Marian dogmas, crucial for salvation?

[neophyte]

You should accept all of the Marian dogma’s but you won’t go to hell if you don’t.

This is an incredibly reckless thing to say - you have no idea what someone else’s culpability is in rejecting the teaching of the Church. He might very well go to hell for it.

 

[jmgi1957]

This is an incredibly reckless thing to say - you have no idea what someone else’s culpability is in rejecting the teaching of the Church. He might very well go to hell for it.

I pray that I wouldn’t be sent to hell for not understanding HOW the Church arrived at some of the teachings about Mary, considering that certain ones appear to lack plain Scriptural evidence (at least to me) for their existence. I do completely understand that there are deeper things contained in Scripture that are not explicitly revealed, but implicit. I think that it is only natural for us to want to be “convinced in our own minds” as Paul said.

By the way, the reason I have not posted for the last day is that the forum only allows 20 posts on your first day after joining, and after I exceeded that yesterday, they cut me off!

 

[neophyte]

I pray that I wouldn’t be sent to hell for not understanding HOW the Church arrived at some of the teachings

I don’t know how we can have been more clear about this. I suggest you go back and very carefully reflect on what we’ve already said: the problem isn’t with not knowing the teaching of Christ’s Church, it’s with the obstinate rejection of that teaching.

I think that it is only natural for us to want to be “convinced in our own minds” as Paul said.

Certainly we are called to fully understand them, to the best of our ability.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I’m sorry you got cut off. The forum mechanics can be very annoying sometimes.

Please understand we are not saying that you personally are destined for Hell. We are simply pointing out to the person who posted that we have no idea who does and does not go to Hell, so it is very reckless for him to say a person “won’t go to Hell”. It would be equally reckless for him to say a person “will go to Hell”.

We can speculate that a person who has a doubt and makes a sincere effort to resolve the doubt, or alternatively chooses to just set it aside and sincerely follow Church teaching, is probably unlikely to be punished by God just for having a doubt. This is our speculation only, and we do not know what exactly God might do in a particular case. Someone concerned with whether they are Hell-bound should discuss in person with a priest, who is much better qualified to address such matters due to his special training.

 

[neophyte]

We can speculate that a person who has a doubt and makes a sincere effort to resolve the doubt, or alternatively chooses to just set it aside and sincerely follow Church teaching, is probably unlikely to be punished by God just for having a doubt.

I’d say that neither will be, the former because of his sincerity, and certainly the latter because setting aside ones own understanding out of a desire to submit to Christ is a great work of his grace.

The idea that God holds us culpable for knowing things that we cannot (or are unable to) know is a grave slander.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Let’s put it this way: most Catholics have some doubt at some point in their life about something the Church teaches, so we pray that God is merciful to us all.

 

[Gingersnaps4]

I pray that I wouldn’t be sent to hell for not understanding HOW the Church arrived at some of the teachings about Mary, considering that certain ones appear to lack plain Scriptural evidence (at least to me) for their existence.

Some of the Marian Dogmas are rooted in sacred Tradition, rather than scripture. You seem to be too hung up on scripture while not trusting Tradition, which is just as reliable as scripture.

 

[jmgi1957]

You seem to be too hung up on scripture while not trusting Tradition, which is just as reliable as scripture.

Maybe you should rephrase that, because getting “hung up on Scripture” or God’s Word, is hardly something you would want to not get “hung up on” if you know what I mean. But, I think I know what you’re getting at anyway.

 

[Gingersnaps4]

Maybe you should rephrase that, because getting “hung up on Scripture” or God’s Word, is hardly something you would want to not get “hung up on” if you know what I mean. But, I think I know what you’re getting at anyway.

No, I don’t think I need to rephrase that. Tradition is equal to scripture, one is just as important as the other. You are putting too much weight on one and not enough on the other, in this instance.

 

[jmgi1957]

No, I don’t think I need to rephrase that. Tradition is equal to scripture, one is just as important as the other. You are putting too much weight on one and not enough on the other, in this instance.

I’m not saying one is more “important” than the other, as I realize that the Bible came out of the Church, but Tradition cannot ever contradict Scripture, and that’s what is important to me when I study Church teaching.

Acts 17:11
“These Jews were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with all willingness and examined the scriptures daily to determine whether these things were so.”

 

[Gingersnaps4]

Yes, Tradition can’t contradict scripture, and none of the Marian dogmas contradict scripture. By making them Dogma, the Church is simply saying that they definitely happened or occurred. Jesus promised that the church is the pillar and bulwark of Truth, so we know then that the Marian dogmas are true, I t’s impossible that they would then contradict scripture or that the church could come up with any dogma that would.

 

[jmgi1957]

Yes, we both agree that the CC is the church Jesus founded, but when I speak with people of other Christian faiths, the Marian dogma’s invariably are on the top of the list for discussion, and in most cases, they don’t want to hear anything about Tradition and Church authority, they need to be able to go to Scripture and see it in print or they don’t accept it.

 

[po18guy]

Doctrine and dogma are crucial to salvation only to the degree that revealed truth is necessary for salvation. Our problem is that, being broken, concupiscent beings, we are by nature opposed to the truth.

God in Christ speaks through His Church. Would it be considered safe to pick and choose from the words of our Lord as to salvation?

It seems to me that to deny Marian doctrine is to deny that God either has the ability, or the desire to do something extraordinary for someone he loves profoundly.

 

[TMC]

Salvation is not a theology exam. No dogma or doctrine is crucial to salvation.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Salvation is not a theology exam. No dogma or doctrine is crucial to salvation.

By that reasoning, we could reject Christ being God, or Christ being our Savior, or all kinds of other crucial things, and still get saved. Doesn’t make much sense to me.

 

[Gingersnaps4]

I’ve encountered that too. Basically they are arguing with Tradition. They aren’t going to accept it unless they are willing to accept Tradition, at least with dogma like the Assumption. The others, you may have luck basing it on hints in scripture, or simply logic. But no, none of them are spelled out plainly in scripture.

 

[jmgi1957]

Salvation is not a theology exam. No dogma or doctrine is crucial to salvation.

I agree it’s not a theology exam, but it certainly involves more than just stating a basic belief in Jesus as your Savior, and you are guaranteed eternal life, if that is what you are getting at.

 

[TMC]

That fact is, what you describe is possible. The Church teaches that atheists can be saved, those of non-Christian faith can be saved, etc.

But even if you believe that one must be Christian to be saved, there is simply no doctrinal test for salvation. Jesus describes the questions we will be asked in Matthew 25:31-46. Marian dogmas are not among them.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

The Church teaches that atheists and non-Christians have the possibility of salvation, but that is because God in his mercy could choose to give them some way of accepting Christ at the last second before they were judged.

They do not get to continuing being atheists and non-Christians in heaven. Furthermore, it is a risky strategy to go through life in that way because you have only the POSSIBILITY of salvation. It is not a sure thing that God will give you a last chance or even that you would take it if it was offered. A lifelong atheist or non-Christian might reject Christ out of habit or regular practice. They certainly have not spent the time building a relationship with him so that when the last second comes, Jesus will “know” them as “his” (“I know mine and mine know me” John 10:14).

So your proposition is pretty much like saying that nothing is essential for salvation. You can go through all your life rejecting doctrine, rejecting Christ, committing sins right and left, and still have that “possibility of salvation” at the last second. That’s not the way to live in any logical sense. And the possibility is likely bigger if you get more in communion with the Church, since the Catechism also states “outside the Church there is no salvation”.

 

[jmgi1957]

Jesus describes the questions we will be asked in Matthew 25:31-46.

Salvation is not based on one passage of Scripture alone.