Author Topic: Marian Dogma (Read 2976 times)

crossbro · « **on:** July 10, 2014, 11:05:24 PM »

First, I do not reject any of the 4 Marian Dogmas.

I would just like to state my opinion that Marian Dogma was the wrong road to take and pointless.

As for the demand for a 5th Marian Dogma proclaiming a co-redemptrix then surprisingly I would have to go to Vatican II which made a strong admonishment that no title for Mary or any other saint could be used in such a manner as to take away from Our Lord Jesus the efficacy of being the sole mediator between God and man.

I strongly refute the Church declaration if a Catholic refute the assumption than that Catholic goes to hell. I refute it on the simple ground that I believe Mary herself would refute and dis-approve of it.

I don't imagine Mary screeching in hysterical laughter as someone is cast into hell because they did not accept the fact that she was lifted body and soul into heaven and preferred to believe she was simply and humbly buried in the earth.

Once again, I believe all the dogmas, pray the rosary, ask Mother Mary to pray for me- but I believe that actually creating an entire code of dogma was un-necessary. look where it has led us.

poche · « **Reply #1 on:** July 11, 2014, 01:18:34 AM »

I don't imagine Mary screeching in hysterical laughter as someone is cast into hell because they did not accept the fact that she was lifted body and soul into heaven and preferred to believe she was simply and humbly buried in the earth.

The sorrowful mother never "screeches in hysterical laughter" while anybody is being condemned into Hell.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #2 on:** July 11, 2014, 03:03:30 AM »

Quote from: poche

I don't imagine Mary screeching in hysterical laughter as someone is cast into hell because they did not accept the fact that she was lifted body and soul into heaven and preferred to believe she was simply and humbly buried in the earth.

The sorrowful mother never "screeches in hysterical laughter" while anybody is being condemned into Hell.

Yes, that is my point. Why say that someone will go to hell because they do not accept Marian dogma when I am willing to bet no one here will argue that she herself would favor such a declaration.

Quote

Well, Jack Sonso states that I was placed in a tomb instead of being raised body and soul into heaven. It is nowhere in the Bible but that is what the Church declares so off to hell Jack goes...

Not to be disresptful, but it all seems so petty and silly.

TKGS · « **Reply #3 on:** July 11, 2014, 06:14:34 AM »

Quote from: crossbro

I believe that actually creating an entire code of dogma was un-necessary. look where it has led us.

Where, crossbro, has it led us?

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #4 on:** July 11, 2014, 07:55:29 AM »

Quote from: TKGS

Quote from: crossbro
I believe that actually creating an entire code of dogma was un-necessary. look where it has led us.

Where, crossbro, has it led us?

May one be allowed to dream or fantasize that without this "entire code of [Marian] dogma," crossbro would have spared us from having to endure hundreds of his ignorant comments on doctrinal and theological matters and his bloodthirsty and jingoistic comments on secular matters? On these grounds anyone might wish Marian dogma gone!

I call it a fantasy because it's clear that crossbro would have found some other excuse to mouth off. So in fully waking mode I'll continue to believe that all true Catholic dogma is a gift from God meant to enlighten our minds and hearts and make the road to salvation smoother and easier to travel.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #5 on:** July 11, 2014, 08:17:06 AM »

Rejecting any of the Marian dogmas is exactly the same as rejecting the dogma of the Trinity, or the dogma of the Resurrection, or the dogma of the Eucharist, or any other dogma of the Church.

Church dogma is an infallible teaching of the Truth. Rejecting any one of them is rejecting God, which is what hell is.

Nishant · « **Reply #6 on:** July 11, 2014, 08:17:16 AM »

No, that is not correct. That Our Blessed Mother, because of Her unparalleled suffering, because of Her incomparable merits, was a secondary and subordinate cause of our redemption is at least the common teaching. Many theologians, including Fr. Garrigou Lagrange, writing before Vatican II, consider it a doctrine that is definable as a dogma, because it has been taught by the Papal Magisterium. Jesus alone could atone for us in strict justice, being God. But Mary merited for us all the graces He merited in strict justice by a secondary merit, called congruous merit. Hence She became the Dispensatrix and Mediator of all graces that God gives to creatures. All graces come from God and through Mary. This is because suffering has expiatory and satisfactory value when although most painful it is willingly accepted and endured with love of God, resignation to the divine will, and in proportion to one's merits and virtues, as St. Paul also taught. Now, Mary's merits and virtues reached the highest possible plenitude that can ever exist in a creature, and Her suffering too was the very greatest in measure second only to Her beloved Son on the Cross, for which She is rightly called as the Queen of Martyrs, which was prophesied by both Simeon, Jeremiah and several of the other Prophets.

Quote from: Fr. Garrigou Lagrange, How did Mary make satisfaction for us?

When a meritorious work is in some way painful it has value as satisfaction as well. Thus theologians commonly teach, following upon what has been explained in the previous section, that Mary satisfied for all sins de congruo in everything in which Jesus satisfied de condigno. Mary offered God a satisfaction which it was becoming that He should accept: Jesus satisfied for us in strict justice ...

The Fathers treat of this when they speak of Mary “standing” at the foot of the Cross, as St. John says (John 19:25). They recall the words of Simeon, “Thy own soul a sword shall pierce,” and they show that Mary suffered in proportion to her love for her crucified Son; in proportion also to the cruelty of His executioners, and the atrocity of the torments inflicted on Him Who was Innocence itself (3). The liturgy also has taught many generations of the faithful that Mary merited the title of Queen of Martyrs by her most painful martyrdom of heart. That is the lesson of the Feasts of the Compassion of the Blessed Virgin and of the Seven Dolors, as well as of the Stabat Mater.

Leo XIII summed up this doctrine in the statement that Mary was associated with Jesus in the painful work of the redemption of mankind (4). Pius X calls her “the repairer of the fallen world” (5) and continues to show how she was united to the priesthood of her Son: “Not only because she consented to become the mother of the only Son of God so as to make sacrifice for the salvation of men possible, but also in the fact that she accepted the mission of protecting and nourishing the Lamb of sacrifice, and when the time came led Him to the altar of immolation—in this also must we find Mary’s glory. Mary’s community of life and sufferings with her Son was never broken off. To her as to Him may be applied the words of the prophet: ‘My life is passed in dolors and my days in groanings.’ To conclude this list of Papal pronouncements we may refer to the words of Benedict XV: In uniting herself to the Passion and death of her Son she suffered almost unto death; as far as it depended on her, she immolated her Son, so that it can be said that with Him she redeemed the human race’ (6).

(3) Cf. St. Ephrem, Oratio ad Virginem; St. Ambrose, De Instit. Virg., c. 7; Epist. 25 ad Eccles. Vercell.;St. Bernard, Sermo de Passione, Sermo de duodecim stellis, Sermo Dom. infra Oct. Ass.; St. Albert the Great, Mariale, q. 42; St. Bonaventure, Sermo I de B. V.;St. Laurence Justinian, Sermo de nativ. Virginis.

(4) Encyclical Jucunda Semper, Sept. 8, 1894: “Censors cuм Christo existit laboriosae pro humano genere expiationis.”

(5) Encyclical Ad Diem Ilium, Feb. 2, 1904: “Reparatrix perditi orbis.”

(6) Cf. Denz. 3034, no. 4. In this same place reference is made to the words of Pius XI: “Virgo perdolens redemptionis opus Jesu Christo participavit,” and to a decree of the Holy Office* praising the custom of adding after the name of Jesus that of His Mother, our Co-Redemptrix, the Blessed Virgin Mary. The same Congregation has indulgenced (Jan. 22, 1914) the prayer in which Mary is addressed as Co-redemptrix of the human race. Cf. Dict, de Theol. Cath., art. Marie, col. 2396: “Since the word ‘Co-redemptrix’ signifies of itself simple co-operation in the work of redemption, and since it has received in the theological usage of centuries the very precise meaning of secondary and dependent cooperation … there can be no serious objection to its use, on condition that it be accompanied by some expression indicating that Mary’s role in this co-operation is secondary and dependent.”

crossbro · « **Reply #7 on:** July 11, 2014, 11:12:58 AM »

Quote from: TKGS

Quote from: crossbro
I believe that actually creating an entire code of dogma was un-necessary. look where it has led us.

Where, crossbro, has it led us?

It has led us to point where a fringy but very vocal group demands that Mary by placed on the same if not higher pillar than Jesus.

There is no scriptural basis for at least one of the dogmas- and no evidence from early Christianity that some of the sentiment existed.

The four current dogmas I have no issue with and believe in.

The fifth being demanded is one that crosses line and leads to the slippery slope of destroying the efficacy of Christ as sole mediator. If Jesus wanted it then it would be plastered all over the Gospels. If it were an early sentiment than Paul would have plastered it all over the place in the NT.

A case in point is one of the lousy theologians on Catholic Radio- Yelling for everyone to sign a petition and then ranting against everyone who would not go along with the change it would create- stating that the Church is not a democracy- well why demand everyone sign a petition then ?

One way or the other it is not going to end well. Marian dogma should be scrapped.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #8 on:** July 11, 2014, 11:42:01 AM »

Quote from: Guest

Quote from: TKGS
Quote from: crossbro
I believe that actually creating an entire code of dogma was un-necessary. look where it has led us.

Where, crossbro, has it led us?

May one be allowed to dream or fantasize that without this "entire code of [Marian] dogma," crossbro would have spared us from having to endure hundreds of his ignorant comments on doctrinal and theological matters and his bloodthirsty and jingoistic comments on secular matters? On these grounds anyone might wish Marian dogma gone!

I call it a fantasy because it's clear that crossbro would have found some other excuse to mouth off. So in fully waking mode I'll continue to believe that all true Catholic dogma is a gift from God meant to enlighten our minds and hearts and make the road to salvation smoother and easier to travel.

You believe Vatican II is a gift from God ?

I have lots of company but at least I am not an anonymous hypocrite about it.

from crossbro

The Penny Catechism · « **Reply #9 on:** July 11, 2014, 12:13:54 PM »

Crossbro

throwing in my 2 cents:

-this thread is proof positive why the Catholic Church needs the return of the true Scholastics. Not only proof texting, but logical deductions via dialectical reasoning intimately intertwined.

-I surmise/ or guess as to why you feel frustrated. Every Tom, Dick, and Harry with an opinion is coming off as if they know when they're not qualifying their answers as such or to the accuracy in congruence to Church teaching towards their statements.

- I've been guilty of it myself. I too dread when people put Our Lady as a sort of "goddess" into living their life justifying their ignorance of the Faith because they claim a devotion (false one) to her. Look at JPII! HIS APOSTOLIC MOTTO WAS TOTUS TUUS. The Latin phrase meaning "totally yours" and expressed his personal Consecration to Mary based on the spiritual approach of Saint Louis de Montfort. What good did it do him??????

-Back on point, Crossbro:what does the Church Teach in her official docuмents as to what we as Catholics are required to believe on Mariology.
Example: "Mary was assumed body and soul into Heaven" (De fide) - this must be believed to avoid heresy post May 1st 1946. (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma OTT pg. 208). If somebody is aware of this teaching, had doubt, and didn't inquire as to relieve the doubt; to the degree that they are guilty of not taking the time to settle the doubt/ finding out the truth before God will hinge on whether they are a Material heretic vs a Formal One (remember, to 'doubt' also encompasses the definition of heresy). The sin of heresy, so to speak.

From "The Delict of Heresy: In It's Commission, Penalization, and Absolution" from Canon MacKenzie, Doctor of Canon Law; whose footnoted in the Code of Canon Law 1917 (summary below); sorry, it is a bit wordy (cut and pasted excerpts from his book from my computer at home).

Quote

(1)A truth of faith has been sufficiently proposed. This means that the individual has awareness that the proposition has been revealed by God and proposed by the Church. Denial and doubt (suspended judgment) are per se, intellectual acts directed by the will at the idea of a doctrine and it’s source/ revelation in forming a judgment. Remains true even when ignorance was caused by some guilty choice of the individual (culpable ignorance), as long as he is truly ignorant. In this case, no formal sin of heresy. However, if the person is found beforehand prepared to believe, but deliberately avoids having to do so, so as to be intent upon repressing the knowledge of the revealed truth he knows deep inside. Then this is formally a sin of heresy. Includes also when the individual has made up his mind not to believe when knowing that the doctrine was actually revealed and proposed (both of these are sins of heresy). Noting that once the doctrine has been sufficiently proposed to the individual, he is called upon to believe it, to assent to it as true and certain. Any act of his wherein he refuses to assent, whether he deems it untrue or uncertain, is the sin of heresy.
(2)Pertinacity - Error consciously and deliberately conceived by excluding the evidence which would otherwise lead to a true judgment. Heresy is an act of the intellect, but an act directed by the will and attributable morally to the will. The will is the source for a person being ‘pertinacious’ or holding obstinately to an erroneous judgment, despite the contrary urging of doctrinal authority toward truth. Formal sin exists when the individual assents to error dishonestly, and in bad faith. Absence of pertinacity excuses a person from the sin of heresy. Must involve a deliberate choice by the will, and the deliberate and obstinate holding of error known to be error.
(3)Ignorance of the Dogma (in question) ie children/ simple faithful. Lacking morality application and does not    involve a sin of heresy since the individual doesn‘t have the doctrine before his mind to either doubt or deny it
(4)Ignorance of Dogma, but by natural reasoning believes a contrary belief to some defined Dogma. Objectively he has denied a truth with this still being a purely material sin of heresy, but lacking revolt against divine authority.    Purely human error. Typical of many Protestants.
(5)Catholic who later learns about Transubstantiation. Evidence of secular reasoning opposes this teaching. Two opposed lines of thought present before the mind with neither one accepted, therefore being in a state of doubt. The initial first moment of hesitation is neither heresy nor sin. Initial, so not pertinacious and not a sin because the initial presentation is only a temptation (not yet consented). To acknowledge this doubt is intellectual honesty maintaining congruence with the new information presented before the mind. Afterwards, the will must deal with these positions. Once the will is engaged in deliberation, then the potential for sin or guilt becomes a realization.
(6)Sheer Neglect - post intellectual awareness, when you maneuver via your will. Other objects manifesting themselves and making claim for attention all vying for your will to choose them. Also called distractions. Immediate manner in which freedom is exercised based on the interest of the object. Previous choices and present tastes affect your decision. Here you are engaged in taking responsibility for your actions, whether you are aware of this or not.
(7)Dealing with present doubt - recognizing internally the doubt and considering motives for choosing one way or the other. To attend or disregard the problem. Attending to the problem by weighing and wondering over the importance of the problem, the authority of the writer or speaker who informed you of the Catholic doctrine… or in disregard due to work involved in study, time spent, sacrifice of other interests and pursuits, and fear that investigating may lead to a duty of changing beliefs with consequent difficulty in readjusting one’s life, business, or social relations. The choice at this stage does involve morality (good or bad). Formal sin of neglect occurs when awareness is present that there is weight or legitimacy and authority supporting the Catholic statement which deserves investigation. With the gravity of the sin proportioned to the realization of the duty to investigate. Sins of neglect are not sins of heresy. Heresy involves consciously rejecting and disregarding the doctrinal authority of God and of the Church. Is the claim backed by God and the Church? It is this last attestation that sin of heresy becomes apparent.
(8)Settling the doubt - being conscious that internal conflict is present calling for further action and into looking for    further evidence. Does the results of the study indicate truth to the revelation? If yes, then an assent to faith is needed for completion when you find with certainty that the Church does teach a given doctrine. A failure to believe would be sin.

These are truly crazy times we live in

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #10 on:** July 11, 2014, 12:54:18 PM »

Quote

Back on point, Crossbro:what does the Church Teach in her official docuмents as to what we as Catholics are required to believe on Mariology.
Example: "Mary was assumed body and soul into Heaven" (De fide) - this must be believed to avoid heresy post May 1st 1946. (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma OTT pg. 208). If somebody is aware of this teaching, had doubt, and didn't inquire as to relieve the doubt; to the degree that they are guilty of not taking the time to settle the doubt/ finding out the truth before God will hinge on whether they are a Material heretic vs a Formal One (remember, to 'doubt' also encompasses the definition of heresy). The sin of heresy, so to speak.

I have no problem as I have posted numerous times believing any of those current dogmas.

The problem is the label of heresy for someone who chooses not to believe them

A point to be made- I believe Thomas Aquinas did not believe in Immaculate Conception. That would make him a heretic ?

We had the belief of limbo. I still believe in limbo and yet the church trash canned it on the grounds it was not supported by scripture- well neither is all the Marian Dogma.

Will I be a formal heretic if VII Church and Pope Francis declare a co-redemptrix as the 5th Marian Dogma ?

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #11 on:** July 11, 2014, 01:29:36 PM »

Quote from: crossbro

I strongly refute the Church declaration if a Catholic refute the assumption than that Catholic goes to hell. I refute it on the simple ground that I believe Mary herself would refute and dis-approve of it.

Crossbro, you have shown yourself numerous times to be in error and ignorant of Church dogma.

With this statement above, you have declared an open and formal heresy. The assumption of Our Lady on the 1st of November, 1950, was formally and infallibly declared to be a dogma of the Faith by Pope Pius XII.

NO CATHOLIC MAY DENY THIS OR ANY OTHER INFALLIBLY DEFINED DOGMA.

Everything else you state about your alleged Marian devotions is irrelevant now that you have openly avowed this formal heresy. Cut but one thread of the fabric of Catholic Dogma and the whole unravels.

You admit you refute a defined dogma of the Church based on your private opinion: "I believe Mary herself would refute and dis-approve of it." You have placed your own opinion above the Extraordinary Magisterium of the Church.

This is Protestantism. This is heresy. Stop and consider that this deplorable state you are in is the direct result of your having abandoned the Sacraments in favor of listening to Protestant heretics.

I can't help but believe your conscience is paining you over this. Why else would you be here on a Traditional Catholic forum? If you were on CAF those heretics would treat you with kid gloves, or else ignore your heresy altogether since they believe protestant heretics to be "separated brethren."

But for some reason you are here... Therefore some part of you wants fraternal correction. Listen to that part of yourself, and to our words, for it may be your last hope:

STOP LISTENING TO PROTESTANT HERETICS ALTOGETHER. THROW AWAY YOUR TV IF YOU MUST (and since neocons and pagan sport stars seem to have sway over you as well, it seems that you must). START PRAYING THE ROSARY FAITHFULLY, PRAY THE DIVINE OFFICE, READ TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC BOOKS, AND FIND YOUR NEAREST TRADITIONAL PRIEST ASAP! CONFESS YOUR SINS AND BE RECEIVED BACK INTO THE CHURCH!

Pride was the very first sin, committed by the father of lies. All of this Americanist / Protestant individualism that is so rampant in this nation is nothing more than damnable pride and it is poisonously inimical to the Faith. Perhaps now some of you will realize why I was so fervent in my warnings against False Patriotism in the July 4 thread.

I will pray for you Crossbro. You are well on the road to hell. I tell you this in order to shock you off that path and back into the Sheepfold of Christ.

May the Lord show mercy to you.

Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us! Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us!

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #12 on:** July 11, 2014, 02:47:42 PM »

Quote from: Guest

Quote
Back on point, Crossbro:what does the Church Teach in her official docuмents as to what we as Catholics are required to believe on Mariology.
Example: "Mary was assumed body and soul into Heaven" (De fide) - this must be believed to avoid heresy post May 1st 1946. (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma OTT pg. 208). If somebody is aware of this teaching, had doubt, and didn't inquire as to relieve the doubt; to the degree that they are guilty of not taking the time to settle the doubt/ finding out the truth before God will hinge on whether they are a Material heretic vs a Formal One (remember, to 'doubt' also encompasses the definition of heresy). The sin of heresy, so to speak.

I have no problem as I have posted numerous times believing any of those current dogmas.

The problem is the label of heresy for someone who chooses not to believe them

A point to be made- I believe Thomas Aquinas did not believe in Immaculate Conception. That would make him a heretic ?
We had the belief of limbo. I still believe in limbo and yet the church trash canned it on the grounds it was not supported by scripture- well neither is all the Marian Dogma.

Will I be a formal heretic if VII Church and Pope Francis declare a co-redemptrix as the 5th Marian Dogma ?

Hey Crossbro --

You bring up an important point. Just think for a moment. Way beyond the members/ lurkers of this forum. I'm talking about N.O. Catholics, fallen away Catholics, etc. those who are "Catholic" but go to a non-denominational service and so forth.

The important point is the principle involved.

St. Thomas was in error but he wasn't formally a heretic. He was wrong on a Theological Speculation. Brings up an important point to how you or I should follow the Official Magisterium

In other words, if Pope Gregory IX had declared as de fide the Immaculate Conception defined with the weight that it must be believed by the Universal Church as a article of Faith; then yes he would have been a heretic proper.

L.o.T. has, as his "signature" from St. Thomas the following

"If I have ever expressed myself erroneously on this Sacrament, I submit to the judgement of the Holy Roman Church, in obedience of which I now part from this world." Saint Thomas Aquinas, the greatest theologian in the history of the Church

and then his famous: “Reginald, I cannot, because all that I have written seems like straw to me" --

So we have arguably the greatest Theologian (save Christ) who himself deferred to the Church. His humility would have submitted to what he believed the Church teaching was on said doctrine.

Crossbro: don't give up! You appear passionate with a desire to love Christ. I hope and pray that you let what the authentic Church teaches be your guide. And remember, this might be the hardest time ever to decipher where the true Church is in her authentic instructions. Keep that in mind that it is hard for ALL OF US! You are not alone in this regards (that we all struggle at times to find the truth of the matter over opinionated conjecture)

T.P.C. ~

The Penny Catechism · « **Reply #13 on:** July 11, 2014, 02:53:36 PM »

Quote from: The Penny Catechism

Hey Crossbro --

You bring up an important point. Just think for a moment. Way beyond the members/ lurkers of this forum. I'm talking about N.O. Catholics, fallen away Catholics, etc. those who are "Catholic" but go to a non-denominational service and so forth.

The important point is the principle involved.

St. Thomas was in error but he wasn't formally a heretic. He was wrong on a Theological Speculation. Brings up an important point to how you or I should follow the Official Magisterium

In other words, if Pope Gregory IX had declared as de fide the Immaculate Conception defined with the weight that it must be believed by the Universal Church as a article of Faith; then yes he would have been a heretic proper.

L.o.T. has, as his "signature" from St. Thomas the following

"If I have ever expressed myself erroneously on this Sacrament, I submit to the judgement of the Holy Roman Church, in obedience of which I now part from this world." Saint Thomas Aquinas, the greatest theologian in the history of the Church

and then his famous: “Reginald, I cannot, because all that I have written seems like straw to me" --

So we have arguably the greatest Theologian (save Christ) who himself deferred to the Church. His humility would have submitted to what he believed the Church teaching was on said doctrine.

Crossbro: don't give up! You appear passionate with a desire to love Christ. I hope and pray that you let what the authentic Church teaches be your guide. And remember, this might be the hardest time ever to decipher where the true Church is in her authentic instructions. Keep that in mind that it is hard for ALL OF US! You are not alone in this regards (that we all struggle at times to find the truth of the matter over opinionated conjecture)

T.P.C. ~

Crossbro you will be in my prayers and please include me in your prayers as well

Capt McQuigg · « **Reply #14 on:** July 11, 2014, 03:42:40 PM »

The Dogma of the Assumption of Our Lady is a problem for Crossbro?

Why?

Since Our Lord chose her, He wouldn't abandon her. One follows the other.

Now, Crossbro does say it's not in scripture but scripture should be seen as meeting notes, incomplete notes taken after the fact. We have Sacred Scripture but the apparitions of Our Lord and Our Lady and Church Tradition have filled in the all too big holes of scripture. Even Sacred Scripture speaks of other acts and how they are not noted.

As for the early Church Fathers being unaware, that's the whole point of a revealed religion. Just like Our Lord revealed His desire for devotion to His Sacret Heart for a world gone cold, the early Church Fathers did not have this dogma revealed to them. The Holy Ghost is guiding the Holy Catholic Church, that doesn't mean that the Holy Ghost is guiding the Church, not necessarily revealing dogmas that are due for a later time.

While dying on the cross, Our Lord gave Our Lady to St. John - this was while she was alive and it certainly could not have been for simple living conditions, there it too too much admonitions in Jєωιѕн tradition for any widowed mother to be left to fend for herself. Our Lord's great gift to His Church was superior to any merely human act. This act was a precursor that one could safely see foresaw the Assumption of Our Lady body and soul into Heaven.

In all of our sacred tradition, it is Our Lady who guides souls and pleads on their behalf and even gains permission from Our Lord to allow them to return and make amends.

If a bunch of protestants want to besmirch Our Lady, that is due to the envy of protestantism. Since protestantism is just "me and my bible and what I say goes" then that person would be filled with rage or indifferentism toward Our Lady. She was chosen by Our Lord in a most personal way.

Crossbro, if someone thinks one of the Marian dogmas are wrong, they should view that as a symptom of a potentially deadly spiritual ailment and seek the advice and counsel of a Traditional Catholic priest. Once someone starts thinking they have permission to discard dogmas, then - as you asked - where does that lead?

---->An Act of Reparation is in order here.

Author Topic: Marian Dogma (Read 2976 times)

Änσnymσus

Änσnymσus

Änσnymσus

Änσnymσus

Änσnymσus

Änσnymσus

Änσnymσus