Bad Popes

[paul_c]

You know, one thing I really dislike about rhetoric like this, no matter how well intentioned, is that it ignores the fruits of the labor of those who pray with Mary.

I attend a lot of Churches in my area. I’m outside sales, and I try to attend daily Mass. With my schedule, I’ll end up finding a Mass in the area that fits my schedule. So, I’ve become familiar with people from 10 or so different parishes throughout the Beaumont area. I can tell you, the holiest most devout people in every parish, almost to a “tee”, pray the rosary daily. The hardest workers in the parishes, almost to a “tee”, pray the rosary daily. And the most humble, selfless people I see in these churches, almost to a “tee”, pray the rosary daily.

Furthermore, in speaking to these people who attend daily mass, nearly all of them began to pray the rosary first, and then gradually evolved into attending daily Mass whenever necessary.

So, one can say that focusing on Mary diverts our focus from Jesus. I’d tell you that focusing on Mary intensifies the average Catholics focus on Mary.

“My Soul magnifies the Lord, and my Spirit rejoices in God my Savior”!

I think you meant focusing on Mary intensifies the average Catholic’s focus on MASS.

 

[NotWorthy]

“Pope #1” (Peter) taught in error about the faith, and was corrected by Paul.

Galatians 2:14But when I saw that they were not really obeying the truth that is in the good news, I corrected Peter in front of everyone and said:
Peter, you are a Jew, but you live like a Gentile. So how can you force Gentiles to live like Jews?

Peter was teaching wrong “faith and morals” (that Gentiles had to live as Jews) and was corrected.

-Tim

Try again, Timmy. Peter didn’t teach in error. Peter acted in error. The Church has never taught that the Pope was infallible. Just that he taught infallibly.

What did Peter teach wrong in Galatians? For he taught one thing but acted differently. That’s wrong, but its not teaching in error.

 

[NotWorthy]

I think you meant focusing on Mary intensifies the average Catholic’s focus on MASS.

Ooh! Freudian Slip, eh?

 

[Timmy_Z]

From the NASB:

"If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, **how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews? **

Try again, Timmy. Peter didn’t teach in error. Peter acted in error.

Perhaps there is a Protestant - RC divide on the semantics of teaching vs acting. However, the text sure seems to indicate that Peter was wrongly instructing Gentiles to live as Jews, which is strongly opposed by Scripture.

Do you assume that Peter was forcing Gentiles to follow Jewish custom without instructing/teaching them to? I can’t picture how that would work???

Thanks for the reply,
Tim

 

[paul_c]

From the NASB (I have been told it is generally regarded as the best literal English translation):

"If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, **how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews? **

Perhaps there is a Protestant - RC divide on the semantics of teaching vs acting. However, the text sure seems to indicate that Peter was wrongly instructing Gentiles to live as Jews, which is strongly opposed by Scripture.

Do you assume that Peter was forcing Gentiles to follow Jewish custom without instructing/teaching them to? I can’t picture how that would work???

Thanks for the reply,
Tim

you do know of course that he was not violating scripture, the NT didn’t exist at this time.
And what was really happening was that Peter was trying not to offend anyone and thus keep them from the Faith, in the same way that Paul later did when he circumcized Timothy.

 

[NotWorthy]

From the NASB:

"If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, **how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews? **

Perhaps there is a Protestant - RC divide on the semantics of teaching vs acting. However, the text sure seems to indicate that Peter was wrongly instructing Gentiles to live as Jews, which is strongly opposed by Scripture.

Do you assume that Peter was forcing Gentiles to follow Jewish custom without instructing/teaching them to? I can’t picture how that would work???

Thanks for the reply,
Tim

What was Peter doing? When the Judaizers came, he was eating separately from the “unclean” Gentiles. He didn’t teach them wrong, he just acted hypocritical in order to “keep the peace”. Peter was fallible. No catholics could deny that.

Note, too, the above reference to Paul having Timothy circumcised, after preaching against the need for Circumcision. Do you know why? To keep the peace.

You need to dig deeper, my brother, to come up with a better example than this.

 

[Awake]

A statement such as this should be followed up with an example. It doesn’t have to be dozens, but maybe just one.

The Cadaver Synod, in which Pope Stephen VI dug up and put the corpse of Pope Formosus on trial. He then declared that Formosus was not a valid pope and all of the ordinations he performed were invalid. (This was later overturned by Pope Sergius III.)

These contradictory declarations by popes touches on the very nature of Holy Orders and what constitutes validly receiving/performing the sacrament. The sacraments should fall into the faith and morals category.

I’ve been told this doesn’t count because the pope was not speaking ex-cathedra. Also, somebody said these declarations touched on faith and morals, but weren’t about faith and morals, so this doesn’t bring into question papal infallability.

I’m thinking of contraception, as a counter-proposal. 100 years ago, every single Christian Faith was adamantly opposed to Contraception. Sadly, in the 1930’s this began to change, as the people in the congregations put pressure on their Church leaders to change their stance on Contraception. The Catholic Church, today, remains one of the only Church’s that still oppose Contraception, despite the fact that this had led numerous Catholics to disagree, even to the point of leaving the Church. The Church has refused to let the Faithful determine morals, simply to appease their collective consciences.

On birth control, Pope Pius XI said “any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature”. Since then, the rhythm method and NFP have been approved for use. Catholics have a hard time explaining how using these methods don’t deliberately frustrate the natural power to generate life.

 

[NotWorthy]

The Cadaver Synod, in which Pope Stephen VI dug up and put the corpse of Pope Formosus on trial. He then declared that Formosus was not a valid pope and all of the ordinations he performed were invalid. (This was later overturned by Pope Sergius III.)

These contradictory declarations by popes touches on the very nature of Holy Orders and what constitutes validly receiving/performing the sacrament. The sacraments should fall into the faith and morals category.

I’ve been told this doesn’t count because the pope was not speaking ex-cathedra. Also, somebody said these declarations touched on faith and morals, but weren’t about faith and morals, so this doesn’t bring into question papal infallability.

Ahh, now we have something to go on. I’ll look up some information on this. You gotta admit, this was a wild scene. Not one that a Catholic should be proud of at all, eh?

On birth control, Pope Pius XI said “any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature”. Since then, the rhythm method and NFP have been approved for use. Catholics have a hard time explaining how using these methods don’t deliberately frustrate the natural power to generate life.

How does NFP deliberately frustrate the natural power to generate life? Babies are still conceived, quite often.

Our priest once told a joke. “What do you call a couple practicing NFP? Parents”

 

[Awake]

Ahh, now we have something to go on. I’ll look up some information on this. You gotta admit, this was a wild scene. Not one that a Catholic should be proud of at all, eh?

Yep, crazy times.

Another apparent contradiction that I just remembered is when Pope Urban VIII, I believe, taught that sneezing was immoral because it resembled sexual ecstasy. I don’t remember all the details, so I’d have to look it up again.

How does NFP deliberately frustrate the natural power to generate life? Babies are still conceived, quite often.

The same way that withdrawal frustrates the natural power to generate life.

Our priest once told a joke. “What do you call a couple practicing NFP? Parents”

It’s true.

 

[NotWorthy]

The same way that withdrawal frustrates the natural power to generate life.

No, withdrawal leads to messy sheets. It is a direct refusal of the gift of God.

I would assume Onan could vouch for that, if he were able to communicate with us.

 

[John_Higgins]

Back to the original topic, in case some were interested:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Bad Popes is a 1986 book by E. R. Chamberlin documenting the lives of eight of the most controversial popes (papal years in parentheses):

Pope Stephen VI (896-897), who had his predecessor Pope Formosus exhumed, tried, de-fingered, briefly reburied, and thrown in the Tiber

Pope John XII (937-964), who gave land to a mistress, murdered several people, and was killed by a man who caught him in bed with his wife.

Pope Benedict IX (1032-1044,1045,1047-1048), who “sold” the Papacy

Pope Boniface VIII (1294-1303), who is lampooned in Dante’s Divine Comedy

Pope Urban VI (1378-1389), who complained that he did not hear enough screaming when Cardinals who had conspired against him were tortured.

Pope Alexander VI (1492-1503), a Borja, who was guilty of nepotism and whose unattended corpse swelled until it could barely fit in a coffin.

Pope Leo X (1513-1521), a spendthrift member of the Medici family who once spent 1/7 of his predecessors’ reserves on a single ceremony.

Pope Clement VII (1523-1534), also a Medici, whose power-politicking with France, Spain, and Germany got Rome sacked.

John

 

[Awake]

No, withdrawal leads to messy sheets. It is a direct refusal of the gift of God.

I would assume Onan could vouch for that, if he were able to communicate with us.

I don’t agree with your premise, but I will concede this point so that this doesn’t turn into another birth control thread.

 

[CharlesTT]

I thank Paul ant NotWorthy for their responses, and beg your indulgence (no pun intended!) if I fail to respond to every point that was raised against my every point. A lot was said by all in the preceding posts.

I’d like to clarify my comments about Mary and Pius XII’s ex cathedra invocation of papal infallibility in 1950 as it relates to the dogma of her ascension. I apologize if others don’t find this particular event as important as I do, but I circle back to it so frequently only because studying this event was the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back when it came to my decision about whether or not to join the Catholic Church.

I did not weigh in the balance of this decision the assumption (again, no pun intended) that the authority of the clergy of the Roman Catholic Church flows from that ascribed to St. Peter. What I feel that Catholics sometimes don’t recognize about those of us not yet in their church is that this is not an argument that carries very much force unless and until you are already in the church. One must first accept authority as valid and convincing before trying to reconstruct from whence that authority flows. The arguments about the rock, the keys, etc., are not based on scripture that is very difficult to interpret differently.

I’ll try to put this as simply as I can using the logic I was taught in a state college!

1). I believe that Jesus Christ was divine, that he died as a penalty for sin and was then resurrected, and that if you accept this gift of grace which is yours for the asking, you will receive what Jesus Christ said you will receive: forgiveness of sin and eternal life.

2). There is a venerable, old and mostly admirable Church based in Rome which teaches point #1 and claims to have absolute authority on deciding what is and what isn’t true Christian doctrine.

3). This church tells you that even if you fully and sincerely subscribe to point #1, you can forget about salvation if you don’t ALSO believe that Jesus’s mother ascended into the Heavens, something you will not find in any scripture and something which was not even required for Catholics to believe until 1950.

4). Because of the ABSOLUTE primacy and importance of point #1, the claim in Point #2 MUST be rejected. And this is to preserve the primacy of point #1–without, incidentally, any prejudice towards the claim made in point #3.

This is not about deriding Mary. Not in the least. I could enthusiastically remain in communion with those who fervently believe that she ascended into heaven, that she was sinless, a perpetual virgin, you can talk to her, pray the rosary, see her outline in your breakfast cereal and consider it a miracle, etc. None of this bothers me. I hear a lot of stuff that strikes me as just as strange (or even stranger) from members of my own church. But it’s the notion that SALVATION itself depends on believing absolutely anything about Mary that I cannot tolerate.

And not out of prejudice against Mary, but out of deference to Christ.

You know, one thing I really dislike about rhetoric like this, no matter how well intentioned, is that it ignores the fruits of the labor of those who pray with Mary.

I attend a lot of Churches in my area. I’m outside sales, and I try to attend daily Mass. With my schedule, I’ll end up finding a Mass in the area that fits my schedule. So, I’ve become familiar with people from 10 or so different parishes throughout the Beaumont area. I can tell you, the holiest most devout people in every parish, almost to a “tee”, pray the rosary daily. The hardest workers in the parishes, almost to a “tee”, pray the rosary daily. And the most humble, selfless people I see in these churches, almost to a “tee”, pray the rosary daily.

Furthermore, in speaking to these people who attend daily mass, nearly all of them began to pray the rosary first, and then gradually evolved into attending daily Mass whenever necessary.

So, one can say that focusing on Mary diverts our focus from Jesus. I’d tell you that focusing on Mary intensifies the average Catholics focus on Mary.

“My Soul magnifies the Lord, and my Spirit rejoices in God my Savior”!

If I pointed out to you the most devout, humble, and hardest workers in a Madrass or a Morman tabernacle, would that be an argument that you’d embrace in favor of either their beliefs or practices of prayer? I consider Catholics to be my Christian brothers and sisters, but as a Protestant, such arguments simply don’t have any meaning for me.

 

[CharlesTT]

Did Christ leave behind a Church? If yes, you follow that Church and trust that Christ lives up to His Promises that the Holy Spirit will guide the Church to All Truths.

If no, then you can wallow in whatever Church turns you on, often being drawn simply because of a charismatic leader.

This intrigues me because I’m just realizing that I’ve heard variations on this idea from several Catholic friends–the notion that Protestants are prone to get turned on by and follow charismatic leaders (because we are somehow rootless in our beliefs, lacking centralized doctrinal authority).

I can see how such an idea would arise–Protestant televangelists, mega-churches, etc, and I won’t say the accusation is totally without merit. Is this idea a staple of Catholic thinking about Protestants? Something that gets repeated and passed around a lot?

I can’t answer for the behavior of all Protestants or all Protestant leaders any more than Catholics can or would want to answer for all their own or their “bad popes.” But I do think that such an argument ignores a rather central component of Protestantism, the idea that no earthly leader can ever displace the DIRECT leadership of Christ. That so many Protestants and their congregations forget this is no credit to them.

It’s sad (and ironic) to see Protestants committing the action of replacing human authority for Christ’s authority which led to our schism in the first place. I don’t blame Catholics at all for pointing this out, but I would like to point out that such Protestants are acting completely outside of what it means to be Protestant in the first place.

 

[CharlesTT]

]The Apostles didn’t call on the intercession from Mary in prayer because she lived among them. They simply went over to her and asked her to pray for them. Do you doubt that this happened?

Actually, I have no idea whether it happened it or not. There is certainly no record of it in the New Testament. You ask if I doubt it. I neither doubt nor believe it, though I’m surprised that they’d ever ask Mary for intercession while Jesus was also among them. I actually don’t find the whole question–merely on its face–terribly important. It’s kind of like the question of how many angels can dance on a pin. What I doubt, actually, is that anyone’s salvation depends on believing such a thing. The leadership of Rome has no such doubts. You cannot be part of the church if you don’t believe such things about Mary, and since there isn’t salvation outside of the church (according to them), holding certain beliefs about Mary are necessary for salvation.

Here is how salvation is manifested in the Catholic Church. We recieve sufficient grace to be saved when we are Baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy spirit. This sacrament cleanses us of all past sin and is a sign of our faith in Jesus. This sacrament was made possible by Jesus sacrifice and is a free gift to us.

After we are baptized, we are responsible to stay in the state of Grace. We do this by following Jesus’s example to love God with all our heart, all our mind and all our Souls and to love our Neighbor as ourselves. Our entire lives are meant to be sanctifying after baptism and we are helped in this through the real presence in the Eucharist. If we fall from Grace through sin, God, in his mercy has provided a way back through the sacrament of Reconciliation, where we confess our sins contritely, agree to repent and do an appropriate penance to make up for our sins. If we die in the state of Grace, we will go to heaven.

You will notice that there is no discussion of Mary in this. This does not mean, however, that Mary can not help us. She, like all the Saints, can pray for our salvation, and we believe that her prayers for us are particularly effective. She is also the best example of Christ disciples, having never sinned and having Loved Jesus for his entire life. What about this rebels against your reason or religion?

Perhaps that’s your understanding of what is suffficient for grace. However, the ex cathedra statement of papal infallibility by Pius XII means that you can not attain salvation if you do not–in ADDITION to all you have said—believe that Mary ascended bodily into heaven. Christ’s sacrifice is hence insufficient for salvation. This is according to Rome, not me.

According to Pius XII, who all Catholics are bound on penalty of damnation to submit to once he evoked infallibility, belief in Mary’s ascension is AS NECESSARY as believing in the actions of Christ on the cross. They are equal in the eyes of Rome because you are not permitted to have one without the other.

And this despite the fact that the Gospel are filled with stories of Christ’s sacrifice but absolutely nothing about May’s ascension.

 

[NotWorthy]

1). I believe that Jesus Christ was divine, that he died as a penalty for sin and was then resurrected, and that if you accept this gift of grace which is yours for the asking, you will receive what Jesus Christ said you will receive: forgiveness of sin and eternal life.

2). There is a venerable, old and mostly admirable Church based in Rome which teaches point #1 and claims to have absolute authority on deciding what is and what isn’t true Christian doctrine.

3). This church tells you that even if you fully and sincerely subscribe to point #1, you can forget about salvation if you don’t ALSO believe that Jesus’s mother ascended into the Heavens, something you will not find in any scripture and something which was not even required for Catholics to believe until 1950.

4). Because of the ABSOLUTE primacy and importance of point #1, the claim in Point #2 MUST be rejected. And this is to preserve the primacy of point #1–without, incidentally, any prejudice towards the claim made in point #3.

My response to this is that Christ honored the Pharisees authority to make “binding and loosing” decisions. Jesus turned around and gave this full authority to the Apostles. He also promised that He would guide the Church in these issues.

This is not about deriding Mary. Not in the least. I could enthusiastically remain in communion with those who fervently believe that she ascended into heaven, that she was sinless, a perpetual virgin, you can talk to her, pray the rosary, see her outline in your breakfast cereal and consider it a miracle, etc. None of this bothers me. I hear a lot of stuff that strikes me as just as strange (or even stranger) from members of my own church. But it’s the notion that SALVATION itself depends on believing absolutely anything about Mary that I cannot tolerate.

And not out of prejudice against Mary, but out of deference to Christ.

I was listening to a talk recently (MP3 file) about a guy that was converting from another faith (I think it was Church of Christ). He was asked what happens if he completely disagreed with a teaching of the Church, would he still have converted (and I think it was based on one of the “biggies” like the Pope or Mary).

The speaker responded that, once he realized that the Catholic Church was the Church that Christ built, he had no choice but to convert. If the Church was the Church that Christ built, and the speaker had a problem with the any of the teachings, the problem was in the speaker, not the Church. This is something that I, as a cradle Catholic, had to overcome before I could immerse myself more fully into the Church (I went from a mechanical Catholic to what I am now).

If I pointed out to you the most devout, humble, and hardest workers in a Madrass or a Morman tabernacle, would that be an argument that you’d embrace in favor of either their beliefs or practices of prayer? I consider Catholics to be my Christian brothers and sisters, but as a Protestant, such arguments simply don’t have any meaning for me.

Well, the point of my rant (sorry, I was having a bad day the other day), was that all too often, those outside the Church look at someone praying the rosary and think, “idol worship”, and other ilk. I’ve seen the fruits of the labor of these people and wish others would see this before they label them… you know, sort of like I did with you when I read your post! BTW, how is crow best prepared… in a gumbo?

 

[NotWorthy]

Actually, I have no idea whether it happened it or not. There is certainly no record of it in the New Testament. You ask if I doubt it. I neither doubt nor believe it, though I’m surprised that they’d ever ask Mary for intercession while Jesus was also among them. I actually don’t find the whole question–merely on its face–terribly important. It’s kind of like the question of how many angels can dance on a pin. What I doubt, actually, is that anyone’s salvation depends on believing such a thing. The leadership of Rome has no such doubts. You cannot be part of the church if you don’t believe such things about Mary, and since there isn’t salvation outside of the church (according to them), holding certain beliefs about Mary are necessary for salvation.

Perhaps that’s your understanding of what is suffficient for grace. However, the ex cathedra statement of papal infallibility by Pius XII means that you can not attain salvation if you do not–in ADDITION to all you have said—believe that Mary ascended bodily into heaven. Christ’s sacrifice is hence insufficient for salvation. This is according to Rome, not me.

According to Pius XII, who all Catholics are bound on penalty of damnation to submit to once he evoked infallibility, belief in Mary’s ascension is AS NECESSARY as believing in the actions of Christ on the cross. They are equal in the eyes of Rome because you are not permitted to have one without the other.

And this despite the fact that the Gospel are filled with stories of Christ’s sacrifice but absolutely nothing about May’s ascension.

One of the saddest things I think that occurs in Protestantism is that churches look only to the Bible to determine the teachings of Christ.

The Early Church is completely ignored - people like St. Ignatius, St. Polycarp, and St. Clement, all who knew some of the Apostles, and wrote a lot of how the early Church taught and believed.

The saying that someone said really struck me - “Sacred Tradition is the democracy of the Dead”. At first I thought this was derogatory. But then it struck me. This means that the Church looks to the teachings of her whole 2000 years, not just what some of today’s teachers think. And I thought “Wow, that is so cool!”.

This is why things like artificial contraception are banned. This is why the Church still stands up to abortion, all the while other churches are remaining silent, so as not to insult the faithful.

I’m not sure how much this applies to your post, in retrospect, but I just thought I’d post it anyway…

 

[paul_c]

Actually, I have no idea whether it happened it or not. There is certainly no record of it in the New Testament. You ask if I doubt it. I neither doubt nor believe it, though I’m surprised that they’d ever ask Mary for intercession while Jesus was also among them. I actually don’t find the whole question–merely on its face–terribly important. It’s kind of like the question of how many angels can dance on a pin. What I doubt, actually, is that anyone’s salvation depends on believing such a thing. The leadership of Rome has no such doubts. You cannot be part of the church if you don’t believe such things about Mary, and since there isn’t salvation outside of the church (according to them), holding certain beliefs about Mary are necessary for salvation.

The first miracle Jesus performed, the changing of the water into wine at Cana was done with Mary’s intercession. Do you honestly believe that was the last time she asked a favor of Jesus?

this is the Church’s official view of Mary, from the Catchism:

Paragraph 6. Mary - Mother of Christ, Mother of the Church

963 Since the Virgin Mary’s role in the mystery of Christ and the Spirit has been treated, it is fitting now to consider her place in the mystery of the Church. “The Virgin Mary . . . is acknowledged and honored as being truly the Mother of God and of the redeemer. . . . She is ‘clearly the mother of the members of Christ’ . . . since she has by her charity joined in bringing about the birth of believers in the Church, who are members of its head.”“Mary, Mother of Christ, Mother of the Church.”

I. MARY’S MOTHERHOOD WITH REGARD TO THE CHURCH

Wholly united with her Son . . .

964 Mary’s role in the Church is inseparable from her union with Christ and flows directly from it. “This union of the mother with the Son in the work of salvation is made manifest from the time of Christ’s virginal conception up to his death”;504 it is made manifest above all at the hour of his Passion:

Thus the Blessed Virgin advanced in her pilgrimage of faith, and faithfully persevered in her union with her Son unto the cross. There she stood, in keeping with the divine plan, enduring with her only begotten Son the intensity of his suffering, joining herself with his sacrifice in her mother’s heart, and lovingly consenting to the immolation of this victim, born of her: to be given, by the same Christ Jesus dying on the cross, as a mother to his disciple, with these words: "Woman, behold your son."505

965 After her Son’s Ascension, Mary "aided the beginnings of the Church by her prayers."506 In her association with the apostles and several women, "we also see Mary by her prayers imploring the gift of the Spirit, who had already overshadowed her in the Annunciation."507

. . . also in her Assumption

966 "Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death."508 The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son’s Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians:

In giving birth you kept your virginity; in your Dormition you did not leave the world, O Mother of God, but were joined to the source of Life. You conceived the living God and, by your prayers, will deliver our souls from death.509

. . . she is our Mother in the order of grace

967 By her complete adherence to the Father’s will, to his Son’s redemptive work, and to every prompting of the Holy Spirit, the Virgin Mary is the Church’s model of faith and charity. Thus she is a “preeminent and . . . wholly unique member of the Church”; indeed, she is the “exemplary realization” (typus)510 of the Church.

968 Her role in relation to the Church and to all humanity goes still further. "In a wholly singular way she cooperated by her obedience, faith, hope, and burning charity in the Savior’s work of restoring supernatural life to souls. For this reason she is a mother to us in the order of grace."511

969 "This motherhood of Mary in the order of grace continues uninterruptedly from the consent which she loyally gave at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation . . . . Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix."512

970 "Mary’s function as mother of men in no way obscures or diminishes this unique mediation of Christ, but rather shows its power. But the Blessed Virgin’s salutary influence on men . . . flows forth from the superabundance of the merits of Christ, rests on his mediation, depends entirely on it, and draws all its power from it."513 "No creature could ever be counted along with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer; but just as the priesthood of Christ is shared in various ways both by his ministers and the faithful, and as the one goodness of God is radiated in different ways among his creatures, so also the unique mediation of the Redeemer does not exclude but rather gives rise to a manifold cooperation which is but a sharing in this one source."514

• II. DEVOTION TO THE BLESSED VIRGIN

971 “All generations will call me blessed”: "The Church’s devotion to the Blessed Virgin is intrinsic to Christian worship."515 The Church rightly honors "the Blessed Virgin with special devotion. From the most ancient times the Blessed Virgin has been honored with the title of ‘Mother of God,’ to whose protection the faithful fly in all their dangers and needs. . . . This very special devotion . . . differs essentially from the adoration which is given to the incarnate Word and equally to the Father and the Holy Spirit, and greatly fosters this adoration."516 The liturgical feasts dedicated to the Mother of God and Marian prayer, such as the rosary, an “epitome of the whole Gospel,” express this devotion to the Virgin Mary.517

 

[paul_c]

Here is how salvation is manifested in the Catholic Church. We recieve sufficient grace to be saved when we are Baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy spirit. This sacrament cleanses us of all past sin and is a sign of our faith in Jesus. This sacrament was made possible by Jesus sacrifice and is a free gift to us.

After we are baptized, we are responsible to stay in the state of Grace. We do this by following Jesus’s example to love God with all our heart, all our mind and all our Souls and to love our Neighbor as ourselves. Our entire lives are meant to be sanctifying after baptism and we are helped in this through the real presence in the Eucharist. If we fall from Grace through sin, God, in his mercy has provided a way back through the sacrament of Reconciliation, where we confess our sins contritely, agree to repent and do an appropriate penance to make up for our sins. If we die in the state of Grace, we will go to heaven.

Perhaps that’s your understanding of what is suffficient for grace. However, the ex cathedra statement of papal infallibility by Pius XII means that you can not attain salvation if you do not–in ADDITION to all you have said—believe that Mary ascended bodily into heaven. Christ’s sacrifice is hence insufficient for salvation. This is according to Rome, not me.

According to Pius XII, who all Catholics are bound on penalty of damnation to submit to once he evoked infallibility, belief in Mary’s ascension is AS NECESSARY as believing in the actions of Christ on the cross. They are equal in the eyes of Rome because you are not permitted to have one without the other.

And this despite the fact that the Gospel are filled with stories of Christ’s sacrifice but absolutely nothing about May’s ascension.

I am quite sure that my definition of salvation in the church is accurate. If you doubt it, check out the catechism: scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c3a1.htm.

Now here is the actual Papal Bull in question: papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12MUNIF.HTM
It explains fully why this Dogma always existed and why he chose in 1950, to write a letter making it official. And yes, as Dogma, Catholics are required to believe its true. That is also explained. I suggest you take the 15 minutes to read through it, since this is your big sticking point on entering the Catholic Church.