Marian dogmas, crucial for salvation?

[jmgi1957]

I struggled to even come up with a title for this topic, but here is what I am questioning. After being a Catholic my entire life, I just recently had this thought when reading Scripture, specifically Acts of the Apostles; Why is it that people were saved in the first century without believing in the Marian dogma’s? Now, I realize that the only Marian belief that the first century Christians had was that Mary was a virgin when she conceived the Son of God, and that’s it. My understanding, which may be incorrect, is that WE must give consent to all of the Marian dogma’s in order to be saved. I cannot find any official document from the CHURCH which states whether this is true or not. Does anyone have a source on this? I don’t want opinions, I want to see it in writing from the CHURCH on this matter.

This is the bottom line for me, at least; If the CHURCH says that we must believe in all the Marian dogma’s to be saved, then how is it that the first century Christians were able to be saved without these dogma’s being in existence, except for the virgin birth of course? This would sound like a double standard, wouldn’t you think?

 

[catholicray]

The Church is a living institution. We have to accept the Church in our own day. The Church is an appropriate measure for each generation. So the Marian Dogmas are crucial for our generation.

 

[Vico]

I struggled to even come up with a title for this topic, but here is what I am questioning. After being a Catholic my entire life, I just recently had this thought when reading Scripture, specifically Acts of the Apostles; Why is it that people were saved in the first century without believing in the Marian dogma’s? Now, I realize that the only Marian belief that the first century Christians had was that Mary was a virgin when she conceived the Son of God, and that’s it. My understanding, which may be incorrect, is that WE must give consent to all of the Marian dogma’s in order to be saved. I cannot find any official document from the CHURCH which states whether this is true or not. Does anyone have a source on this? I don’t want opinions, I want to see it in writing from the CHURCH on this matter.

This is the bottom line for me, at least; If the CHURCH says that we must believe in all the Marina dogma’s to be saved, then how is it that the first century Christians were able to be saved without these dogma’s being in existence, except for the virgin birth of course? This would sound like a double standard, wouldn’t you think?

Assent is to be given to all dogmas of faith. Not all dogmas are of faith however so other teachings are to be assented to with mind but not with faith. For the Marian dogmas, they were not always defined. Any mortal sin would be in the rejecting the teaching authority of the Church.

1. The Council of Ephesus (431 A.D.), Council of Chalcedon (451 A.D.): Mother of God
2. Council of the Lateran (649 A.D.): perpetual virginal integrity
3. Ineffabilis Deus (1854 A.D.): Immaculate Conception
4. Munificentissimus Deus (1950 A.D.): Assumption

 

[jmgi1957]

What do you mean, “they were not always defined”?

 

[Vico]

What do you mean, “they were not always defined”?

The definition as a dogma of faith can be made by a council or ex cathedra by a Pope. I listed those dates. Nevertheless they may have been taught before that time but not defined.

 

[HeDa]

Until someone/or a lot of people questions or argues about something the Church is not a problem. When there is a problem where people are disagreeing, fighting and causing division then the pope will pronounce something a dogma or there will be a council to decide what the Church believes.

Link to the 21 Church councils the CC has had. The 21 Ecumenical Councils | Catholic Answers

 

[neophyte]

Why is it that people were saved in the first century without believing in the Marian dogma’s?

The idea that salvation is contingent on one’s knowledge of the intellectual content of the faith is a Protestant idea, and it’s wrong. Salvation is contingent on one’s response to the invitation of God to return to his friendship.

Now, I realize that the only Marian belief that the first century Christians had was that Mary was a virgin when she conceived the Son of God, and that’s it.

What makes you think that? The people closest to her certainly knew that she was without sin, was a perpetual virgin and was assumed into Heaven. There are all sorts of things that are so taken for granted that no one really talks about them. For example, the truth that people of the same sex can’t marry: the historical record will someday show that no one said this until the early 21st Century, but that doesn’t mean that no one knew it. And certainly many things that were taught in the early days wouldn’t have made it into written form, because of the great reliance on oral transmission.

 

[jmgi1957]

quote; The people closest to her certainly knew that she was without sin, was a perpetual virgin and was assumed into Heaven.

How would they know she was without sin or that she was a perpetual virgin, seriously? You think those people knew her thoughts? How did those people know whether she had a sex life or not?

 

[neophyte]

Sorry, but I’m still seeing it as a double standard. Why should the requirements for salvation change over the years for different groups of people?

They haven’t changed. It’s not “those who do not believe X, Y and Z go to hell”, it’s “submit to the teaching of Christ’s Church”.

 

[Genesis315]

Other than perhaps what is described in CCC 161, no dogma is absolutely necessary for salvation. Faith is the total submission of mind and will to God (cd. CCC 143) believing all that God has relvealed (cf. CCC 150).

Furthermore, there is one faith (cf. Eph 4:5). Not everyone who professes the Church’s one faith needs to have knowledge of every article. Being ignorant or even wrong about certain points does not diminish this faith, as long as one intends to profess it and does not deliberately oppose it.

As St. Irenaeus noted, “For the faith being ever one and the same, neither does one who is able at great length to discourse regarding it, make any addition to it, nor does one, who can say but little diminish it.” (Adversus Haereses, I, 10, 2)

Pope Innocent IV explained further (Commentaria in quinque libros decretalia, Ad liber I):

There is a certain measure of faith to which all are obliged, and which is sufficient for the simple (simplicibus) and perhaps for all laymen—that is, every adult must believe that God exists and that He rewards all good people. He must also believe in the other articles of the Creed implicitly (implicite), that is, he must believe that whatever the Catholic Church believes is true…
…
Such is the power of implicit faith that there are those who say that if someone has it—that is, he believes in everything the Church believes—but his natural reason (ratione naturali) makes him hold the erroneous opinion that the Father is greater than the Son or precedes Him in time, or that the three persons are separate beings, he is neither a heretic nor a sinner, so long as he does not defend his error and so long as he believes that this is the faith of the Church. In that case, the faith of the Church replaces his opinion, since, though his opinion is false, it is not his faith, rather his faith is the faith of the Church.

St. Thomas says the same here:
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3002.htm#article6

The problem is when we deliberately oppose an article of faith in the face of the judgment of the Church as to what God has revealed. Then we break the unity of faith with the Church and lose that one faith completely–since it is one, deliberate dissent on one point destroys faith altogether, since we have substituted our judgment for God’s authority.

Pope Leo XIII explains (Satis Cognitum 9):

But he who dissents even in one point from divinely revealed truth absolutely rejects all faith, since he thereby refuses to honour God as the supreme truth and the formal motive of faith. “In many things they are with me, in a few things not with me; but in those few things in which they are not with me the many things in which they are will not profit them” (S. Augustinus in Psal. liv., n. 19). And this indeed most deservedly; for they, who take from Christian doctrine what they please, lean on their own judgments, not on faith; and not “bringing into captivity every understanding unto the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor. x., 5), they more truly obey themselves than God. “You, who believe what you like, believe yourselves rather than the gospel” (S. Augustinus, lib. xvii., Contra Faustum Manichaeum, cap. 3).

 

[jmgi1957]

You are assuming things that you cannot prove to be true. Its an argument from silence.

 

[neophyte]

You are assuming things that you cannot prove to be true. Its an argument from silence.

Not at all. In fact, it appears that you are making the argument from silence - why is it that you think that the Marian dogmas were not believed in the early church? If they are true, they are the exact sort of things that would have been taken for granted by those who knew her best.

Again, it’s not “those who do not believe X, Y and Z go to hell”, it’s “submit to the teaching of Christ’s Church”.

 

[jmgi1957]

Let me back up a bit so you don’t misunderstand me. I’m not denying these dogma’s to be true, for instance, I’m quite sure that the earliest Christians looked at Mary with much respect, and gave her the honor due her based on what Scripture teaches, that she “was most blessed among women”. The dogma of the Divine Motherhood certainly sprung from these early beliefs about Mary. For me personally, the remaining Marian dogma’s are the ones that are difficult because you cannot go to Scripture to find strong evidence for them.

 

[sudy]

It’s important to consent to them as true, even if you acknowledge that you don’t understand them. All truth is revealed by the Holy Spirit… Christ indicates this. Not all details will be found within Scripture.

• The Council of Ephesus (431 A.D.), Council of Chalcedon (451 A.D.): Mother of God
• Council of the Lateran (649 A.D.): perpetual virginal integrity
• Ineffabilis Deus (1854 A.D.): Immaculate Conception
• Munificentissimus Deus (1950 A.D.): Assumption

Mother of God is easy to understand as she is Our Lord’s mother and Our Lord is God.
Immaculate Conception, besides it being revealed at Lourdes, it’s also logical to conclude that as Christ takes Mary’s flesh, it can’t be defiled by any type of sin.
Perpetual virginity is also easy enough to consent to… if you acknowledge that the brothers mentioned in Scripture refers to kin and not actual offspring of Mary.
Assumption is taught by tradition that the disciples found her tomb empty… this makes sense that Christ wouldn’t let his mother’s sinless body become corrupted.

 

[neophyte]

For me personally, the remaining Marian dogma’s are the ones that are difficult because you cannot go to Scripture to find strong evidence for them.

Once I realized that Christ gave his Church the authority to make binding decisions on matters of doctrine, and promised to protect those decisions from being made in error, those difficulties ceased for me. It is enough to know that the Church teaches something to be infallibly true, and once I know that the Church teaches is as something I must believe I am bound to it. Not before, and certainly not before the Church herself teaches it in such a manner.

 

[jmgi1957]

It’s important to consent to them as true, even if you acknowledge that you don’t understand them. All truth is revealed by the Holy Spirit… Christ indicates this. Not all details will be found within Scripture.

Vico:

• The Council of Ephesus (431 A.D.), Council of Chalcedon (451 A.D.): Mother of God
• Council of the Lateran (649 A.D.): perpetual virginal integrity
• Ineffabilis Deus (1854 A.D.): Immaculate Conception
• Munificentissimus Deus (1950 A.D.): Assumption

Immaculate Conception, besides it being revealed at Lourdes, it’s also logical to conclude that as Christ takes Mary’s flesh, it can’t be defiled by any type of sin.

It is not required that we believe in ANY of the apparitions of Mary. The Immaculate Conception was declared dogma in 1854, four years before the Lourdes apparitions started. The IC teaches that Mary was conceived without Original Sin, NOT that she was kept from sin the rest of her life. But yes, it seems hard to imagine that the Father would bring his Son into the world through a sin tainted human body, but that is our reasoning, and it is NOT from Scripture itself.

The Perpetual Virginity does hinge on whether you believe the “brothers” of Jesus mentioned in Scripture are other relatives and NOT blood siblings. Because Scripture certainly DOES NOT give the indication that Mary remained a VIRGIN her whole life, nor does it CLEARLY say she did not. This dogma is particularly problematic for Catholics I think, because in some passages of Scripture, such as Matt. 13:55, this seems to be talking about a close family unit, father, mother, brothers, sisters. Not to get way off topic here, but using the Catholic argument that the Greek “adelphos” (brother) can mean “cousins” also is very weak when looking at the context of that particular verse.

The Assumption of Mary is CLEARLY not Scriptural either, and we have to depend again, on Catholic reasoning and tradition to come up with this one.

 

[HopkinsReb]

It’s not that belief in those things is in and of itself required for salvation – as some have said, those dogmas were not explicitly defined in the early Church. The idea is that now that they have been defined, assent is necessary as a matter of submission to the church. People are not saved by their belief in the Immaculate Conception, but people are saved through the Church, and proper life in the Church includes assent to its formal teachings.

 

[jmgi1957]

Wouldn’t this amount to “accepting a different gospel” as in Galatians 1:8;

But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!

Let’s not forget, Paul is speaking to the Christians of HIS TIME. This is exactly the reason I asked the original question “is there a double standard” for salvation, Christians of the first century and us today? If Paul is telling his audience of first century Christians to not accept a different gospel than the one they have been given, then when did his message become obsolete? Because evidently, the gospel WE have IS different than theirs with the inclusion of the Marian dogma’s, among other things, and yet, the Church is telling us we MUST give consent to these newer teachings to be a Catholic in good standing.

 

[Gorgias]

The Assumption of Mary is CLEARLY not Scriptural either

To be fair, it’d be difficult to put an event into Scripture as historical reporting prior to its occurrence, no?

And, how would you explain Revelation’s vision of Mary as physically present in the heavens… if she weren’t there?

 

[HopkinsReb]

But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!

“This is the church of the living God, which is the pillar and foundation of the truth.”
1 Timothy 3:15

In what way are the Marian dogmas contrary to Scripture? They are largely deduced from it.

Nobody is arguing for the obsolescence of the New Testament. There is no double standard. Salvation was through Christ through His Church then, and salvation is through Christ through His Church now. The difference is that the Church has had 2000 years to solidify and untangle its positions on certain questions.