Marian dogmas: important and essential for our salvation?

  • Thread starter Thread starter gurneyhalleck1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

gurneyhalleck1

Guest
Let me start by saying that I DO AFFIRM the dogmas of the Blessed Virgin Mary–the immaculate conception, assumption, perpetual virginity, all of it. I have NO problems with it whatsoever.

However, in my discussions with people who do disagree with me on these issues, the usual concern is "why is belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity or her immaculate nature or her being assumed into heaven essential for my salvation? Why anathemize people over these issues that are not salvific at all?"
I’d really like to have a discussion that answers that exact question.

Plus I’d like to impose a rule if I may. Please do not say, “because Holy Mother Church tells me so” or anything about the Magisterium or papacy. Why does the Church feel this is a salvation issue?

I’d love to hear people’s points of view on this. As stated, this isn’t about me. I already believe the dogmas. I’d just like a good discussion answering the bold question.

Thanks and blessings to all who post
 
Your “rule” precludes meaningful Catholic discussion. It is impossible to discuss de fide truths while ignoring Catholic ecclesiology.

I must also ask: Are doctrines of the Church merely a matter of “feeling,” like, say, a predisposition not to want to have an ice cream cone right now?

One is frequently asked to justify Catholic teachings from Protestant presuppositions. It’s a trap we mustn’t fall into.

Blessings,

Gerry
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
However, in my discussions with people who do disagree with me on these issues, the usual concern is "why is belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity or her immaculate nature or her being assumed into heaven essential for my salvation? Why anathemize people over these issues that are not salvific at all?"
I’d really like to have a discussion that answers that exact question.
Click to expand...
I’d like that, too.
 
Gerry, I’m so disappointed that you’ve already not understood the point of the discussion. If believing in these Marian dogmas is important for our spiritual well-being, we shouldn’t need to reference the Church’s authority in it, just the reasons why these beliefs are spiritually beneficial. I’m not trying to get you to step into a trap. That’s a paranoid approach to this topic that I’m truly not trying to foster.

Let me give you an example. If I ask my son to help me prune our nectarine tree and he says “why?” Telling him, “because I said so,” isn’t going to explain the question or give him an idea as to why we need to do it? I could say, “because pruning off dead branches or suckers or branches interfering with the light getting through to the center of the tree helps the tree to be healthier, grow branches where we want them, and the fruit will be healther and more plentiful. The energy being wasted going to these branches will be transferred to the branches we want here…”

What’s wrong with that?

Same thing here. The Church gives us rules of faith, de fide, for our own spiritual good. The Sabbath was made for man’s sake not man for the Sabbath says the Lord, right? It has been proven that the Jewish kosher diet is very very healthy and had positive benefits for the Jewish people health-wise. Jesus tells us not to commit adultery not just “because I said not to!” but because it has a HEAP of bad side effects and inhibits healthy relationships, harms a family, on and on…

God isn’t arbitrary, He has a reason just as we as parents have reasons.

So let’s go back to my bold-colored question in the OP. Why are these Marian dogmas healthy spiritually for us to the point they are required for our salvation? It’s not a trick question or a trap. It’s sincere from someone meditating on it right now.

God bless.
Gerry_Hunter said:
Your “rule” precludes meaningful Catholic discussion. It is impossible to discuss de fide truths while ignoring Catholic ecclesiology.

I must also ask: Are doctrines of the Church merely a matter of “feeling,” like, say, a predisposition not to want to have an ice cream cone right now?

One is frequently asked to justify Catholic teachings from Protestant presuppositions. It’s a trap we mustn’t fall into.

Blessings,

Gerry
Click to expand...
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
Let me start by saying that I DO AFFIRM the dogmas of the Blessed Virgin Mary–the immaculate conception, assumption, perpetual virginity, all of it. I have NO problems with it whatsoever.

However, in my discussions with people who do disagree with me on these issues, the usual concern is "why is belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity or her immaculate nature or her being assumed into heaven essential for my salvation? Why anathemize people over these issues that are not salvific at all?"
I’d really like to have a discussion that answers that exact question.

Plus I’d like to impose a rule if I may. Please do not say, “because Holy Mother Church tells me so” or anything about the Magisterium or papacy. Why does the Church feel this is a salvation issue?

I’d love to hear people’s points of view on this. As stated, this isn’t about me. I already believe the dogmas. I’d just like a good discussion answering the bold question.

Thanks and blessings to all who post
Click to expand...
The Marian dogmas, as with all Catholic dogmas, are part of God’s revealed truth. God’s revealed truth is an integrated whole. Why? Because God’s revealed Truth is none other than Jesus Christ, His Son! We cannot divide Christ up into pieces we like and pieces we don’t. That would be sick, and an error.

Let’s try a brief analogy. What if I told you that I LOVE math. I love subtraction, division, multiplication, fractions, etc. I love it all. Well, except addition. I have a problem believing in addition. What would happen to my belief of math? It would fall apart, because without addition, you cannot do any of the other stuff.

And we aren’t required to fully understand all of the Church’s teachings. We are, however, required to give religious assent to all of the Church’s teachings. Why? Because they have been given to us by Christ. They are a gift. We do not have the authority to change them or modify them. We only have the authority to propose them to others so that they can believe them. 🙂
 
Well I am in no position to judge the reasoning to declare anathema to some points of Marian doctrine.

But I also think it akin to a sacrilege to state…from another’s indoctrination…something grounded into them…that Mary is not what we believe. Mary of Fatima later appeared to Sr Lucia about the importance of the First 5 consecutive Saturday’s…to offer up reparation against the blasphemies against her immaculate conception and perpetual virginity, that she is indeed our spiritual mother as a few.

To deny her perpetual virginity is implying a very difference sense or message about who God is, what sin is, and the fullness of Christ’s mission to us…that to lower the Mother of God to what she is not also reflects some how on one’s relation to God Himself.
 
In researching this, i found out why - she can sneak you into heaven 🙂
How many times have we heard stories about Mary interceding at the particular judgment for one of her children who had showed even the least devotion to her while on earth? There is even the joke about Mary letting her wards into heaven through the backdoor, confounding St Peter guarding the front entrance.
Click to expand...
Seriously though, there is alot on comparing her with the Ark of the Covenant.
I need to study it more before I can claim to understand the analogy though.
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
Let me start by saying that I DO AFFIRM the dogmas of the Blessed Virgin Mary–the immaculate conception, assumption, perpetual virginity, all of it. I have NO problems with it whatsoever.

However, in my discussions with people who do disagree with me on these issues, the usual concern is "why is belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity or her immaculate nature or her being assumed into heaven essential for my salvation? Why anathemize people over these issues that are not salvific at all?"
I’d really like to have a discussion that answers that exact question.

Plus I’d like to impose a rule if I may. Please do not say, “because Holy Mother Church tells me so” or anything about the Magisterium or papacy. Why does the Church feel this is a salvation issue?

I’d love to hear people’s points of view on this. As stated, this isn’t about me. I already believe the dogmas. I’d just like a good discussion answering the bold question.

Thanks and blessings to all who post
Click to expand...
Hi Gurney - I am glad you started this thread. I was wondering the same thing while reading through the thread on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.
I, like you, believe in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary and never really thought much about it until another Catholic said s/he did not. After reading up on it, I realize that as Catholics we have our reasons for believing it, but the question did come to me:
“Why is it *necessary *to believe it?”

The following quote from Peter Chrysoslogus is probably the closest I can come to the way I feel about the matter.

“Where are they who think that the Virgin’s conception and giving birth to her child are to be likened to those of other woman? For, this latter case is one of the earth, and the Virgin’s is one from heaven. The one case is a case of divine power; the other of human weakness. The one case occurs in a body subject to passion; the other in the tranquility of the divine Spirit and peace of the human body. The blood was still, and the flesh astonished; her members were put at rest, and her entire womb was quiescent during the visit of the Holy One, until the Author of flesh could take on His garment of flesh, and until He, who was not merely to restore the earth to man but also to give him heaven, could become a heavenly Man. The virgin conceives, the Virgin brings forth her child, and she remains a virgin.” Peter Chrysoslogus, Sermon 117, (A.D. 432).

I think it is reasonable to assume that Mary needed a husband (to be accepted in society and the temple) and Jesus needed an earthly father. However, I think it is also reasonable to assume that Mary was so very holy that she would have committed her life to celibacy as so many religious women did. Also, I think Joseph was very holy and did not think or feel the way the average man would think or feel about such things.
Honestly, so many people have committed their lives to celibacy after receiving a call from God (the saints, for example) that I would not expect anything less of Mary and Joseph.
I think that they were so holy that they were “above” earthly desires.

That is why I think it is necessary to believe in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary - because when God calls someone to do His Will, they are transformed. Mary was human but living a supernatural life (Padre Pio, was like this, for example).
Mary is the perfect example of a human being totally giving their life to God and is a role model for all the saints, nuns, and priests, and (even) the unmarried in our world.
 
As I understand it, any Marian dogma is by nature Christological as well. IOW, the Marian dogmas are vital in that they are Christological. What they reveal is essential in Christ’s nature as God -made- man. Therefore, to deny them is to deny something essential in Christ’s nature --which in turn is denying the true Christ --and that would be the reason that denial of the Marian dogma (with the caveat of course that this denial is made only by one who is certain of their truth but chooses to deny them anyway, and not denial by those who honestly truly think they’re wrong and haven’t yet had the grace to learn the truth) would indeed be denial of salvific truth.

Or to put it even more succinctly: Marian dogma is part of who Jesus is. Reject it–you’re rejecting it IN JESUS.

It never is ‘just’ about Mary, it isn’t even about primarily Mary. It’s always that it’s about Jesus and that’s what makes it important.

When we see that Marian dogma isn’t a question about something ‘outside of Jesus’ but rather intimately and completely ‘inside Jesus’. . .it should be clearer that Marian dogma isn’t some ‘unimportant’ thing about somebody ‘other than Jesus’, and that it truly is vital to our spiritual health to learn, understand, and accept these dogma. . .for Jesus’ sake.
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
Let me start by saying that I DO AFFIRM the dogmas of the Blessed Virgin Mary–the immaculate conception, assumption, perpetual virginity, all of it. I have NO problems with it whatsoever.
Click to expand...
Same here:)
gurneyhalleck1 said:
However, in my discussions with people who do disagree with me on these issues, the usual concern is "why is belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity or her immaculate nature or her being assumed into heaven essential for my salvation? Why anathemize people over these issues that are not salvific at all?"
Click to expand...
All we need to be saved is to be in a state of grace. For that, the ‘bare minimum’ is to have faith (the kind of faith that will exhibit itself in good works) in Christ as God and Saviour. For deathbed converts, that might well be sufficient.

God is reasonable. He does not require us to do what is beyond our power. But if we start applying a ‘deathbed conversion’ standard for salvation, a slippery slope appears: ‘Why require Baptism? Why do good works?’
What would God think of our sincerity? He wants us to receive the fullness of the Faith, not just a ‘bare minimum so I don’t go to Hell’. That’s why he instituted the Church.

A state of grace is friendship. To use a very crude analogy, we wouldn’t say (I hope) to prospective friends/spouses: ‘Would you mind if I ignore your mother?’ Scripture says that the Church is the family of God and the body of Christ. Mary’s intimate relationship with Christ in that family and mystical body has always been specially honoured.
 
Thank you for making this thread Gurney, this is probably the biggest reason why I chose the Orthodox over the Catholic Church, despite acceptance of quite a few of the Catholic Marian doctrines.

The reason given that the Marian dogma’s reflect Christ works to a point, the dogma that Mary is Theotokos which was handed down at Ephesus is not about her, but about Christ - it says that he was God, however a doctrine like the Assumption of Mary says nothing about Christ as far as I can see. Simply saying that rejecting it (which in this case I don’t), means rejecting Christ just makes no sense to me.
 
A major problem for me is that the last two Marian dogmas were only recently defined. If they are necessary, wouldn’t they always have been necessary? If Thomas Aquinas could deny the Immaculate Conception, at least in the way it was ultimately defined, and still be a saint and doctor of the church, why would it become a necessary belief in 1854? Why did something that was optional suddenly become mandatory?
 
So far I have seen some great and spiritual opinions…personal opinions…about the salvific nature of a belief in Marian dogma.I’m certainly not going to argue that those who think it is necessary for salvation don’t really think it is.

What does the CHURCH say about it?

Is there something in the catechism, or something very official that one must swear to, or something that would clarify this?

CAN a Catholic believe that Mary had a full marriage with Joseph, perhaps even with more kids, and still be saved…as a Catholic? Is such a belief so heretical in nature that it would cause problems?
 
It’s so nice to be receiving so many great posts from different perspectives. I thank everyone so far for their posts.

I think I have to echo what I’ve heard from Nine and a couple of others about the “essential” for salvation angle. I’m personally ok with the Marian beliefs. But what I don’t necessarily buy is the “packaged deal” setup with Jesus and Mary. I’m not sure why knowing Mary was assumed into heaven is essential? Paul never spoke of Mary at all in the Scriptures so if they were a packaged deal he did a lousy job of getting out the word on it. The early church shows a reverence for Mary as they should but more along, as Nine pointed out, the Theotokos angle. I notice Orthodoxy has great reverence for the BVM but she is almost always with Christ in their artwork, never a solo act. Never alone hardly.

Christ is enough for me, truly. He is the essential Saviour that brings my salvation for eternity, not His Mother. Beliefs about her are edifying perhaps and asking her to pray with you is definitely a plus, but is believing certain aspects about her death necessary for me to get to heaven? I’m not seeing how Marian dogmas are necessarily Christological and central to salvation. It’s obviously helpful to know that Jesus was born of a Virgin, as it points to his divinity and the miracle of his birth, that He is the God-Man. But how Mary was assumed into heaven, IMO, is even less important that her allegedly being born without original sin? I’m also puzzled as to why the Church doesn’t tell us if she were alive or dead at the point of the assumption? If the Holy Spirit was willing to give the Magisterium the details on her assumption, why couldn’t they know if she was alive or dead at the time? Are the visions hazy?

How does knowing Mary went up assumed into heaven help save me? How did Aquinas fare salvation-wise seeing as how he didn’t accept the Immaculate Conception at all? If it’s essential, he’s in trouble. So is St. Bernard!

And if these “essentials” were so widely understood even before the 1800’s when they were proclaimed with anathemas, why do the Orthodox not see these as essentials with anathemas tied to them?
 
dianaiad said:
So far I have seen some great and spiritual opinions…personal opinions…about the salvific nature of a belief in Marian dogma.I’m certainly not going to argue that those who think it is necessary for salvation don’t really think it is.

What does the CHURCH say about it?

Is there something in the catechism, or something very official that one must swear to, or something that would clarify this?

CAN a Catholic believe that Mary had a full marriage with Joseph, perhaps even with more kids, and still be saved…as a Catholic? Is such a belief so heretical in nature that it would cause problems?
Click to expand...
I would say if a Catholic believed that they should just shut up about it. Just like a Mormon who believes the Book of Mormon is inspired myth instead of historical. Keep it to yourself and don’t make waves if you want to be accepted. As a Catholic I accepted the Marian dogmas when I was baptized, but that doesn’t mean they all make sense to me.
 
It really isn’t a big deal if we know if Mary died before being assumed into heaven, and the Church has not made a definitive statement on this either way. But why is it so bad to believe in this from certain non-Catholic points of view? It is something that has been believed for far longer than the Reformation.

I have read the trilogy on Mary written by Mark Shea, a convert to Catholicism. He states that the bishops of the world petitioned the Pope to formally declare the Immaculate Conception in the mid 1800s because of the spread of the belief of evolution and the subsequent lack of faith in man being made in the image of God. In other words, as the world’s intellectuals were preaching that men were just glorified apes, the Church counters with her long-held --from the beginning— belief that we are more than that, and we have the Virgin Mary as an example of what God had created humankind to be!

And then with the rise of the eugenic movement, Nazism and Communism, World War II and the Holocaust, what was the world displaying as the final destination of man? The ovens of Auschwitz, the gulags of Russia, the culling of the unfit and unwanted – even here in the United States! So the Church counters with her long-held–from the beginning-- belief that our destiny is Heaven and the Virgin Mary is a wholly human --not divine in anyway— example of what humans are to experience at the end of time, when we are resurrected and will also be assumed body and soul into heaven.
 
When did Mary become Diety? I believe Mary was kept free from sin in order to conceive Jesus, as sin and God cannot coexist together. Historically, we do not know what actually happened to Mary after the crucifixation of Jesus. The RC teaches that Mary was assumed body and soul into heaven. How so? Even Jesus was transfigured into a spiritual being when he rose into the heavens. If you believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, then you must believe this: **“Now I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God…” ** 1 Corinthians 15:50

If it was important for God to reveal to man through the Bible that Mary was assumed into Heaven, It would have been included. The other thing about Marian Doctrine that bothers me is her being an intercessor like Catholic saints are considered, to Jesus. Again, if this were so, God would have revealed it to all the world in the Bible, yet He says: “No one come unto the Father except by me.” I take that to mean that I can go to Christ directly without going to Mary or anyone else. So why does the RCC teach that which contradicts Christ? :tiphat:
 
Steel_Arrow said:
When did Mary become Diety? I believe Mary was kept free from sin in order to conceive Jesus, as sin and God cannot coexist together. Historically, we do not know what actually happened to Mary after the crucifixation of Jesus. The RC teaches that Mary was assumed body and soul into heaven. How so? Even Jesus was transfigured into a spiritual being when he rose into the heavens. If you believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, then you must believe this: **“Now I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God…” ** 1 Corinthians 15:50

If it was important for God to reveal to man through the Bible that Mary was assumed into Heaven, It would have been included. The other thing about Marian Doctrine that bothers me is her being an intercessor like Catholic saints are considered, to Jesus. Again, if this were so, God would have revealed it to all the world in the Bible, yet He says: “No one come unto the Father except by me.” I take that to mean that I can go to Christ directly without going to Mary or anyone else. So why does the RCC teach that which contradicts Christ? :tiphat:
Click to expand...
Where in the bible does it say that at the Ascension Jesus was transfigured into a spiritual being? Chapter and verse please. Thomas was invited to put his hands into the side of Jesus and to put his finger into Jesus’ wounded hands at the Resurrection. If Jesus at the Resurrection had a Body that could be touched and that ate fish, a Spiritual Body must be more than a spirit/ghost.
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
However, in my discussions with people who do disagree with me on these issues, the usual concern is "why is belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity or her immaculate nature or her being assumed into heaven essential for my salvation? Why anathemize people over these issues that are not salvific at all?"
I’d really like to have a discussion that answers that exact question.
Click to expand...
In a nutshell, because truth is essential for our salvation. A man who rejects what is true cannot be saved. We must believe in the truth, hold fast to it, live it, and share it with others.
 
AnneElliot said:
In a nutshell, because truth is essential for our salvation. A man who rejects what is true cannot be saved. We must believe in the truth, hold fast to it, live it, and share it with others.
Click to expand...
What “truth”? And why? What do these “truths” have to do with salvation? For what reason does God actually care.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top