Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I'm not deeply informed about the catechisms, but I am well versed in surrounding issues such as historical heretical movements and iconic theology in general and how much of the doctrines have been defended. The specific Marian dogmas I'm only vaguely aware of, but the deeper issues involved are more central in my view anyway.
Mariology developed in the 6th century as a result of combatting certain Christological heresies such as Nestorianism to name one. But then the church went overboard in establishing doctrines and practices regarding Mary.
that's like saying Trinity developed in the 4th century because it was formalized in response to Arianism. There is plenty in the patristics detailing many of the Marian doctrines that came to dominate such as perpetual virginity. Certain doctrines are later developments, or at least were not robustly supported historically, such as the Assumption of Mary, but there is plenty of Marian devotion present long before where you're placing it.
The doctrine of the Trinity is always the go to regarding the establishment of Mariology. But it's about the only go to there is, making it the exception rather than the rule. And then there's also the situation where the doctrine of Mary gets put on the same footing as the doctrine of the Godhead.
It's not equating the doctrine, it's about how doctrines develop. Marian theology was present and established long before formalization, and such formalization is always a response to controversy not an ordinary course of affairs. We could say similar things about the canon, or about the hypostatic union, or all manner of doctrine that were orthodox but weren't formalized until a clear need was seen for such formalization. It is your false premise about Mariology being a product of the 6th century because of its formalization in light of Nestorianism that is at issue, not the content of the doctrine themselves. But Mariology in the face of Nestorius was a Christological issue, because Nestorius denied that Jesus was God in the flesh and instead opted for a form of double naturedness.
Before we continue let's establish where you're at with this, so I can understand what you're arguing in favor of.
This appears a misunderstanding, people don't pray to Mary. They ask Mary to pray on their behalf.
We need all the saints to intercede, living and reposed.
I'm not sure this is an accurate representation either.
Queen-mother of God,
I believe that the whole idea of sinful nature is misguided, so the immaculate nature of Mary is also
I'm agnostic on the issue, certainly not convinced enough to argue about it
I don't believe I've heard this one, but the comparison seems apt.
I don't concern myself with the anathemas of the Catholic church. I'm not a Catholic so I'm not concerned about my standing with them.
You don't really seem to know enough or care enough about Catholic doctrine, dogma, edicts and practices regarding Mary to properly argue this with me. I don't mean that as a put down. I don't know enough about eschatology to debate it with someone who does. So I don't bother.
