Marian dogmas: important and essential for our salvation?

[GKC]

So what did the study reveal? don’t be mean and just tease us

No time then no time now. Out to buy stuff, with wife. Try google.

Hint: the total, IIRC, of all accepted relics of the True Cross was around 1/3 of the total of an estimated cross, by volume.

GKC

 

[schaick]

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. …:

1 Peter 2
24He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed.

“I asked Has the Catholic Church added any new dogmas/doctrines about Jesus that are not already in the Bible? Ones that are important for our salvation?”

Indulgences, the treasury of merit, purgatory.

LOL! No I was not clear in my question, these are not directly related to who Jesus is.

Mariology is trying to define who Mary is.

Concepts in the Bible that define who Jesus is = such as Trinity, Hypostatic Union

2 John 1
9Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son

 

[KathleenGee]

Back to the story of the hospice patient for those interested…although it is primarily for Guerny in his position he does not need alot of devotion Mary to prosleytize…

I am referring to Mary as the opposite of Satan and the Lord chooses Mary as well to oppose the actions and destruction of souls by the evil one.

So back at the hospice case, I begin to explain to the woman about the roses in December…she needs to get up and as she does, she then tells me she had a bad life. So I begin to speak of Mary…she as woman…she as mother…she having the gift to knead us so to speak back to how we were before we did ‘bad’ things. She was inspired to hear that. so I asked if I could pray with her the ‘Hail Mary’ so that Mary could be her mother and restore her…so I did. And she said she was being very blessed.

Then I told her about Jesus…considering the night before when she told her boyfriend to get Him out of there, I said that there are many lies said about Jesus…but really He is all love and mercy and loves her…I asked if I could pray an Our Father for Jesus and she said yes. So we did that.

And she was in so much peace…she said the evil was gone.
She told me she wanted to die but could not. She talked some more about those evil images she had. So I asked her if I could pray the Divine Mercy prayers for the dying, so I did that.

I told her I believed if Mary could speak to her right now it would be that someone special is waiting for her…and it is Jesus.

So she went back to sleep. I watched her rest and her physical countenance was different and she was no longer trying to run away. I saw the morning sun slowly come up and see its beautiful soft light enlighten her…she a very pretty lady and the setting looking like a beautiful artwork of photography.

She eventually re-woke. I asked her if she was having any more torments or troubles and she said not but that she was afraid it might come back. I had to leave the case to go home. I prayed for her all day that she would be in continued peace.

When I came back for the next visit, the boyfriend’s mother answered the door. She told me she had passed away. She invited me in…she said the woman asked for the Shinto image, picked it up and then put it down. She then reached out for the Mary statue and held it…she then told the mother…‘Mary told me there is someone special waiting for me’…the mother said, ‘Is it Jesus?’ and the woman replied yes. The boyfriend came over to hold her and then she passed away.

Mary is most powerful against Satan. And she is a great help for those who are directly ministering to people who are suffering afflictions of the Evil One.

Mary was given the grace to form Jesus in her womb. He has her DNA. Mary is our spiritual mother and she has great grace to re-form us, to knead us back, to restore us back before our personalities were deformed by bad decisions. She brings us back to the good place…and this then gives us confidence to face God again.

 

[KathleenGee]

Todd,

There are vendors out there who go to Catholic conferences selling ‘relics’ of the Holy Cross…and it takes time to catch up with them. So many of them are fake…usually included is a cloth or veil that was used and blessed by being over the tomb of St. Joseph…

It is against canon law and a sin to sell blessed sacramentals and relics.

 

[kolchakTNS]

I appreciate this thread. I’m considering Catholicism and the fact that these Marian definitions are essential, as the OP said, is something I’m not totally comfortable with.

 

[elvisman]

The concerns I still have about the Marian devotions and theology are pretty simple. First of all, she isn’t mentioned by Paul or in the Epistles or Acts, etc. as an intercessor or the new Eve or the Ark or the chief intercessor, etc. that we see the CC talk about. Secondly, the early Church did talk about her role and compare her to the new Eve but the level of chief intercessor and the high level she has now was nowhere near what she was considered then? The Mary I see in Scripture is quiet, humble, and always, always, always points to Jesus “do what he says”…but in the appartitions, while still focused on her Son, she asks for people to make medals with her face on it, statues with her face, consecrate things to her and not Jesus, and things are more focused on her by her, less on Christ. I’m still looking into these apparitions and deciding how I feel about them. They sound like a different Mary to me sometimes. But the message is also powerful and deep, and the miracles evidenced by so many. Jury’s still out.

The problem MANY Protestants make is that they fail to understand the flow of Scripture. They forget that there was NO chapter and verse for about 1500 years. One of the most powerful symbols missed because of this error is the following:
When you read Rev. 11 and 12 you see where Mary is not only illustrated as the Ark of the New Covenant - but the New Eve as well.
Rev. 11:19
**Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant could be seen in the temple. There were flashes of lightning, rumblings, and peals of thunder, an earthquake, and a violent hailstorm. **

---

In the very next verse . . . we see Mary - Rev. 12:1-6**
A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.
***She was with child and wailed aloud in pain as she labored to give birth. ***
***Then another sign appeared in the sky; it was a huge red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and on its heads were seven diadems. ***
***Its tail swept away a third of the stars in the sky and hurled them down to the earth. Then the dragon stood before the woman about to give birth, to devour her child when she gave birth. ***
***She gave birth to a son, a male child, destined to rule all the nations with an iron rod. Her child was caught up to God and his throne. ***
The woman herself fled into the desert where she had a place prepared by God, that there she might be taken care of for twelve hundred and sixty days.

---

**This illustrates CLEARLY that Mary is the Ark of the NEW Covenenat as well as the WOMAN from Genesis 3:15 - the NEW Eve. **

 

[kolchakTNS]

Hi Elvis,

but what does all that have to do with the idea that Mary was assumed, like Elijah? Also, the Immaculate conception of Mary, too. What do these scriptures tell me that is related to Jesus’ saving me as a Christian man?

The problem MANY Protestants make is that they fail to understand the flow of Scripture. They forget that there was NO chapter and verse for about 1500 years. One of the most powerful symbols missed because of this error is the following:
**When you read Rev. **11 and 12 you see where Mary is not only illustrated as the Ark of the New Covenant - but the New Eve as well.
Rev. 11:19
Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant could be seen in the temple. There were flashes of lightning, rumblings, and peals of thunder, an earthquake, and a violent hailstorm.

---

In the very next verse . . .* we see Mary* - Rev. 12:1-6
A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.
***She was with child and wailed aloud in pain as she labored to give birth. ***
***Then another sign appeared in the sky; it was a huge red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and on its heads were seven diadems. ***
***Its tail swept away a third of the stars in the sky and hurled them down to the earth. Then the dragon stood before the woman about to give birth, to devour her child when she gave birth. ***
***She gave birth to a son, a male child, destined to rule all the nations with an iron rod. Her child was caught up to God and his throne. ***
The woman herself fled into the desert where she had a place prepared by God, that there she might be taken care of for twelve hundred and sixty days.

---

This illustrates CLEARLY that Mary is the Ark of the NEW Covenenat as well as the WOMAN from Genesis 3:15 - the NEW Eve.

 

[elvisman]

Hi Elvis,

but what does all that have to do with the idea that Mary was assumed, like Elijah? Also, the Immaculate conception of Mary, too. What do these scriptures tell me that is related to Jesus’ saving me as a Christian man?

I was responding to the charge that Mary isn’t mentioned in the NT as the New Eve or the Ark.

As for what this as to do with her Assumption - Mary is the only individual in the Revelation (other than Jesus) that is - that is a human being in Heaven. Everybody and everything else is represented as a Spirit or other creature. The WOMAN is the only one with a human body.

Hope that helps.

 

[kolchakTNS]

Where’s Elijah?

**I was responding to the charge that Mary isn’t **mentioned in the NT as the New Eve or the Ark.

As for what this as to do with her Assumption - Mary is the only individual in the Revelation (other than Jesus) that is - that is a human being in Heaven. Everybody and everything else is represented as a Spirit or other creature. The WOMAN is the only one with a human body.

Hope that helps.

 

[elvisman]

Where’s Elijah?

Where’s Enoch?
Just because they aren’t mentioned doesn’t mean that they weren’t assumed as well.
This is a thread about MARIAN dogmas - Not Enoch or Elijah.

 

[KathleenGee]

Kolchak,

It would be good for you to go to an RCIA session…pray to the Holy Spirit to guide you to a parish…classes are starting now.

You will find out about the foundation of Catholicism. Mariology wasn’t fully defined until the last 1,800 years or so…through constant reflection of the sanctified life. Makes no sense without a foundatoin first in Christology and church, ecclesiology.

You will never understand Mary or Jesus for that matter from a text…our relationship with Christ is a living relationship. Same with Mary. The Church spent much time reflecting on Eucharistic spirituality and the communion of saints, as well as seeing a consistent pattern of grace through Mary’s intercession.

 

[jmcrae]

I appreciate this thread. I’m considering Catholicism and the fact that these Marian definitions are essential, as the OP said, is something I’m not totally comfortable with.

I don’t see how it matters, in the end. We are going to believe them because they are true; not because they are required. The fact that they are required is really beside the point, I think.

I mean, what would you think of someone who said, “Well, of course I believe that Jesus is God, but why is it required to believe this, in order to be a Christian? I would prefer that it be optional, so that people who think that Jesus was only a very nice man can also be included in the Church.”

It seems like the same thing, to me.

 

[PRmerger]

So what did the study reveal? don’t be mean and just tease us

In 1870 a Frenchman, Rohault de Fleury, catalogued all the relics of the True Cross, including relics that were said to have existed but were lost. He measured the existing relics and estimated the volume of the missing ones. Then he added up the figures and discovered that the fragments, if glued together, would not have made up more than one-third of a cross. The scandal wasn’t that there was too much wood. The scandal was that most of the True Cross, after being unearthed in Jerusalem in the fourth century, was lost again! source

 

[PRmerger]

However, it is at the very core of our belief that this is a LOUSY way to decide religious truth. It’s a good way to learn about it; after all, trusted sources are trusted sources.

Much of what God has revealed we know only because of this allegedly “LOUSY way to decide religious truths.”

Example: God is love. That we know this is only because we trust the Source that revealed it to us. No rational mind on earth ever dared consider this revolutionary concept before it was revealed by God.

Another example: * creatio ex nihilo*. We know this only because of the allegedly LOUSY way to discern–through trusting the Source. No rational mind on earth prior to God’s revelation of this concept to the Jews conceived of this.

Another example: God’s name is I AM. No evidence exists for it. We only know it because of the Source.

 

[GKC]

In 1870 a Frenchman, Rohault de Fleury, catalogued all the relics of the True Cross, including relics that were said to have existed but were lost. He measured the existing relics and estimated the volume of the missing ones. Then he added up the figures and discovered that the fragments, if glued together, would not have made up more than one-third of a cross. The scandal wasn’t that there was too much wood. The scandal was that most of the True Cross, after being unearthed in Jerusalem in the fourth century, was lost again! source

That’s the study I referred to.

GKC

 

[PRmerger]

Breaking this down, we believe that first, you need to read whatever it is. Really read it. Then you need to 'ponder it in your hearts." That is, think about it. study it, work out all the …stuff…
Then (well, you should be doing this part all along, but let’s take this in the order it is mentioned in the verses) you pray to Father in Heaven, in the name of His Son Jesus Christ, and ask Him if this is true. The Holy Ghost will 'manifest the truth" to you.

By this way you can know the truth of anything.

So, I’m going to ask you to read these verses below (not google them!), apply the exhortations given by LDS doctrines, and tell me how you would know if they are inspired or not:

“And seek assistance through patience and prayer, and most surely it is a hard thing except for the humble ones.”

and this one:

“Moreover, what I have now said in regard to abstaining from wanton looks should be carefully observed, with due love for the persons and hatred of the sin, in observing, forbidding, reporting, reproving, and punishing of all other fault.”

and this one:

“Saul went into a cave to relieve himself.”

Given only the parameters you listed above, would you be able to know if it’s theopneustos or not? (Not using logic, “I know the BofM and the bible and have never read these verses, so it’s probably not inspired”. Just use the parameters you provided.)

 

[elvisman]

Breaking this down, we believe that first, you need to read whatever it is. Really read it. Then you need to 'ponder it in your hearts." That is, think about it. study it, work out all the …stuff…
Then (well, you should be doing this part all along, but let’s take this in the order it is mentioned in the verses) you pray to Father in Heaven, in the name of His Son Jesus Christ, and ask Him if this is true. The Holy Ghost will 'manifest the truth" to you

WRONG.
It is in submitting to the Authority Jesus left us on earth that we come to know the truth. That is why Jesus gave Authority to the Church in the first place (Matt. 16:19, 18:15-18, Luke 10:16, John 16:12-15, 20:21-23). That is why Paul called the Church, the “pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). **

The tragedy is that many believe in the formula that you claim is the way to “work it out”. And the problem with that is that tens of thousands of Protestant pastors have "worked out" their tens of thousands of versions of the “truth”. God doesn’t manifest multiple versions of the truth. He only gave that guarantee to the Church:

---

John 16:12-15
***"I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now. **But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you (the Church) to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. *
**He will glorify me, because he will take from what is mine and declare it to you. ****Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that he will take from what is mine and declare it to you. **
The Holy Spirit is only interested in perpetuating THE truth - and there is only ONE - not tens of thousands . . .

 

[Reuben_J]

In a word—yes. I think the dogmas are fine. Don’t have a problem with them. I just don’t think they’re necessarily essential to save me. I don’t understand why people can’t grasp that? I believe in a lot of things about the Bible, theology, and the Church that aren’t necessarily deal-breaking salvation material? I believe that Elijah was assumed. I believe the story. Does it save me? Course not. I believe Jesus was friends with Lazarus. Does that save me? Nope. I believe Mary floated up into heaven. Does that save me? No way. Was Mary immaculate? I believe so. But that doesn’t save me. Her son will.

Seeing that the OP has been suspended, perhaps this thread has reached it relevant life-span. But again the theme of my thought on the whole idea of what is essential to salvation – its non-sequitur and not taught originally in Christianity; that’s why this is never a Catholic premise. Christianity is a package; one does not pick and choose and leave out the other.

Every fragment of belief within the Church harnessed together becomes a road of salvation for us. We want to be a complete Christian and Jesus did not ask for less from us and that means embracing everything that the Church has and gives.

Look at the example above – I believe that Elijah was assumed but that belief does not save me implying that one does not have to believe in it since it does not figure in salvation. What does it say of us then if we do not believe that Elijah was taken up to heaven?

My disagreement with our separated brethrens is their approach to a much watered down Christianity – thus the invention of *what’s essential for salvation *that can lead to omitting the ‘non-essential’. On the surface this is very tempting but that’s not what complete Christianity is. Each strand of belief is relevant and to be adhered to because in one way or the other it connects to the overall conclusion of how we actually live out our faith.

 

[kolchakTNS]

It’s not at all the same thing in any way, shape, or form. Jesus Christ is not optional by any stretch. He is the Savior, God’s Son, and He brings us life, hope, died for our sins, and saves. To question if it is required to follow and love and believe in Jesus is heresy, stupid, and obviously shows a person isn’t a real Christian anyway, right? But asking if we have to believe in Mary’s assumption where she goes up into heaven, how is that a necessary believe to help save my soul? Jesus is off the table. You HAVE TO believe in Him to be saved so I don’t see your analogy. But Mary is NOT essential in that she’s not a savior or “the One” who delivers us from our sins? She is the Mother of God, and she’s so important. But she doesn’t save us.

I also question if this is true. You say, “because it’s true” based on a papal claim something like 1800 years later or so?

I don’t see how it matters, in the end. We are going to believe them because they are true; not because they are required. The fact that they are required is really beside the point, I think.

I mean, what would you think of someone who said, “Well, of course I believe that Jesus is God, but why is it required to believe this, in order to be a Christian? I would prefer that it be optional, so that people who think that Jesus was only a very nice man can also be included in the Church.”

It seems like the same thing, to me.

 

[PRmerger]

I also question if this is true. You say, “because it’s true” based on a papal claim something like 1800 years later or so?

What was solemnly pronounced, declared and defined a certain point of time is not an indication that it only came to be believed at that point.

It has been the “constant teaching” in our house that when the kids come home from school they are to do certain things: hang up their backpacks, put their shoes away, wash their hands, take off their uniforms, eat their snack, finish their chores, practice their piano, etc etc etc.

Despite the fact that they have been doing this every school day for 2-11 years every once in a while we need to have a “family meeting” to pronounce, declare and define exactly who should be doing which job and how it is to be done. (Note: I try to ignore their incredulous looks that say, “What? We’re supposed to hang up our backpacks again this year?” or “What? You’ve never said that we had to take off our uniforms and hang them up!” )

At this council we recall what’s been done in the past, review the current norms and define again exactly what’s the expectation. Sometimes the kids complain that we are “making up new rules”, claiming we’ve “never done it this way before” when in actuality we are just pronouncing, declaring and defining a standard norm of our family.

Thus, the solemn declaration of a dogma is not newly formed in, say, the 1800s. It is a clarification of a constant belief held and spoken of for many years, sometimes correctly, sometimes incorrectly. Perhaps in order to alleviate any doubt and to correct any wrong information, God chose 1800 as the time to pronounce, declare and define this belief and practice.

However, this dogma is ancient, dating back to the apostles themselves.