N
Nine_Two
Guest
Exactly. If Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Light, what does it matter what someone believes about what happened to Mary’s body after her dormition?
- Status
N
Nine_Two
Guest
So essentially it all goes back to It must be believed because the Church says it must. That is not an argument that helps the Catholic case when speaking to non-Catholics.I think I’m not explaining it right. Let me take another shot at “connecting the dots” here…
If Jesus Christ is the Truth (we Catholics believe He is), then the question becomes, is Jesus Christ necessary for salvation? We think He is.
Jesus Christ is the unified Truth. Not the partial truth. Not some of the truths we think are “necessary.” But a unified, inseparable truth. This unified, inseparable Truth, is necessary for salvation.
Does this help explain it better?
A
AnneElliot
Guest
This is not true. Her Assumption and Immaculate Conception were dogmatically defined recently, yes, but the other Marian dogmas: Mother of God (Theotokos) and Perpetual Virginity were defined in the earliest centuries of the Church (Council of Ephesus 431 AD) & Council of Constantinople (381 AD), respectively). And all of the Marian doctrines/dogmas have always been believed and taught by the Church.
A
AnneElliot
Guest
God cares about truth because God is the author of truth. To deny any of the truths of faith (this includes Marian dogmas) is to reject truth, and ultimately, reject its author: God.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
Understood loud and clear, Scoob. But the thread is about MARY and why we must believe in the dogmas surrounding HER in order to be saved. Anathemas were tied to not believing in those dogmas.
I think I’m not explaining it right. Let me take another shot at “connecting the dots” here…
If Jesus Christ is the Truth (we Catholics believe He is), then the question becomes, is Jesus Christ necessary for salvation? We think He is.
Jesus Christ is the unified Truth. Not the partial truth. Not some of the truths we think are “necessary.” But a unified, inseparable truth. This unified, inseparable Truth, is necessary for salvation.
Does this help explain it better?
N
Nine_Two
Guest
So one has to know and believe every “truth” of the universe? It is “truth”, for example, that Brussels is located at 50°51’N 04°21’E, is this something which one must know and believe?
I would argue that one doesn’t have to believe such a thing because it has nothing to do with Christ. Likewise the assumption of Mary, as far as I can see, has nothing to do with Christ and therefore doesn’t need to be believed. But what do Catholics say? Does one need to know where Brussels is?
P
poetryforjesus
Guest
Because Mary’s assumption into heaven is the first fulfillment of all the hopes that we place in Christ–that one day, we truly will be received into heaven, body and soul, into eternal glory and happiness with Christ, just like Mary was.
If we don’t believe Mary’s assumption, could our unbelief be a sign of our lack of faith in God’s promises?
An analogy: we believe that God will give us an apple and hope and pray that He does, but when He actually does it, we go: “no, that can’t be true! I refuse to believe it! Do you expect me to believe God can actually give us an apple? No way!”
C
challam2010
Guest
To the extent that Mary is mentioned in the Creed, which does define that which makes us Catholic, it seems reasonable to me that her attributes of Virgin and Mother of Jesus, would be essential in our membership in the Church; however, even the Church admits that salvation is effected by Jesus and certainly can be effected outside of the Church… so I’d say that belief in the Marian doctrines are not essential to salvation.
I’ve always understood that the two recent Marian doctrines were simply formalizing the truths that had been held by the Church for centuries – nothing new, just an official proclamation of their truth – but, since we are bound to believe in such dogma, it kind of makes your head spin, doesn’t it.
This probably adds nothing to this interesting discussion but I couldn’t help myself.
I’ve always understood that the two recent Marian doctrines were simply formalizing the truths that had been held by the Church for centuries – nothing new, just an official proclamation of their truth – but, since we are bound to believe in such dogma, it kind of makes your head spin, doesn’t it.
This probably adds nothing to this interesting discussion but I couldn’t help myself.
K
KathleenGee
Guest
Anne,
I am simply referring to the Church defining Mary’s immaculate conception and assumption into heaven, but these realities regarding her have been held to hearts of believers since her passing from this world. It took the Church as stated in a piece from the Catechism hundreds of years of reflection.
And I also agree with you…and it is for people to let go if they want…that the Assumption of Mary into heaven is also promised for those who endure in Jesus Christ.
I think the other point is that as Mary is our spiritual mother through Christ, we should have an obligation as well to know her…and thus know ourselves.
I think the Church defining Mary as such should not be a cause of bitterness either to those who worship liturgically.
I am simply referring to the Church defining Mary’s immaculate conception and assumption into heaven, but these realities regarding her have been held to hearts of believers since her passing from this world. It took the Church as stated in a piece from the Catechism hundreds of years of reflection.
And I also agree with you…and it is for people to let go if they want…that the Assumption of Mary into heaven is also promised for those who endure in Jesus Christ.
I think the other point is that as Mary is our spiritual mother through Christ, we should have an obligation as well to know her…and thus know ourselves.
I think the Church defining Mary as such should not be a cause of bitterness either to those who worship liturgically.
S
schaick
Guest
The Nicene Creed is a statement of faith for all trinitarian christians.
Before the Marian dogmas became official in 1950 did the common Catholic know that they were supposed to believe in Mary’s Divine Motherhood, Perpetual Virginity, Immaculate Conception and Assumption?
What about their salvation?
P
poetryforjesus
Guest
Well, people who lived before the birth of Jesus never was confronted with the question of Who Jesus is. Does that mean they were all lost? Of course not.
It is one thing to not have the opportunity to consider a truth. It is another to be confronted by a truth and reject it.
K
KathleenGee
Guest
Schaick,
Universal Christians united by the Eucharist always believed in Mary unique among all women, held up her total devotion to God and consecrated virginity, her sinless conception, and the effects of her miraculous passing from this world.
I shared with you prior that there is our history of the communion of saints, the teachings of mystics…all bearing the fruit of Jesus Christ…but the way of the communion of saints a difficult and uneasy road because we are sinners. Mary’s path is different in that she was sinless and upon her last moments, was immediately entered into glorification with God…whether she even witnessed death or simply passed through we do not know.
It took the Church a very long time to fully define the fullness of her grace, just as it took 1994 years to finally define women can’t be ordained to the priesthood. We reflect on the faith of the believers, how the Holy Spirit works through the Church.
Universal Christians united by the Eucharist always believed in Mary unique among all women, held up her total devotion to God and consecrated virginity, her sinless conception, and the effects of her miraculous passing from this world.
I shared with you prior that there is our history of the communion of saints, the teachings of mystics…all bearing the fruit of Jesus Christ…but the way of the communion of saints a difficult and uneasy road because we are sinners. Mary’s path is different in that she was sinless and upon her last moments, was immediately entered into glorification with God…whether she even witnessed death or simply passed through we do not know.
It took the Church a very long time to fully define the fullness of her grace, just as it took 1994 years to finally define women can’t be ordained to the priesthood. We reflect on the faith of the believers, how the Holy Spirit works through the Church.
S
Scoobyshme
Guest
Well, put in historical context, I don’t see how non-Catholics can argue the point.
There was only one Church for 1000 years after Jesus ascended to heaven. There were heretical groups which sprung up, but the heretics considered themselves Catholic. And the Church eventually corrected them through Councils.
Only in 1054 A.D. did the Orthodox schism from the Church, but they retained Apostolic Succession.
In 1517 A.D., Protestantism was begun by an ex-Catholic monk, Martin Luther. And Protestant Christianity has been splintering ever since into literally tens of thousands of man-made, doctrinally disunified denominations.
That being said, from a logical standpoint, IF we agree that Jesus came to earth and taught the Apostles His truth, one of two things could have happened: 1) That truth was preserved and brought forward through the centuries in the first Church which existed alone for the first 1000 years, the Catholic Church. or 2) That truth was somehow forgotten, lost, or changed, and with subsequent non-Catholic denominations it was somehow rediscovered. (Unless you think there is no sure way of knowing anything, that Jesus basically left us orphans with regard to His truth?)
If 2) is true, then the question becomes WHERE did the non-Catholics get the information to “correct” what the original Church founded by Christ taught? And can they prove that the original Church ever “changed” the deposit of faith handed to it by Christ? Do they believe, like Joseph Smith, that there was some sort of subsequent revelation? And if that is true, can they prove it? Joseph Smith couldn’t (he said the “plates” were somehow “lost.”).
The easiest, and most logical answer is 1), that Jesus founded a (one) Church, gave it the deposit of faith through His Apostles, who faithfully handed it on to their successors, the bishops, throughout the centuries. Jesus promised to remain with this Church till the end of the world. He also promised to send the Holy Spirit to guide it “into all truth.” Indeed, St. Paul says that this Church is the “pillar and foundation of truth.” (1 Tim 3:15)
So, I’m curious. IF the Catholic Church isn’t the original Church founded by Christ, where and when do you think it changed any of the teachings that Jesus gave it? What proof do you have? If not, who gave anyone else authority to found a different Church than the one Christ founded?
I think you get into a big ball of wax once you start trying to tap dance around the fact that the Catholic Church was the original Church that received Divine Revelation from Jesus through the Apostles, because then you have to find an alternative source. I don’t think you can.
H
HollyDolly
Guest
You hit the nail on the head. It is Christ and Christ alone who came down from Heaven,was born of the Virgin Mary and was made man.He gave His life to redeem us from sin,and to bring us to everlasting life.tHat is what is necessary, belief in Jesus Christ.
In the Holy land there is a tomb of the Blessed Virgin, you can googe it.If you mean assumption as in her soul going to heaven,yes, for all of us will go and be judged when we die by the Lord.But if the Blessed Mother has or had a tomb, then that would mean her body was buried there,and her pyschical body remained here on earth, but her soul went to heaven.Only Jesus as far as I know rose from the dead, and left the empty tomb behind.
I don’t think St.Thomas Aquinas is in any danger and most likely is quite happy in heaven. Not believing in the Immaculate Conception was not necessary for St.Thomas.What was essential as it is for all of us, belief in Jesus Christ,which is in the bible.If Mary at Lourdes called herself I am the Immaculate Conception, she may have meant that it was through her Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit,that she was the vessel by which the Word was made flesh.
I recall when during confirmation class the priest called Mary the Holy Comforter.When my mother asked me what Father talked about in class, I mentioned that statement.
My mother got a ticked off look on her face and quite clearly stated that the Holy Spirit was the Holy Comforter.I was surprised to see she was kind of upset, by Father’s remark, but as a kid didn’t think to ask why she thought the priest was wrong.
My parents loved the Blessed Mother, but the only marian prayer the would say was the Hail Mary. They grew up in the 1920s and 30s,even when I took catechism classes with the Brigidine Sisters in San Antonio, the sisters never seemd to make a fuss over
any Marian dogma to us kids, and i don’t recall them pushing this on us.
We need to believe in God the Father and Jesus ,His Son in order to be saved.
We don’t even know what role Our Lady played if any in her Son’s ministery.
It seems with some people pushing the agenda of Mary as Co redemptrix, they are trying to usurp Jesus’s role in salavation.But He and He alone is necessary for salavation.
This is what bugs Protestants about Catholics and Mary.it’s like many Catholics forget who came to redeem us.
K
KathleenGee
Guest
I also think people have great difficulty in understanding Mary’s great role and advocacy among Christians simply because they do not know sacramental Catholic spirituality.
I didn’t relate much to Mary growing up because she was as a plaster madonna to me. I do not think American Catholics venerate Mary enough.
I didn’t relate much to Mary growing up because she was as a plaster madonna to me. I do not think American Catholics venerate Mary enough.
A
AnneElliot
Guest
Mary’s Perpetual Virginity was defined at Constantinople in 381 AD.
Mary as Mother of God was defined at Ephesus in 431 AD.
Mary’s Immaculate Concpetion was defined by Pope Pius IX in 1854.
Mary’s Assumption into Heaven was defined by Pope Pius XII in 1950.
Before these doctrines were defined as dogmas, they were still doctrines (official teachings) of the Church… just as the promoters of the 5th Marian Dogma know that Mary as Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate are already doctrines of the Church that have been consistently taught and preached.
K
KathleenGee
Guest
The more we understand about Mary, the deeper we understand about Christ. The deeper we understand both, with Mary as the bridge, the deeper we understand ourselves.
True wisdom is found in self-knowledge…knowing who we are not and Who Christ is. Mary is a great help in helping us grow deeper and more contemplative in our faith walk, to encounter the heaven of earth that is already here, even in these times.
I have had private encounters with Mary…shared one of them online here…and nobody said anything…I am experiencing her support of my faith even now.
Protestants or Catholics who have no regard for her or are indifferent are denying themselves a greater and more fulfilling walk in the Lord. I really mean that.
True wisdom is found in self-knowledge…knowing who we are not and Who Christ is. Mary is a great help in helping us grow deeper and more contemplative in our faith walk, to encounter the heaven of earth that is already here, even in these times.
I have had private encounters with Mary…shared one of them online here…and nobody said anything…I am experiencing her support of my faith even now.
Protestants or Catholics who have no regard for her or are indifferent are denying themselves a greater and more fulfilling walk in the Lord. I really mean that.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
But the truth was around, and well known, and even generally accepted. But now suddenly in 1950 you can’t be saved if you don’t believe it?
N
Nine_Two
Guest
Correct me if you’re wrong, but your essentially saying that the idea that the modern Marian dogmas are required for salvation is tied with the belief in the infallibility of the pope (which I’m not going to get into here.Well, put in historical context, I don’t see how non-Catholics can argue the point.
There was only one Church for 1000 years after Jesus ascended to heaven. There were heretical groups which sprung up, but the heretics considered themselves Catholic. And the Church eventually corrected them through Councils.
Only in 1054 A.D. did the Orthodox schism from the Church, but they retained Apostolic Succession.
In 1517 A.D., Protestantism was begun by an ex-Catholic monk, Martin Luther. And Protestant Christianity has been splintering ever since into literally tens of thousands of man-made, doctrinally disunified denominations.
That being said, from a logical standpoint, IF we agree that Jesus came to earth and taught the Apostles His truth, one of two things could have happened: 1) That truth was preserved and brought forward through the centuries in the first Church which existed alone for the first 1000 years, the Catholic Church. or 2) That truth was somehow forgotten, lost, or changed, and with subsequent non-Catholic denominations it was somehow rediscovered. (Unless you think there is no sure way of knowing anything, that Jesus basically left us orphans with regard to His truth?)
If 2) is true, then the question becomes WHERE did the non-Catholics get the information to “correct” what the original Church founded by Christ taught? And can they prove that the original Church ever “changed” the deposit of faith handed to it by Christ? Do they believe, like Joseph Smith, that there was some sort of subsequent revelation? And if that is true, can they prove it? Joseph Smith couldn’t (he said the “plates” were somehow “lost.”).
The easiest, and most logical answer is 1), that Jesus founded a (one) Church, gave it the deposit of faith through His Apostles, who faithfully handed it on to their successors, the bishops, throughout the centuries. Jesus promised to remain with this Church till the end of the world. He also promised to send the Holy Spirit to guide it “into all truth.” Indeed, St. Paul says that this Church is the “pillar and foundation of truth.” (1 Tim 3:15)
So, I’m curious. IF the Catholic Church isn’t the original Church founded by Christ, where and when do you think it changed any of the teachings that Jesus gave it? What proof do you have? If not, who gave anyone else authority to found a different Church than the one Christ founded?
I think you get into a big ball of wax once you start trying to tap dance around the fact that the Catholic Church was the original Church that received Divine Revelation from Jesus through the Apostles, because then you have to find an alternative source. I don’t think you can.
Interesting, but not an answer I find satisfactory. I need more reason then “Because he said so.”
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
Hi Nine,
The “because I said so” should be kept out, as you said. That’s why I tried to set up a simple guideline/rule at the onset of the thread that we need to find out WHY required belief in the Marian dogmas are spiritually necessary, edifying, and directly-related to the Cross so we may be saved. What does it have to do with my salvation? is essentially the question being asked. If it is a good, wholesome, beneficial, and spiritually-necessary dogma, we shouldn’t need to say “because the pope said so,” we should be able to judge the fruits and merits of the dogmas as salvific.
The “because I said so” should be kept out, as you said. That’s why I tried to set up a simple guideline/rule at the onset of the thread that we need to find out WHY required belief in the Marian dogmas are spiritually necessary, edifying, and directly-related to the Cross so we may be saved. What does it have to do with my salvation? is essentially the question being asked. If it is a good, wholesome, beneficial, and spiritually-necessary dogma, we shouldn’t need to say “because the pope said so,” we should be able to judge the fruits and merits of the dogmas as salvific.
- Status