December 8, 2004
On Matters of Faith, Morals and Mary
Could someone please explain why they were defined? In particular, why couldn’t they remain at the level of doctrine rather than be promoted to dogma? I’ve heard that the Orthodox agree that Mary was conceived without sin, but were uncomfortable about declaring as dogma. Since the Orthodox Church is the only other Church we recognize as maintaining the Deposit of Faith, their discomfort gives me pause.
On a related note, where does the tradition of Mary’s perpetual virginity come from? I know the words for “brother” and “sister” in Scripture can mean “cousin” or other relatives, but what evidential support do we have for this interpretation?
Mrs. B. proposes these answers:
Shouldn’t dogma be limited to those articles of faith which are absolutely required for salvation? In a word, yes. In a few more words, Mary’s Immaculate Conception and Assumption are articles of faith required for salvation. Why? My thought is this… Mary is definitely not your typical woman. She gave birth to God.
As far as the Immaculate Conception goes, I think in order to carry out such an important task you’d have to be totally without sin. If an angel showed up & told me I’d give birth to God, I’d totally freak out because I’m certainly no saint. Not Mary, though, she said yes with very little hesitation. Mary’s Immaculate Conception is directly tied to the Annunciation and Nativity… and Jesus being both God & Man. So… if believing that Jesus is God & man is dogma, then it would follow that believing Mary was immaculately conceived would also be dogma.
The Assumption is also important to our salvation. Sure, Jesus was raised from the dead & ascended into heaven… He’s God. For Mary to be assumed, body and soul, into heaven gives us the extra push of hope & faith that we’ll share the same someday. It’s saying that it happened to someone who, though without sin, was not divine and thus can/will someday happen for all who are in heaven.
On a related note, where does the tradition of Mary’s perpetual virginity come from? I know the words for “brother” and “sister” in Scripture can mean “cousin” or other relatives, but what evidential support do we have for this interpretation? I don’t know where exactly the tradition comes from, and I don’t have any sources to back me up, but I will say that I struggled for a long time with Mary’s perpetual virginity. One day, it occured to me that Mary’s marriage to Joseph could not have been a typical marriage whatsoever. So, even though nobody’s ever put anything in front of my face & said, “see, the answer is HERE,” I no longer find it difficult to believe. It was a weird little epiphany. I just suddenly realized that Mary’s existance as Mary’s life was most incredibly unique and extraordinary and that nothing about the idea of her perpetual virginity seemed weird anymore.
So, there you have it, Funky… Mrs. B.’s take on Marian theology, however flawed it may be.
Stay Tuned for Next Week’s puzzle… Advent: Blue or Violet???
Posted in
Catholicism | By Amy at 10:02 pm |
Comments(6)
I made a short addition to that post to clarify my points.
The idea of a human married virgin and a diety conceiving a child “immaculately”(which would imply that sex is a dirty shameful thing) is present in a lot of other mythologies that predate Christianity by a while. The Greek Pantheon of Gods is a virtual cornacopia of Gods and humans mixing, though a virgin birth was not necessarily a precondition of one of the Gods conceiving a child. The idea of a virgin birth is hardly unique, or even original at the time of the foundation of the Christian religion.
Anonymous: It’s late & I need to get some sleep, but I’d like to reply to the start of your comment…
When Catholics speak of the Immaculate Conception, it is not Mary conceiving Jesus. This is one of the biggest misconceptions of the Church. The Immaculate Conception refers to Mary *being* conceived. The Immaculate Conception in no way implies that sex is dirty and/or shameful, as Mary was conceived by two human parents.
This post has been removed by the author.
I’ve never been comfortable with the idea that *anything* has to be believed so that someone can be saved, and I don’t think that’s what the Church teaches anyway. We can’t say that someone is going to heaven or hell – we’re not God. And I have absolute faith in the limitless possibilities of God’s mercy.
-rachel2205
Rachel, you’re right that the Church doesn’t say it can determine with certainty that someone will or won’t go to heaven because only God can determine that… humans can’t make that judgement. The Church also does not teach that salvation is impossible outside of the Church. BUT the Church does teach that the way to salvation is through Christ and full truth/knowledge of Christ can be found in the Church and it’s teachings handed down from scripture, Tradition and tradition. That said, the Church might say that a Catholic would be “on the right track” to salvation more than someone who out-right rejected the Church, but nobody could determine what would actually happen. For the Catholic, that would mean that accepting/believing the Church’s teachings would be “required” for salvation.
I’m not sure I explained this in the best way… let me see if I can’t seek out a better explanation….