Talk:Marian dogmas

So, yah, as was asked by Colonel Tom, I have made an article on the four currently defined dogmas of Mary. These dogmas deserve an article of their own, and since I had made an article on the fifth Marian dogma, who better than to create the article?

Now, I admit the article is not 100% neutral, but it wasn't made to discuss the four dogmas of Mary, but rather, to inform people of them--this may sound bias, but its not meant to be. Its like if someone made an article on air--you can't insert arguments into the article that air doesn't exist ('cause we all know it dose, by common sense), so you just make an article that gives information on air. And that is what is meant by Marian Dogmas--to just present information on the dogmas of Mary. Of course, arguments set against them can be collected in one article called, I dunno, Arguments Against the Marian Dogmas, but that is up to the Wikipedia members. I'm certainly not going to make the article, because it doesn't interest me to make arguments about something I'm trying to inform people about--of course, I do admit that it would certainly help enlighten people on why the are those who accept the dogmas and why there are those who do not.

Finally, I'd like to clarify that, when I said "inform people," I didn't mean I'd try to convert people, or force people into thinking as I do, or even make up a biased article--all I meant is that the article is all about providing what information on the dogmas of Mary I could find in Christian books and so, not copy it into an article, but use it as a resource of information on the Marian dogmas--like how people go to other sites and books to get information on something and than use what they learned from them to make articles on Wikipedia. I just used the Christian books to learn about the Marian dogmas and than I used what I learned to create this article.

Merge Fifth Marian Dogma?
Is there any purpose having an entire SEPERATE article on the Fifth Marian Dogma, when there is no information in here? Wouldn't a merge be appropriate here? Relatively new here so I'm not sure of the processes to make this happen.

Hodijah 18:50 04 October 2006

Why There Shouldn't Be A "Co-Redemptrix" Section

 * The four Marian dogmas discussed are all dogmatically defined--the fifth Marian dogma (or dogma of the Co-Redemptrix) has not been dogmatically defined, and to include it in the article would only confuse people into thinking the so-called fifth Marian dogma is already dogmatically defined.
 * A whole article on the fifth Marian dogma already exists (Just search for "Fifth Marian Dogma").
 * The section would be about Mary Co-Redemptrix, NOT the fifth Marian dogma, as it turns out. So, it really dosen't belong in the article Marian DOGMAS. (Which is THIS article, by the way).

The perptual virginity of Mary?
I cant find any proof for the claim that "The perptual virginity of Mary" is a church dogma. I've heard something about an early dialogue between saint Jerome and someone else who disscused this, but i cant find anything that says it's a dogma. There is a feast i Russia namned Pokrov, where "TPVoM" is named - so maybe it's just dogma in the Eastern church (even if thats sounds strange?)


 * Dr Ludwig Ott's authoritative Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma states: "Also after the Birth of Jesus Mary remained a Virgin." --anon 17:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

Mary is God Dogma
This is an on-going movement within the Catholic Church and deserves its place in the topics here. Aside from its own founder and members of MIGCM, the claim of Marian Divinity was supported by works various Catholic saints such as St. Montfort.

At the very least, regardless of validity and truth, it is worth including in this topic for the simple reason that it is an actual and existing movement within the Catholic Church.


 * I found no support whatsoever in any Catholic church teaching which would justify the inclusion of the "Mary is God Dogma" section of the article. Quite simply, from an objective standpoint, no academic or intellectually justifiable reason exists for its inclusion. I thereby have removed it until someone can provide justifiable reasons for including it. In the following paragraphs, I will present my reasons from doing so, and cite sources accordingly. According to Catholic Church teaching from the Second Vatican Council: "For no creature could ever be counted as equal with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer (i.e. Jesus Christ)... The Church does not hesitate to profess this subordinate role of Mary. It knows it through unfailing experience of it and commends it to the hearts of the faithful, so that encouraged by this maternal help they may the more intimately adhere to the Mediator and Redeemer (i.e. Jesus Christ)." (see: LUMEN GENTIUM, s. 62). No "movement" exists within the Catholic Church to define Mary as God, since acording to Catholic teaching from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, to define any person as God would constitute idolatry, which is contrary to the Catholic faith (see: Catechism of the Catholic Church s. 2112). A website does exist on the internet from an alleged visionary (see: http://www.maryisgod.org/) who claims Mary is God, but this person does not deserve to be termed a "movement within the Catholic Church", since the contents of her visions are considered blasphemous according to Catholic Church teaching (see: previous references). Furthermore, the alleged visionary does not consider herself Catholic, since on her website she explicitly rejects the authority of the Pope of Rome, and incites others to heresy through the promulgation idiolotrous teaching, thereby purposefully becoming apostate and excommunicating herself from the Catholic Church, latae sententiae, according to Catholic Church teaching (see: Code of Canon Law, s. 1364). Barring any evidence to support the contrary position, I am in favor of permanently removing this section of the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.214.124.84 (talk) 07:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC).


 * Weither you support it or not, it's remained long enough that if you wish to remove it, you should wait for there to be a decision made on the talk page supporting or not supporting it before you remove content which isn't obviously unwikipedic -- febtalk 07:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. If within one month, if no-one is able to offer support for inclusion of this section, then I will delete it again. Honestly, I am trying to make a good-faith effort to improve the quality of this Wikipedia article as I feel the inclusion of this section denigrates the credibility of Wikipedia and qualifies as vandalism. The section contains false statements and misleading information, as has been explained and proven above.


 * Furthermore, a poster above referenced St. Louis-Marie de Montfort as a supporter of so-called "Marian Divinity". This statement is false. St. Louis-Marie de Montfort explicitly taught that Mary was a non-divine creature. In Louis de Montfort's classical manuscript, "True Devotion to Mary", he begins section 14 writing: "14. With the whole Church I acknowledge that Mary, being a mere creature fashioned by the hands of God is, compared to his infinite majesty, less than an atom, or rather is simply nothing, since he alone can say, "I am he who is" [In other words, only God is able to claim divinity]. Consequently, this great Lord, who is ever independent and self-sufficient, never had and does not now have any absolute need of the Blessed Virgin for the accomplishment of his will and the manifestation of his glory." (A free copy of this work in order to check this reference is available for download from http://www.legionofmarytidewater.com/aids.htm). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.214.124.84 (talk) 00:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC).


 * The belief that Mary is God is held only by a very small and insignificant group (possibly only one person). While popular Catholic devotion has, at times, elevated Mary to a nearly divine station, the Catholic hierarchy has always maintained that Christ is the unique incarnation of God and that Mary is merely a human being worthy of "hyperdulia" (super-honor) in contrast to the "latria" (worship) due to God.  The so-called MIGCM is founded upon conspiracy theorism, functional schism, and isolated mystical experiences on the part of members.  As a Baptist minister I reject most of the five traditional Marian Dogmas (even the Magisterium has yet to offcially dogmatize Mary's position as "Co-Mediatrix") but even I think that including the newly coined Mary-is-God "dogma" in this list is absurd and compromises the integrty of Wikipedia generally.Eugeneacurry 07:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This section is full of factual inaccuracies. Louis Marie de Monfort is not considered a Doctor of the Church.  I can find no source for this.  The claimed visionary's statements are critical and even contradictory to Church teaching.  It is taught that a Marian apparition can not contradict Church teaching.  The Third Secret of Fatima has been revealed, and was confirmed by Sr. Lúcia dos Santos.  I am removing this section, because the information can not be support by any site besides the source.Trevor 19:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Someone is really pushing this Mary is God dogma. This is not a belief of the majority of the Church, and it's presence on Wikipedia may suggest it as such.  In fact many websites outright label the belief as heresy.  http://campus.udayton.edu/mary//newheresy.html Trevor 23:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Perpetual Virginity
The article currently states: "After giving birth to Christ, Mary did have sexual relations," and "In the little time that Joseph was still around after the birth of and they had several more children." Certainly some people believe these assertions, but they don't belong in an article that presents the Roman Catholic Church's Marian dogmas.

The article also says that: "Mary did break her vow by the grace of God." The writer seems to mean that God gave Mary a free pass to have sex but remain a virgin. That really needs a citation, because I've never heard anything like it. The RC Church teaches that Mary was really and truly a virgin her whole life, and other people believe she had sex and bore children, but as far as I know, no one teaches that she had sex, but God was okay with it, so we call her a virgin anyway. Without a citation, this statement should go.

Uncleflorence 03:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Issues
A couple of issues I have:

"None are accepted within Protestant communities except perhaps in some Anglo-Catholic traditions."

I'm pretty sure the "The Mother of God" dogma is accepted almost universally by Christians including protestants.

"It is not only essential in Marian Theology but also in the Theology of Christ. For if Mary was not Mother of God, then Jesus was in fact not God."

That is not only biased, but doesn't make sense. One could believe that Jesus was God but Mary wasn't his mother.

I'll let someone else address them or I can.Akubhai 20:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The proclamation of a dogma by the church authorities goes together with the publication of a text. This text, in its integrality, concerns the definition of the dogma.  I'm quite sure that NO protestant communities accept this integral text, only at the most parts of it.  Thus they do not accept the dogma, as it is defined. Stijn Calle 22:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)