the elect of God saved now and forever regardless of their earthly conduct, are they saved yet able to lose salvation by wicked acts, is salvation dependent on righteous character and faithful deeds; to questions about continuing revelation received by apostles, prophets, seers, and others.

Presbyterians and Lutherans as well as Anglicans baptise infants by pouring or sprinkling water on them while Seventh Day Adventists and Baptists only accept baptisms that are performed by submersion. Pentecostals and Seventh Day Adventists accept modern day revelations from gifted individuals within their faith tradition while many Anglicans, Baptists, and Lutherans reject claims of that kind. So it is no surprise that Josiah asserts that "protestants are allowed to adore Mary" - allowed by the principles of protestant theology. For protestantism as a whole there is nothing, except for perhaps a few core principles, that is "de fide dogma". Very few Protestants would even use the word "dogma" to describe their own teaching/doctrine and even fewer would say "de fide" in relation to any teaching. Many protestants from Pentecostal and Independent faith traditions are very reluctant to use the word "doctrine" never mind "dogma" for the same sorts of reasons that make many from those traditions refuse the word "religion" as a description of their own teaching and practise.

Catholics on the other hand are not permitted to adore any created being because adoration is given to God alone. Catholics are permitted to venerate the good angels, saints, apostles, prophets, and Blessed Mary. Catholics are permitted and not permitted according to the principles of Catholic teaching which Catholics believe to be the teaching of Christ handed down by the apostles that Jesus Christ chose and preserved by the bishops that the apostles taught, trained, and chose to lead the churches in the various cities and towns and provinces of the Roman empire in the first century and who have in turn chosen, taught, and trained their successors in all the lands of the world.

If josiah wants to refer to Lutheran pracise (within his own unique, particular, specific, and separate denomination) as permitting the adoration of Blessed Mary then okay. Protestants can do anything they like. That is why there are so many varieties of Protestantism. Some like this and others like that while still others like something else. In effect there is no such thing as a consensus protestant teaching or practise regarding Blessed Mary.

 

[Albion]

If josiah wants to refer to Lutheran pracise (within his own unique, particular, specific, and separate denomination) as permitting the adoration of Blessed Mary then okay. Protestants can do anything they like. That is why there are so many varieties of Protestantism. Some like this and others like that while still others like something else. In effect there is no such thing as a consensus protestant teaching or practise regarding Blessed Mary.

But of course, there is no consensus among Catholics, either. Some, like the Eastern Orthodox and the Old Catholics, accept some and reject others of the Marian dogmas that the Vatican demands be believed by its people.

This kind of argument--one that is based upon the presumption that one's own denomination is correct simply because there is a range of opinion or practice found among everyone one else if they're taken together as if representing a single entity--is always going to be incorrect. This approach, by the way, is identical to that taken by some of the better known cults which assert that they alone have the truth because, allegedly, all the other denominations just continue to believe what they inherited from the Catholic Church of the past.

From what I can tell, it also misses Josiah's point.

 

[Josiah]

MC, you ARE aware - I'm sure - that "adore" and "venerate" are essentially synonyms in modern English. I invited you to get our your dictionary and look up the following words: adore, respect, revere, worship, venerate. And then to LIST all of the meanings of each, then connecting similar meanings of the different words. IF you had done this, it would have been an epiphany for you and would have eliminated your whole "point" as baseless.

And yes, you too are aware that the RC Denomination agrees with NONE - in teaching (dogma) or practice (praxis); a unity of zero. Yes, I know, you can find some Protestant denominations just as "bad" as the RCC one is in this regard, but of course you can't fine any worse since it is impossible to have unity with less than none.

Back to the issue of this thread: Whether the current Marian de fide dogmas of the RC Denomination are true (and to the level claimed)?


- Josiah




.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Josiah, dogma is not defined by "Webster's dictionary". Surely you know that. So why do you refer others to a secular dictionary as source for the teaching of their faith tradition? You must be doing it in jest. It cannot be serious.

 

[Albion]

But the words used by church bodies in order to describe their beliefs or practices ARE defined by the dictionary.

And it is commonplace for churches to deliberately choose wording that casts their questionable beliefs or practices in a better light than the appropriate words would do. This is not much different from the technique used by political movements to make what they're selling seem more appealing to the average listener. Hence, worship is described as 'veneration' and divorces as 'annulments' in the same way as socialized medicine becomes 'a single-payer system.'

 

[MoreCoffee]

The words used in the Catholic Church have their source in Latin and not in Webster's dictionary. Catholics maintain the meanings of the Latin words and those words predate the invention/evolution of the English language.

ADORATION is the acknowledgment of God as God, Creator and Savior, the Lord and Master of everything that exists. Through worship and prayer, the Church and individual persons give to God the adoration which is the first act of the virtue of religion. The first commandment of the law obliges us to adore God.

VENERATION is showing devotion and respect to Mary, the Apostles, and the martyrs, who were viewed as faithful witnesses to faith in Jesus Christ. Later, veneration was given to those who led a life of prayer and self-denial in giving witness to Christ, whose virtues were recognized and publicly proclaimed in their canonization as saints. Such veneration is often extended to the relics or remains of those recognized as saints; indeed, to many sacred objects and images. Veneration must be clearly distinguished from adoration and worship, which are due to God alone.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

But of course, there is no consensus among Catholics, either. Some, like the Eastern Orthodox and the Old Catholics, accept some and reject others of the Marian dogmas that the Vatican demands be believed by its people.

Among individual Catholics, perhaps not. Catholic dogma, however, has made the issue clear - by which individual Catholics ought to be corrected.

This kind of argument--one that is based upon the presumption that one's own denomination is correct simply because there is a range of opinion or practice found among everyone one else if they're taken together as if representing a single entity--is always going to be incorrect.

I would say that the "range of opinion and practice" is the very thing that can help to identify correct and incorrect doctrine. Because there is this "range of opinion and practice", any attempt to codify what these individual denominations might believe (Google "Evangelical Manifesto" and the more recent "Nashville Statement") falls flat because certain denominations (not merely individual Evangelicals) will disagree.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

But the words used by church bodies in order to describe their beliefs or practices ARE defined by the dictionary.

Not so when examining "De Fide Dogmas" of the Catholic church. The reason I got involved in this thread, and the reason I objected early on (and still object - although I'll do it nicely from now on...) is that the Catholic church body has a specific definition for "adoration" contained within the 'CCC'. It is distinct and uniquely different from the Rev. Webster. If we are talking about "De Fide Dogmas" of the Catholic church as regards Mary, then let's do so without dodging this issue.

 

[Josiah]

the Catholic church body has a specific definition for "adoration" contained within the 'CCC'.

... and that's fine (although it seems NO Catholic teacher I ever had knew that; which is not surprising). But then the post that disturbed some was one I made that said that generally PROTESTANTS are permitted (not officially forbidden) to adore - respect - honor - revere Mary. No one has disputed what I actually said and no one has offered even one Protestant denomination that officially/formally forbids even one non-RCC member from adoring - respecting - honoring - revering Mary. Not even one denomination forbidding even one Protestant (or any other non-RCC member, Protestant, Catholic, LDS or even Christian).

If we are talking about "De Fide Dogmas" of the Catholic church as regards Mary, then let's do so without dodging this issue.

I agree, and the whole "fuss" over my comment is exactly such a "dodge." We're on post #74 and perhaps 15% of them have addressed the issue. MC (who as a self-confessed Catholic) who stated his departure from his denomination in that he regards all these current Marian de fide dogmas of his denomination to be "of little interest and no concern" (contrary to his denomination which has officially declared these to be highest possible importance, concern and certainty). We had an exchange of 3 or 4 posts with a Protestant implying his disagreement with the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. And 3 (Psalm 16, Lamm and Tigger) who generally expressed agreement with the OP. The rest is, well, as you said.

As explained, I did include a small footnote that NONE of these current Marian de fide Dogmas of the RC Denomination regard Mary as IN ANY SENSE The Lord God or divine - and thus the adoration/respect/honor/veneration/worship directed to Her is NEVER in ANY SENSE directed to the divine (these terms never have the meaning of directed to the divine). The footnote obviously was not an attempt on my part to side-tract and derail my own thread to the issue of Marian practices but simply to clarify that none of the current Marian de fide Dogmas of the singular RC Denomination in any way declare or imply that Mary is divine. This point about THEOLOGY seems to have disturbed one or two members and seems used to successfully dodge the issue.


Back to the topic: Are these current Marian de fide Dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church true - and to the level claimed? I gave my view in the opening post. Our resident self-described Catholic gave his (perhaps shocking) view in post #16. Three Protestants (Psalm16 and two fellow Lutherans) expressed their general agreement with my view. But nearly all of the posts here have been "dodges" as you put it.



- Josiah




.

 

[MoreCoffee]

... the post that disturbed some was one I made that said that generally PROTESTANTS are permitted (not officially forbidden) to adore - respect - honor - revere Mary. ...

Protestants can do anything they like. They could worship baal if they had a mind to. Nobody is going to stop them now.

 

[Albion]

Among individual Catholics, perhaps not. Catholic dogma, however, has made the issue clear - by which individual Catholics ought to be corrected.

You're only referring to one of the Catholic churches. That's not what I was speaking to in that post.

While it might be said that Protestants hold to a variety of beliefs, as is shown by the differences among the many Protestant denominations, it is also true that there are a range of beliefs among the various denominations defined as Catholic.

It either has to be said that X is the belief of a certain one of the Protestant churches, in comparison with the Roman Catholic Church OR ELSE we can compare all the Protestant churches with all the Catholic ones (in which case, both groups are going to show a diversity of belief). It's disingenuous, at the least, to compare ONE church selected from one of the groups with ALL of the churches in the other grouping in an attempt to "prove" that there is substantial unity in the one but disunity in the other.

 

[Albion]

Protestants can do anything they like. They could worship baal if they had a mind to. Nobody is going to stop them now.

Exactly as is the case with members of the Roman Catholic Church!

Try as one might to promote a dispute, there is actually no issue here.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Only one of the ancient churches is called The Catholic Church. The others use different names like "Greek Orthodox" or "Coptic Orthodox" and so forth.

 

[Josiah]

You're only referring to one of the Catholic churches. That's not what I was speaking to in that post.

While it might be said that Protestants hold to a variety of beliefs, as is shown by the differences among the many Protestant denominations, it is also true that there are a range of beliefs among the various denominations defined as Catholic.

It either has to be said that X is the belief of a certain one of the Protestant churches, in comparison with the Roman Catholic Church OR ELSE we can compare all the Protestant churches with all the Catholic ones (in which case, both groups are going to show a diversity of belief). It's disingenuous, at the least, to compare ONE church selected from one of the groups with ALL of the churches in the other grouping in an attempt to "prove" that there is substantial unity in the one but disunity in the other.

I don't deny there is a range of beliefs vis-a-vis Mary in denominations. Of course, the RC Denomination is in agreement with NO other in this regard, it has a "unity" of none on this topic. Indeed, we're only discussing the CURRENT situation in the individual, singular RC Denomination (last changed in 1950 although another change is expected soon). As we see, this has NOTHING to do with Catholics; our most active Catholic here at CH has publicly stated his departure and disagreement with his denomination on this point, stating here in this thread that he regards all these current (post 1950) Marian de fide Dogmas of his denomination to be "of little interest and no concern" quite powerfully in opposition to the position of the RCC that these are matters of highest importance and concern possible, highest certainty possible. So, not only does the RCC have a UNIQUE view about Mary (in union with NONE) but as we see, not all Catholics at all agree to the de fide dogmatic position of their denomination on this. In fairness, there are denominations other than the RCC which also have a unity of NONE when it comes to dogma regarding Mary, but there are none that are worse (it's not possible to have a unity of less than none, to be in full dogmatic agreement with less than no other denomination).


IMO, there are not simply and only two positions here: That the official/formal/mandated position of the singular RC Denomination since 1950 regarding Mary as de fide dogma is right or wrong, De Fide Dogma OR Heresy. There are other possibilities, a LOT of other options. It seems to ME, most denominations simply have not mandated DE FIDE DOGMA OR HERESY on these..... some (such as Lutherans and Anglicans) seem rather comfortable with them and permit people to hold them - just not to use them dogmatically to condemn and separate), some are increasingly uncomfortable with them (many "Evangelicals" for example, it seems this discomfort is directly proportional to the increased emphasis the RC Denomination gives; as the RCC issues more and more de fide Dogma about Her, stressed Her more and more - these react in the opposite direction).


IMO, truth SHOULD matter, even in the case of Mary. IMO, even if one has a very low view of Mary, still - even as a human and in view of the Commandment "Thou shalt not lie" and the prohibition from gossip - it SHOULD matter whether some claims about Her are declared to be DE FIDE DOGMA (matters of highest certainty, importance and concern possible - truth on the highest level possible) or HERESY (a matter of gravest error possible, perhaps even jeoprodizing salvation). IMO, Mary - as a human, as the Mother of Our Lord, as one of profound faith and obedience - deserves that respect, deserves that what is SHOUTED about Her (to the very highest level, in the strongest and most binding and most mandated way) should be true. Simply saying, "Well, those who claim it's true claim it's true and that's good enough to make it De Fide Dogma and mandate all agree!" troubles me just a bit. Perhaps also, if one is going to condemn and mock a heart-felt view of billions of Christians over thousands of years as specifically HERETICAL, well..... should they also have something to support that? Make sense? IMO, it has to do with respect (and that Commandment).

I must say: In my Catholic years, it was never the piety or faith or (generally) the practices around Mary that troubled me.... nor have I ever been remotely convinced that the views (any of them) are specifically heretical. What I noted was a shocking lack of interest or concern in whether any of this is actually true..... whether they were being truthful or lying when they SHOUT dogmatically about Her ..... whether they were honoring Mary or disgracing Her by their claims about Her. It may be we can't definitively determine that in the case of these current Marian views of the individual RC Denomination one way or the other, but if so, that's perhaps reason enough for them NOT be to de fide Dogmas?

And I might add.... has the RCC's invention of these things and declaring them DE FIDE DOGMAS actually resulted in Mary being LESS honored and esteemed among Christians????




- Josiah




.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

...and thus the adoration/respect/honor/veneration/worship directed to Her is NEVER in ANY SENSE directed to the divine (these terms never have the meaning of directed to the divine).

Last time, and then I will leave you alone. "Adoration", as defined by the CCC of the 'Roman Catholic Denomination', carries with it a connotation that is associated/reserved/unique to God alone. In this way, this term does have the sense of being directed to the divine. Respect, honor, and veneration are not spoken of in such a way (as far as I have seen). My question is why this continues to be misrepresented in this thread? You don't need to answer.