Marian dogmas: important and essential for our salvation?

[kolchakTNS]

In saying that he’s pointing out that an assumption of an individual isn’t related directly to salvation. That’s what I take from it. Obviously he’s a Bible-believing Christian and knows Elijah was assumed, right? And it’s documented in Scripture, well-known. The assumption of Mary was speculation and of pious opinion until the last 100 years or so when it suddenly becomes gospel truth required to be believed by Catholics.

I don’t think it’s fair to say “watered-down” Christianity when referring to Protestant beliefs. I certainly wouldn’t say that about your Church.

How does believing in Mary’s assumption “connect to the overall conclusion of how we actually live out our faith?”

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]

You said Mary was the only human in heaven body and soul. That’s why I asked about Elijah? I think you missed the point of my question.

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.

 

[kolchakTNS]

We’re comparing 2-11 years to 1,800 or 1900? This isn’t backpacks and lunchables, this is salvation!

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.

 

[jmcrae]

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?

It’s a picture of how you will be saved. We will be saved in the same manner that Mary was saved. Mary is the prototypical Christian. What she does, is what all of us are supposed to do - so it’s a good idea to know what she does, so that when the time comes, we will know how to do what we are supposed to do.

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?

Actually, I believe it because of the words of St. Thomas, and the vision of St. John. But the Papal declaration doesn’t hurt anything, either.

 

[PRmerger]

We’re comparing 2-11 years to 1,800 or 1900? This isn’t backpacks and lunchables, this is salvation!

Please try to grasp the concept of analogies and think in the abstract.

 

[Reuben_J]

In saying that he’s pointing out that an assumption of an individual isn’t related directly to salvation. That’s what I take from it. Obviously he’s a Bible-believing Christian and knows Elijah was assumed, right? And it’s documented in Scripture, well-known. The assumption of Mary was speculation and of pious opinion until the last 100 years or so when it suddenly becomes gospel truth required to be believed by Catholics.

I don’t think it’s fair to say “watered-down” Christianity when referring to Protestant beliefs. I certainly wouldn’t say that about your Church.

Sorry about. I have to qualify myself when I mention Protestant. Sure not all of you.

How does believing in Mary’s assumption “connect to the overall conclusion of how we actually live out our faith?”

One of the most direct relevance if one is a Catholic, would be whether or not to attend the mass of the Feast of Assumption. It could be more than that and it could lead to other thing.

There are Protestants who practically are allergic to Mary and merely consider her as just another figure in the scritpture. Some would not ask the saints to intercede. Could that stem from the belief, even unconsiously, that we should not ask Mary to intercede for us?

 

[kolchakTNS]

Wow do you know how condescending that sounds? Wow…That wasn’t an analogy, just a bad comparison and not abstract at all

Please try to grasp the concept of analogies and think in the abstract.

 

[kolchakTNS]

Thanks, Reuben. I’m definitely not allergic to Mary.

Sorry about. I have to qualify myself when I mention Protestant. Sure not all of you.

One of the most direct relevance if one is a Catholic, would be whether or not to attend the mass of the Feast of Assumption. It could be more than that and it could lead to other thing.

There are Protestants who practically are allergic to Mary and merely consider her as just another figure in the scritpture. Some would not ask the saints to intercede. Could that stem from the belief, even unconsiously, that we should not ask Mary to intercede for us?

 

[PRmerger]

Wow do you know how condescending that sounds? Wow…That wasn’t an analogy, just a bad comparison and not abstract at all

Condescension was not my intent.

However, when one examines analogies the ability to think in the abstract is required.

That’s all I’m saying.

 

[jmcrae]

Wow do you know how condescending that sounds? Wow…That wasn’t an analogy, just a bad comparison and not abstract at all

I thought it was pretty good, actually - because the Christian who says “I never heard of the Assumption” is exactly like the child who says, “I never heard of having to take off my muddy shoes at the door before” - both are in denial of basic things that have been repeated to them many, many times. The most famous images of Mary are based upon the 12th chapter of the Book of Revelation, which I think is included in Protestant Bibles as well, is it not?

You know this stuff; you’ve simply not heard it referred to in those words, before, which makes you think it’s brand new to you.

 

[Reuben_J]

Thanks, Reuben. I’m definitely not allergic to Mary.

 

[Soldier_X]

Do personal attacks on someone’s ability to abstract really help? Good grief.

 

[PRmerger]

I thought it was pretty good, actually

shaw:

You know this stuff; you’ve simply not heard it referred to in those words, before, which makes you think it’s brand new to you.

'zactly.

Just like the concept of purgatory. It sounds like something “foreign”, yet in actuality, all Christians understand that a purgation must occur after death but before entering into utter and complete communion with God, if one’s soul is not yet perfect. They just don’t have a word for it.

 

[elvisman]

You said Mary was the only human in heaven body and soul. That’s why I asked about Elijah? I think you missed the point of my question.

Actually - what I said was:
Mary is the only individual in the book of Revelation (other than Jesus) - that is a human being in Heaven.

 

[dianaiad]

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

Those same trusted sources claimed that the sun revolved around the earth, PRmerger. They were mistaken. The fact that you trust the source doesn’t automatically mean that they are not mistaken. Especially in religious truth, you have to get your own ‘testimony.’ Relying on someone else’s is not a great idea.

Example: God is love. That we know this is only because we trust the Source

You capitalize 'Source." That makes me think that you are not talking about ‘Mom,’ here, are you?

that revealed it to us. No rational mind on earth ever dared consider this revolutionary concept before it was revealed by God.

I think we have a problem with communication here. I’m not talking about WHAT we believe, but why we believe it. You are here talking about God revealing things—which is fine. I agree; but the 'lousy way to decide religious truths" was referring to believing something because some human (even Mom) tells you, not because God revealed it to you. IN fact, that was the point; you have to get your testimony of Him FROM Him.
From Him, through the Holy Ghost, not because you trust what your Aunt Margaret said. (Or your mom–or even your priest, no matter how much you trust either one.)

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.

OK, I tell you that the only way you can get your own testimony of religious truth is to go to the Source; to God Himself in prayer to recieve confirmation through the Holy Ghost, and you are criticizing me and telling me how mistaken I am, because you REALLY have to get your beliefs from the Source (i.e., God)???

Ok, you win. You are absolutely correct. We have to get our testimonies of religious truth from the Source.

 

[dianaiad]

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.)

I’m sorry, but you have just forbidden me to use one of the three very important steps that were specifically mentioned in that process of determining religious truth.

Reading also includes reading the context. “Pondering” includes study. How fair a ‘test’ is that, when all you have left me is quotes taken out of context (you haven’t even told me where any of these came from!)

That said, in the first two, there is obviously truth…and Truth…being expressed: to seek assistance through patience and prayer…and it’s hard unless one is humble? How can that NOT be true, no matter where it is found? Assuming, of course, that the target of that prayer is God the Father–but even if that’s not the context, taken out of context the way it is, one can certainly apply it that way–and it is then Truth.

OK, the second one is a little more problematic; define 'wanton looks," for instance? What in the world is the context here? Truth in this one would be in the ‘loving the sinner while reproving the sin’ aspect of it–and what is this about all the punishment stuff? That is bothering me a bit.

As for the third–hmn…well, if I had anything to do with caves, as in–living in them or storing things in them, I personally would prefer that he left it to relieve himself, rather than enter it to do so, but then again, we have a context problem. I don’t see a whole lot of religious Truth in going to the outhouse, but…

OK, now I’m going to google these.

Ah; the Quran, a letter from St. Augustine, and the OT.

HEre’s the problem with the ‘test’ you just set me, PRmerger: Truth is truth no matter where it is found. ARe you honestly going to claim that the idea of humility and patience in prayer is only true if it is mentioned in the BIBLE? Is that concept not true no matter who says it, or where?

As for St. Augustine, well, there is still truth regarding loving the sinner and hating the sin…

As for Saul–what exactly was I supposed to get, religiously, as inspiration from the description of how David ambushed Saul?

 

[dianaiad]

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).

…just as an aside…were you aware that, in the response window, the program counts all the code as ‘words’ when doing word counts? That means that when you use as much coding as you do, you are actually writing a far longer post than it looks like, leaving very little room for someone to respond.

I found that out in a recent answer to you, where in order to have room to respond, I had to remove all your coding. I thought you might want to know that.

Or not.

As to THIS post, I have just one question.

How do you know that the church actually has all this authority?

 

[KathleenGee]

It is a new day…and this comment from Dianaid…should it be started on another thread…?

I believe in the Catholic Church because it is faithful to the teaching of Jesus Christ Who wants us to be One – His constant prayer when he was on earth, that the holiness of the Church is not based on us but on Christ Himself Who supports the Church with His Body and Blood, its universality – a form of humanitarianism in itself – that the same faith is expressed in all the different races and cultures…its transcendence, and that our teachings are passed down through the transmission of faith through the Holy Spirit from the Oral Tradition of Jesus Christ passed on to the Apostles and their successors.

We have the communion of saints and the diversity of gifts – be it celibate or ordinary state-- that are called to serve all people, irregardless of their beliefs.

And how we are taught to relate to Scripture totally meshes with integrating the Word of God into every day life.

 

[schaick]

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.

None of us know what the **one true interpretation **of Revelations is at this point and we won’t until the events unfold.

Some say the woman is the Church not Mary- in earlier Scriptures the woman is the symbol of all thoses called out. BUT the church does not give birth to Jesus.

I find it interesting that if this woman is Mary then she cryed out in pain as she gave birth. Why would this happen to Mary - a penalty of having the original sin?

Genesis 3
16 To the woman he said,
"I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;
with pain you will give birth to children.

But remember this was a Christian-Jew writting about the vision he had, not a Catholic Mary devotee.

The woman is Israel. Crown of 12 stars = 12 tribes of Israel.

Revelations 12
6The woman fled into the desert to a place prepared for her by God, where she might be taken care of for 1,260 days.

The dragon focuses it’s fight against GOD’s people-Christians and Jews.

Revelation 12
17Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to make war against the rest of her offspring—those who obey God’s commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus.

I think everyone agrees the male child is Jesus.

 

[schaick]

Actually - what I said was:
Mary is the only individual in the book of Revelation (other than Jesus) - that is a human being in Heaven.

But these 2 are in heaven just not mentioned:

Hebrews 11
5By faith Enoch was taken from this life, so that he did not experience death; he could not be found, because God had taken him away. For before he was taken, he was commended as one who pleased God.

Luke 23
42Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.[f]”

43Jesus answered him, “I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise.”