Petition The Holy Father For The 5th Marian Dogma

[kafka]

I think some of you here are placing too much dependence on documents alone and missing my whole point about the truth of the Ordianary and Universal Magisterium. VI & VII taught that the Universal Magisterium teaches definitively. I'll see if I can post more tonight but I have to go.

Edited March 2, 2009 by kafka

[StColette]

[quote name='kafka' post='1795229' date='Mar 2 2009, 02:01 PM']I think some of you here are placing too much dependence on documents alone and missing my whole point about the truth of the Ordianary and Universal Magisterium. VI & VII taught that the Universal Magisterium teaches definitively. I'll see if I can post more tonight but I have to go.[/quote]

Many of the teachings you listed as "dogmas" are doctrines of the Church and not dogmas, but we are still bound by them. If they were dogmas then they would be listed as Dogmas by the Church. The Dogma of Our Lady's Perpetual Virginity is an example of a Dogma proclaimed through the Universal Magisterium and not through formal definition. If some of the titles that you listed are recognized as dogma by the Universal Magisterium, then the Church would say so, as it does with the Dogma of Perpetual Virginity. Please provide sources that say the others that you listed are dogmas.

[Brother Adam]

There are only four articles that have been elevated to the level of Dogma concerning the Blessed Mother:

The Immaculate Conception
The Perpetual Virginity
The Assumption
The Mother of God

You can look each of these in Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, their development and their declaration as dogma.

[KnightofChrist]

So Mary as the Spouse of the Holy Spirit is not dogma?

[StColette]

o Mary as Spouse of the Holy Spirit is not a dogma. Now that does not mean that it is any less true.

[Slappo]

(This is as far as I know)
Dogma's are clearly defined infallible proclamations made either by the Universal Magisterium or by the Papal Authority to proclaim [i]ex cathedra[/i]

Doctrines are infallible teachings of the Church but not proclaimed in a direct statement to define what the teaching is.

Mary as Spouse of the Spirit, or her Queenship, her Co-redemption (suffering with Christ) is Tradition and has been handed down over the centuries since the early Church, but it has never been proclaimed in a dogmatic proclamation such as the Immaculate Conception. That doesn't make them non-infallible teachings. "Mary Spouse of the Spirit" is a title that we can use publicly, so is "Queen of the Angels" etc. but they have not been elevated to dogma.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote]o Mary as Spouse of the Holy Spirit is not a dogma. Now that does not mean that it is any less true.[/quote]

Are you sure it is not a General dogma?

Edited March 3, 2009 by KnightofChrist

[kafka]

[quote name='StColette' post='1795287' date='Mar 2 2009, 02:59 PM']Many of the teachings you listed as "dogmas" are doctrines of the Church and not dogmas, but we are still bound by them. If they were dogmas then they would be listed as Dogmas by the Church. The Dogma of Our Lady's Perpetual Virginity is an example of a Dogma proclaimed through the Universal Magisterium and not through formal definition. If some of the titles that you listed are recognized as dogma by the Universal Magisterium, then the Church would say so, as it does with the Dogma of Perpetual Virginity. Please provide sources that say the others that you listed are dogmas.[/quote]
You seemed to have missed my entire point I was making about the definitive and infallible teaching of the Magisterium. The infallible teaching of the Universal Magisterium is more illusive than solemn formal definitions of Popes, and of Ecumenical Councils. A teaching of the Magisterium does not have to be formally raised to a dogma in order to in fact be a dogma (by dogmas I mean infallible teachings, by doctrines I mean non-infallible teachings). The infallible teachings of the Universal Magisterium are not contained in documents, though they may be expressed in various documents, by various Popes and Bishops throughout salvation history. In a greater way the infallible teachings of the Universal Magisterium are expressed via the daily witness and teachings of Bishops in union with the daily witness and teachings of the Pope over a period of perhaps a few generations. Many of the moral teachings such as abortion, the use of artificial contraception, etc are dogmas taught by the Universal Magisterium. These have not been given a solemn formal definition yet they are infallible, and require sacred assent by the Faithful. They have been taught by many Popes and Bishops throughout salvation history and the special gift or charism of the Magisterium enables them to teach these infallibly by the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

The teachings of the Universal Magisterium are not definitions, but they are proposed in a definitive way, by being taught universally. These teachings are infallible, not by virtue of being defined in a particular statement in a particular document, but by virtue of having been taught universally, in many places throughout the world, at various times, by the body of Bishops, and also by the Pope.


I found these two articles last night. These Catholic writers hold the same basic view as I hold. They are decent articles yet I do not agree with everyone of their points, and I prefer other some other terminology and differentiations:
[url="http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/jyoung.html"]http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/jyoung.html[/url]

[url="http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/magisterium.htm"]http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/magisterium.htm[/url]

Here are some citations illustrating aspects of the Universal Magisterium (I am too tired to comment for now):

“Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ's doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the Successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.” Lumen Gentium, n. 25, paragraph 2

Here is another one:
"Further, all those things are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and which the Church, either by a solemn judgment or by her ordinary and universal teaching [magisterium], proposes for belief as having been divinely revealed." Dogmatic Constitution, De Fide, chap. 3.

Collette,

I think you labor under a narrow view of what an infallible teaching/dogma is. I like the distinction you make between a teaching of the Magisterium which is solemned defined and not solemnly defined, yet under the Universal Magisterium in my theological opinion (and those of others) I think many more dogmas, are infallibly taught, and should recieve sacred assent from the Faithful. The problem yet the the complete nature and criteria of the Universal Magisterium is itself yet to be clarified, and defined, just as Papal Infallibility wasnt defined until V1, yet it still existed before then.

I dont agree that you continue to say the likes "The Church teaches there are only four Marian dogmas." Essentially what you are saying is the Magisterium has literally declared a specific number of dogmas to be held by the faithful at this particular point in time. This is not so. The Deposit of Faith expresses nothing about a particular number of dogmas to be held at a particular point in time within salvation history. As far as I know a Pope or Bishop teaching in the name of Christ has never declared a particular number of Marian or Christological or Ecclecialogical dogmas to be held at so and so a time. This sort of numbering of Marian dogmas is in my opinion narrow, and in the end a mere speculation or opinion.





[quote name='Brother Adam' post='1795301' date='Mar 2 2009, 03:13 PM']There are only four articles that have been elevated to the level of Dogma concerning the Blessed Mother:

The Immaculate Conception
The Perpetual Virginity
The Assumption
The Mother of God

You can look each of these in Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, their development and their declaration as dogma.[/quote]
that is your theological opinion.

[quote name='Slappo' post='1795474' date='Mar 2 2009, 07:35 PM'](This is as far as I know)
Dogma's are clearly defined infallible proclamations made either by the Universal Magisterium or by the Papal Authority to proclaim [i]ex cathedra[/i]

Doctrines are infallible teachings of the Church but not proclaimed in a direct statement to define what the teaching is.

Mary as Spouse of the Spirit, or her Queenship, her Co-redemption (suffering with Christ) is Tradition and has been handed down over the centuries since the early Church, but it has never been proclaimed in a dogmatic proclamation such as the Immaculate Conception. That doesn't make them non-infallible teachings. "Mary Spouse of the Spirit" is a title that we can use publicly, so is "Queen of the Angels" etc. but they have not been elevated to dogma.[/quote]
my understanding differs from yours. Here is the schematic I follow if anyone can make sense of it:

1. The Holy Trinity: Father-Son-Spirit: Three Persons of One Divine Nature.
A. Tradition-Scripture-Magisterium: Three aspects of one gift of Divine Revelation. Sacred
Scripture proceeds from Sacred Tradition as the Son proceeds from the Father. Sacred
Magisterium proceeds primarily from Sacred Tradition, and secondarily from Sacred Scripture,
as the Spirit proceeds primarily from the Father, and secondarily from the Son.


2. The Deposit of Faith: The Divine Revelation of God consisting solely of Tradition and Scripture.

A. Tradition: The 'Deeds wrought by God in the history of salvation' (Dei Verbum n.2).
B. Scripture: The Words written by God as an expression or reflection clarifying His Deeds.

The Relationship of Tradition-Scripture-Magisterium: Three aspects of one gift of Divine Revelation. Sacred Scripture proceeds from Sacred Tradition as the Son proceeds from the Father. Sacred Magisterium proceeds primarily from Sacred Tradition, and
secondarily from Sacred Scripture, as the Spirit proceeds primarily from the Father, and secondarily from the
Son.

Tradition: The 'Deeds wrought by God in the history of salvation' (Dei Verbum n.2).

Scripture: The Words written by God as an expression or reflection clarifying His Deeds.

Magisterium: The ability and authority of the Church to teach the truths (faith & morals) found in the Deposit of Faith.

A. Sacred Magisterium: Everything taught under the ability and authority of the Sacred
Magisterium is entirely true and infallible, can never be excercised apart from the Pope and
may be exercised in three ways:
* Papal Infallibility
* Ecumenical Councils, and any similar gatherings of the body of Bishops with the Pope.
* The Universal Magisterium, also called the ordinary and universal Magisterium
B. Ordinary Magisterium
* All other teachings of the Popes, Ecumenical Councils, individual Bishops and groups of
Bishops which are not infallible by default are non-infallible. Non-Infallible teachings of
the Any individual Bishop, or the Pope, or any gathering of Bishops (without the Pope).
This is the more common way a Bishop or Pope teaches in the name of Christ.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

Okay...some serious clarification is needed regarding what a dogma is. First, the definition of dogma has experienced some change over the years. Originally, it just meant "a decree." Second, we have had a common definition of the term for some time, so we need to look at that. I'm going to refer to the old Catholic Encyclopedia because it is easily accessible and goes into much more historical depth than anything else I know of, but keep in mind, it is not a magisterial document.

According to that source, which is arguably more authoritative than any of the theologians on this phorum (I'm hoping we can trust it over our own conjecture), a dogma (in the strict sense, which seems to be what we're arguing about) is a [i]matter[/i] of [i]revealed truth[/i] formally taught, either [i]implicitly[/i] or [i]explicitly[/i], through [i]Scripture[/i] or [i]Tradition[/i], [b]and also[/b] [i]proposed[/i] or [i]defined[/i] for the belief of the faithful.

A material dogma is something which has been considered by the Church insofar as it is revealed, but has not been defined (i.e. the Church says, "yes, this is revealed truth," but doesn't explain precisely what it means), while a formal dogma is something that has been considered as revealed and also defined (i.e. the Church says, "yes, this is revealed truth, and for catechetical or pastoral reasons, we are providing the following definition in order to clear up a matter or make our faith more precise...").

I would make the case that when the Church "proposes" something, she defines it also, because a proposition strictly means to put something forth, to lay it all out on the table, and the Church could not propose something without defining it at least somewhat. Because a proposal or definition from the Church must be a formal thing, a dogma must be formally proclaimed either by a Council or pope or by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. The ordinary Magisterium can be exercised by any one bishop; the ordinary and universal Magisterium means that all the bishops are teaching the dogma.

However, we must also consider exactly what a dogma is. Dogmas are meant to be foundational points of our faith, as part of the hierarchy of truths. "The mutual connections between dogmas, and their coherence, can be found in the whole of the Revelation of the mystery of Christ. 'In Catholic doctrine there exists an order or hierarchy of truths, since they vary in their relation to the foundation of the Christian faith'" (CCC 90). The foundation of the Christian faith is the Trinity, which is the main dogma (CCC 234). From it stem other dogmas. Then, however, there are other doctrines, lower truths (by lower I don't mean any less true, but truths that are less central to the faith), which are taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium but are nonetheless not dogmas. What distinction can we draw? The question becomes whether we can subvert these doctrines to other doctrines. Take the queenship of Mary. It is a matter of our faith that she is a Queen. However, is that key to our faith? No, I don't think we could call it key to our faith. Furthermore, the fact that she is Queen is only because she is the mother of the King. Her motherhood of God is already dogma; her queenship can be subverted below her divine motherhood. There is no reason to call it dogma, even though it is nonetheless certain. The question comes to mind: are any of the Marian dogmas central to the faith? The answer is that they don't seem to be, but they are. Remember that the Marian dogmas are Christological dogmas first. Mary's motherhood of God points to the fact that Christ is both God and man. Mary's virginity shows that Christ was a singular occurance and worthy of a vessel entirely devoted to Him. Mary's Immaculate Conception shows the purity and wonder of Christ. Mary's Assumption shows the loving mercy God shows to His people (the dogma of the Assumption was proclaimed just after WWII, when the world needed to be reminded of hope). None of these dogmas can be subverted to one another, they all stand on their own (though they are interrelated) and all stem from her fiat. You also listed Mary's perfect discipleship as a dogma, but this falls under her Immaculate Conception. So dogmas are main points of our faith.

That having been said, you make the error of saying that by dogma, you mean something infallible, but this is not accurate. All doctrines, whether dogma or not, are infallible. Dogmas are simply more central, not more true or more certain, except that dogmas are more clearly defined.

To be more thorough, if you go [url="http://iteadthomam.blogspot.com/search?q=de+fide"]here[/url], you will find a list of the different levels in the hierarchy of truths. The first is Revelation itself, whether or not it is defined. The second is Revelation that has been proposed or defined by the ordinary and universal Magisterium or the work of the extraordinary Magisterium. The third is Revelation that has been proposed or defined by the extraordinary Magisterium. Strictly speaking, the second and third categories contain dogma (note, however, that Revelation is still first, this is because dogma relates to those things which have been interpreted for us; dogma does not mean "most important" but "most clear and most central;" also note that not all the things in the second or third categories are dogma, but anything that would be dogma must belong to the second or third categories). The fourth category relates to things that are proximate, that is, secondary truths that are upheld by the Church and are true and certain, but are not dogma because they are secondary.

Anyway, I hope this helps clarify things. To be honest, I think it would be great if there were a readily-accessible book on the topic by a knowledgeable theologian written a language everyone could understand, because it's confusing even to me.

God bless,

Micah

[Ziggamafu]

lol. That was an excellent summary, Micah.

I can only imagine the patience it took to organize your own thoughts on the subject. Well done.

[StColette]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1795476' date='Mar 2 2009, 07:37 PM']Are you sure it is not a General dogma?[/quote]

I'm guessing you're meaning is it General dogma or Special dogma, right? No, it is not General dogma, but I would not classify it as Special dogma. I would say that it is a revealed truth by revelation, not private revelation, but it lacks formal definition by the Church. It is a beautiful teaching though. It was a huge part of my Thesis work.

The following from Catholic Encyclopedia makes the Divisions of dogma pretty clear, including general and special dogma.

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05089a.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05089a.htm[/url]

Divisions

The divisions of dogma follow the lines of the divisions of faith. Dogmas can be (1) general or special; (2) material or formal; (3) pure or mixed; (4) symbolic or non-symbolic; (5) and they can differ according to their various degrees of necessity.

(1) General dogmas are a part of the revelation meant for mankind and transmitted from the Apostles; while special dogmas are the truths revealed in private revelations. Special dogmas, therefore, are not, strictly speaking, dogmas at all; they are not revealed truths transmitted from the Apostles; nor are they defined or proposed by the Church for the acceptance of the faithful generally.

(2) Dogmas are called material (or Divine, or dogmas in themselves, in se) when abstraction is made from their definition by the Church, when they are considered only as revealed; and they are called formal (or Catholic, or "in relation to us", quoad nos) when they are considered both as revealed and defined. Again, it is evident that material dogmas are not dogmas in the strict sense of the term.

(3) Pure dogmas are those which can be known only from revelation, as the Trinity, Incarnation, etc.; while mixed dogmas are truths which can be known from revelation or from philosophical reasoning as the existence and attributes of God. Both classes are dogmas in the strict sense, when considered as revealed and defined.

(4) Dogmas contained in the symbols or creeds of the Church are called symbolic; the remainder are non-symbolic. Hence all the articles of the Apostles' Creed are dogmas -- but not all dogmas are called technically articles of faith, though an ordinary dogma is sometimes spoken of as an article of faith.

(5) Finally, there are dogmas belief in which is absolutely necessary as a means to salvation, while faith in others is rendered necessary only by Divine precept; and some dogmas must be explicitly known and believed, while with regard to others implicit belief is sufficient.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

Just for clarification, I didn't lock the thread.

[Lil Red]

+J.M.J.+
i see no reason for it to be locked, so it's open

[kafka]

This is response to Micah's post. I didnt want to quote the whole thing:

So the the thread has taken an inevitable and fitting new direction, concerning the meaning and usage of dogma. I agree it is a confusing term.

The reason the term dogma confuses people is due to severasl reasons:

A. It has recieved no formal or seemingly informal definition by the Magisterium.
B. Saints and Doctors, and theologians and schools of thought have used the term in different ways throughout history.
C. Modern theologians cannot agree on a common definition and usage.

I think Catholic theologians need to realize that the Faithful are confused about the meaning and usage of dogma as opposed to doctrine, and need to come to an agreement of meanings and usages. Also I think the bishops need to realize this, and discuss it in their conferences and synods and begin to clarify, develop and purge the meaning and use of dogma in their daily teaching and witness.

I like some of the points you make Micah but I think your model of what a dogma is and is not in relation to the teaching authority of the Magisterium is in my opinion a bit complex, inefficient and perhaps labors a bit too much under the school of neo-scholasticism. Correct me if I'm wrong but you seem in the circle of neo-scholasticism, which is fine, but like any school it has its strenghts and weaknesses.

I am going to bypass the points you made about a dogma referring to the truths explicitly or implicitly expressed in Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, because that is self evident. All the deeds wrought by God and the Words written by God of Divine Revelation otherwise known as the Deposit of Faith are infallible since they are wrought and written by God who is truth and incapable of error. That is not the dispute.

Within the life of the Church, the term and usage of dogma is simply used to express a certain type of teaching of the Magisterium. That is all. It is not a profound and subtle mystery, and in my opinion doesnt deserve an intricate construction. The Magisterium as the ability and authority of the Church to teach the truths (of faith & morals) found explicitly or implicitly in Divine Revelation, can only teach in one of two ways whatsoever, namely infallibly or non-infallibly. There is no in between. At certain points in time throughout the salvation history of New Testament times the Holy Spirit asserts a truth of faith and morals of His Divine Revelation as free from error (in other words infallible) via his gift of the Magisterium in one of three ways:
* Papal Infallibility
* Ecumenical Councils, and any similar gatherings of the body of Bishops with the Pope.
* The Universal Magisterium

I agree that that the solemn and formal teachings of the Pope (meeting the specific criteria) and of Ecumenical Councils are infallible and are rightly considered dogmas. That is not the dispute.

The dispute is whether or not the infallible teachings of the Universal Magisterium should be called dogmas or merely doctrines. In two posts I've already explained the theological ideas of the Universal Magisterium I hold (developed off of that above Lumen Gentium teaching), even though no one here has seemed to even acknowledged it. I basically argue that the Universal Magisterium in a broader, elusive or non-formal way infallibly defines truths when the Bishops throughout the world and the Pope teach one and the same doctrine, from the Deposit of Faith, as definitively to be believed by the faithful. The teachings of the Universal Magisterium are not definitions, but they are proposed in a definitive way, by being taught universally. These teachings are infallible, not by virtue of being defined in a particular statement in a particular document, but by virtue of having been taught universally, in many places throughout the world, at various times, by the body of Bishops, and also by the Pope. So from this point of view it is my opinion that these teachings should be called dogmas, since they are indeed proposed in a definitive way by Popes and Bishops in union with the Pope, throughout a sustained period of time through preaching, daily witness, various documents, etc.

Based on this I dont find using the term dogma in a broader sense to be erroneous whatsoever. I would concede to the neo-scholastics and make a distinction coining the terms formal dogmas (of Papal Infallibility and Ecumenical Councils) and non-formal dogmas (of the Universal Magisterium). And I do acknowledge that you or the neo-scholastics have every right to develop your own or their own theological insights, and develop their own models on these finer points (although I dont completely agree).

That leaves the non-infallible teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium. These teachings of faith and morals of the Deposit of Faith, are teachings which may contain some unsubstantial errors (not enough to lead one away from salvation) or they might need to undergo develepment, or clarifications, etc. before they are fall under the teaching of Sacred Infallible Magisterium. These I hold as doctrines, and are non-infallible.

Then there are truths contained in the Deposit of Faith that the Magisterium has not even begun to teach infallibly or non-infallibly. These I hold as theological speculations or pious opinions. These undergo development by Popes & Bishops (as private theologians), by theologians who are priests or laity and by the meditation and prayer of all the Faithful through time.

I agree that there is a hierarchy of truths in Divine Revelation. The Holy Trinity clarifies and teaches us about the meaning and relationship of other truths such as Tradition-Scripture-Magisterium, Bishop-Priest-Deacon, soul-body-spirit, father-mother-child, etc. The Christological truths clarify, the Mariological truths, etc. Yet I find it unconvincing that this hierarchy and relationship of truths has anything to do with the nature of the Magisterium and the relationship between infallible and non-infallible teachings. I see no connection, and I disagree whether that was your idea or the theologian who wrote that article in 1913.

I do agree that the Holy Spirit asserts truths as infallible to be held with sacred assent by the Faithful via solemn definitions of the Pope or Ecumenical Councils as a gift to the faithful at certain points in time due to historical circumstances and perhaps many other reasons. Perhaps as a gift to the Faithful in order to live a holier life. As a relief to the Faithful in order to live their Faith with greater clarity and freedom. As a condemnation against heresy or schizms which were in danger of leading the Faithful astray. Perhaps as a reward to the Faithful's fruitful labor in search for truth, etc. The Magisterium is a gift of the Holy Spirit to the "little flock" and works in mysterious ways.

Edited March 4, 2009 by kafka

[StColette]

[quote name='kafka' post='1796092' date='Mar 3 2009, 03:19 AM']Collette,

I dont agree that you continue to say the likes "The Church teaches there are only four Marian dogmas." Essentially what you are saying is the Magisterium has literally declared a specific number of dogmas to be held by the faithful at this particular point in time. This is not so. The Deposit of Faith expresses nothing about a particular number of dogmas to be held at a particular point in time within salvation history. As far as I know a Pope or Bishop teaching in the name of Christ has never declared a particular number of Marian or Christological or Ecclecialogical dogmas to be held at so and so a time. This sort of numbering of Marian dogmas is in my opinion narrow, and in the end a mere speculation or opinion.[/quote]

I have provided you with proof of Marian Dogmas that are taught by the Church, whether they have been defined by Council, Papal Authority, and Universal Magisterium. The Church recognizes those four as Dogma. You have yet to provide proof of the Magisterium teaching any other Marian dogmas. Even if it were merely taught by the Universal Magisterium and the Church recognized it as a dogma, then you would be able to find documents that call it a dogma.

Also, if we were to use your definition of dogma, then Mary as Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate would already be considered a dogma, according to your definition of what constitutes a dogma. The Church is of the opinion that that Mary as Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate is a doctrine of the faith and one by which the faithful are bound to believe in. So, if we use your definition of what constitutes a dogma, something that has been taught through the ages by Popes and Universal Magisterium or proclaimed by Council or Papal authority, then the Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate would already be a dogma and you would have no issue with it being considered one. But according to the Church those titles/roles of Mary have yet to be proclaimed or defined as dogma. They are in fact still doctrine, infallible mind you, but none the less still doctrine.

I have provided you with proof of four Marian Dogmas that the Church holds up to this point, yes there could be more proclaimed in the future, but for now the Church holds four. So I ask you to please provide proof that the Church teaches other Marian dogmas. And you can't just say it's taught by the Universal Magisterium therefore that's enough proof that it is dogma. If it is dogma then the Church will call it dogma. The Church documents its teachings, so the proof will be there if it is a dogma. I await your proof.