Marian dogmas: important and essential for our salvation?

[KathleenGee]

Woke up from sleep…thought again…I don’t think I served you well in my answer, Guerny.

How many German Catholics signed up with the Naziis? How many German Catholics denounced Naziism and were executed? My father has pictures of Catholic priests in their mendicant habits…German Franciscans?? walking to their sacred ground where they will soon meet their Savior. When the Naziis found a prisoner who was a Catholic priest in a concentration camp, the priest was usually highly abused.

These priests are martyrs and have a special place in heaven, they have come to the great reward of Jesus Christ. They have carried through their consecration to Christ to accept all things as from Him.

Then look to Mother Russia…the devout Russian Orthodox slaughtered or imprisoned by how many of those who joined the Communist party.

Then look how Mary saved the American pilot from the Catholic Austrians…or how she saved the lives of the German Jesuits from the American atomic bomb…Was the bomber who flew the plane a Christian??.. Such profound contradictions of faith in Christ…Publicly Christians from ancient European cultures bent on annihilating each other all praying on the sidelines of battle with their chaplains…where is Christ???

And note how the fire of the atomic bomb on mankind…one named Trinity …happened between the feast of the Transfiguration where Jesus gave the Apostles a foretelling of his coming divine mission of the life of glory in heaven and Mary’s glorious assumption into heaven???

And as Catholics have learned more about Mary through tradition…and witnessed her intercession down through the ages to now August 6 – August 15…the Feast of the Transfiguration to the Feast of the Assumption of Mary…

and where was the world on that date in 1945…to only 9 years later the church then declare the dogma of the Assumption?..and our possible end of our pilgrimage on earth and the promises that will be shared for those who endure with Jesus to their end…glorification with Him, Mary and the saints in heaven?

We cannot ever separate Mary at any one point from time from breaking her from Christ’s mission to save mankind. Mary is the final grace for sinners. If Catholic Austrians turned their back on Christ, atleast they had some remaining grace in His mother…this is her gift…she makes us family…that transcends politics and national interests.

 

[LongJourney]

I’ve been waiting for someone else to respond to this, but no-one has, yet.

I have no idea whether you indended this, but your post actually looks like you are advocating her as a co-redemptress along with Jesus.

This perception causes a problem with non-Catholics, whether that perception is accurate or not. Could you clarifiy this?

Co-Redemptrix is a common title for Mary, although it is not doctrinal. Yes, it does cause a problem with non-Catholics. She has many other titles. She is a model for all women.

Here is an non-authoritative explanation of it, which explains the qualifications which make it more palatable to Protestants.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Great point PhilipCal; Why does it alarm protestants that Catholics take in the whole of God’s revelations in salvation history for our humanity, when protestants hold to just Jesus saves?

Which Catholics have believed Jesus saves longer than the protestant reformation. There is no graduating into the mysteries of God that Jesus saves for a Catholic, our faith is already built upon this foundation. The Catholic church’s interpretation of Mary’s role in salvation history does not in anyway deter one from the faith that Jesus saves, She reveals, clarifies these divine mysteries taken place in time to their fulfillment and remain in place especially in her “assumption into heaven”, only confirms in the new covenant that God is truly God of the living not of the dead.

Like you said, there is no reason to go to war over Mary’s role in man’s salvation, and that Jesus saves, this is the Catholics position whereby protestants ignore the importance of Mary’s role in salvation history, and the awesome power for God to use a woman and her seed to give the death blow to that serpent, now in there reveals the protoevangelium (Gen.3:15) fulfillment of salvation for humanity.

For one to reject these divine revelations from God of salvation history which includes both Mary’s role and Jesus salvific action with the correct understanding and Catholic interpretation as well as being a citizen in the kingdom in full communion, can lead one to be anathematized from the mystical body of Christ. Provided that the true understanding and interpretations of these Marian doctrines with full communion are met.

Ignorance of these revealed Truth’s does not qualify for an anathema. This ignorance can be given faith, if one learns by hearing and hearing the Word of God. I believe protestants miss out on great blessings and revelations from reading the bible without typology, and Apostolic sacred Traditions, including what St. Augustine teaches when the New Testament is hidden in the Old Testament, and Old gets revealed in the New.

Peace be with you

Let me approach your question from another angle. What I (we) have advanced as necessary for salvation re: The Blessed Virgin applies to Catholics. If you were say, born in, and still adhere to another faith tradition in which Mary’s role is not empathized as in the Catholic Faith, then belief in Christ as Savior is sufficient. Not looking for a war here, merely attempting in good faith to respond to your question(s)

 

[jmcrae]

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.

The Marian Dogmas teach us who Jesus is, by revealing to us the exact nature of Mary’s relationship with Him.

Knowing who Jesus is, is a strong remedy against creating a false mental image named “Jesus” that we end up worshipping in the place of the real Jesus.

But someone who says, “I can’t believe in the Jesus whose mother was a perpetual virgin,” or “I can’t believe in the Jesus who assumed His mother into Heaven body and soul,” then we have a person who can’t believe in the Jesus who really existed, and who has created a fantasy Jesus in His place - a fantasy Jesus who will have no power to save that person’s soul at the moment of death.

That’s why it’s important.

 

[Edwin78]

I just have one succinct question for you, Edwin—What the HECK is your point here? Duh?

My point is this:

Is how Jesus died essential for our salvation? Could He have died just by hanging from a tree, or by stoning, or whatever?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I’ve been waiting for someone else to respond to this, but no-one has, yet.

Co-Redemptrix is a common title for Mary, although it is not doctrinal. Yes, it does cause a problem with non-Catholics. She has many other titles. She is a model for all women.

Mary is co-redemptrix with Jesus, for she was the only creature from heaven and earth to cooperate with God in bringing salvation to the world. In fact Mary brought (salvation) Jesus to the eastern hemisphere of the world while she remained on earth, and Mary brought (salvation) Jesus to the western hemisphere of the world in her assumed body from heaven. This heavenly miracle apparition of the Blessed Virgin Mary who brought Jesus to the west still stumps scientists and unbelievers today. Mary’s role as co-redemptrix continues to produce results (christians) in the world.

What is so difficult to understand is not the mystery Mary’s role in salvation history but the rejection of this mystery as co-redemptrix.

 

[AnneElliot]

Mary is co-Redemptrix. And the title is indeed doctrinal. She is the woman with the Redeemer.

“From the nature of His work, the Redeemer ought to have associated His Mother with His work. For this reason we invoke her under the title of co-Redemptrix. She gave us the Savior, she accompanied Him in the work of redemption as far as the Cross itself, sharing with Him the sorrows of the agony and death in which Jesus consummated the redemption of mankind. And immediately beneath the Cross, at the last moments of His life, she was proclaimed by the Redeemer, Our Mother, the Mother of the whole universe.” Pope Pius XI, Allocution to pilgrims from Vicenza, November 30 1933

“Mary suffered and, as it were, nearly died with her suffering Son; for the salvation of mankind she renounced her mother’s rights and, as far as it depended on her, offered her Son to placate Divine justice; so we may well say that she with Christ redeemed mankind.” Pope Benedict XV, Inter Sodalicia, May 22 1918

“Mother most faithful and most merciful, who as co-Redemptrix and partaker of thy dear Son’s sorrow, didst assist Him as He offered the sacrifice of our redemption on the altar of the Cross, preserve in us and increase each day, we beseech thee, the precious fruits of our redemption and thy compassion.” Pope Pius XI, Radio message to the pilgrims at Lourdes April 28 1935

etc.

 

[KathleenGee]

Yes…and the Protestants are missing out on deeper spiritualities, the liturgical mysteries…the subtle inferences…I myself have come to understand better through spiritual readings and especially going to daily Mass…they don’t hit you like a ton of bricks, but come one at time…pondering, meditations, and then you come across a saint’s reading and see the same insight.

 

[LongJourney]

My bad.

Mary is co-Redemptrix. And the title is indeed doctrinal. She is the woman with the Redeemer.

No problem for me.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Yes…and the Protestants are missing out on deeper spiritualities, the liturgical mysteries…the subtle inferences…I myself have come to understand better through spiritual readings and especially going to daily Mass…they don’t hit you like a ton of bricks, but come one at time…pondering, meditations, and then you come across a saint’s reading and see the same insight.

I always get blown away from these personal enlightenments, just when I think God has revealed a new revelation to me from my meditations and reflections of scripture study, to only find out later, some old great saint or martyr already wrote about it, and taught it centuries before or lol…

 

[Edwin78]

I just have one succinct question for you, Edwin—What the HECK is your point here? Duh?

My point is this:

Is how Jesus died essential for our salvation? Could He have died just by hanging from a tree, or by stoning, or whatever?

If you answer no, then the natural consequence is that the cross, for you, is not essential for our salvation, because Jesus could have died another way and we would be saved, right? And if that is so, I would understand why you say the Blessed Virgin is not essential for salvation.

BUT, if you say yes, then the next question would be:

Is how Jesus lived essential for our salvation?

The answer MUST be “Yes,” for if “No,” then (1) Jesus could have sinned if He wanted to, (2) it would be a strange dichotomy for one to say that how Jesus died is necessary for our salvation, but how He lived is not, because it is how Jesus lived that He ended in Golgotha.

And yet, Jesus lived for 30 years with His mother before He began His ministry. Heck, even the first of Jesus’ miracles was instigated by His mother!

So how can you say that

Mary is not essential for our salvation or necessary.

when the majority of Jesus’ life on Earth is lived with His mother?

Or are you saying that how Jesus lived is not essential for our salvation?

 

[cruisin]

I’m going to chime in here. usually read, rarely post.

Please show me where God put Mary in the position claimed by the Catholic Church.

I read a lot of opinions here, but find know commandments, or teachings by the apostles. or the can be attributed to be from the apostles. Tradition can be a good thing but the problem for me is that tradition of fallible men are just that, traditions of fallible men, and I believe we must be careful of that.

My other problem is that the old testament law explicitly forbids trying to contact the dead.

Therefore, believing in Mary, and some heavenly role that God has placed her in seems unnecessary.

Christ and what he did on the cross is enough for me. from the Act of the apostles to Revelations Christ is the Center of our redemption. And that is what was preached by the apostles.

I believe that Jesus the Christ was born of a virgin and that virgin was Mary. It proves his divinity and his humanity. It was the sign of old testament prophecy.

on a side note and don’t wish to throw this thread off topic, but I keep reading the archangel Gabriel being call a Saint. Where does this idea come from?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Do the Marian dogmas really teach us who Jesus is? The great ecumenical councils of the unividided Church didn’t seem to feel that way? The Nicean Council defined for us who Jesus is with regard to being begotten, not made, one in being with the Father, etc. It never mentioned Christ’s mother being immaculate, perpetually a virgin, or assumed to guide the understanding. And the later councils that taught us about Christ, rejecting Monothelitism, etc. never used the Marian dogmas to rationalize or explain anything? There were no demands placed on the faithful as to what they must believe in order to understand Christ? You’re basically saying that the individual who rejects Marian speculation is incapable of believing that Jesus was miraculously born, lived miraculously, died and was raised supernaturally etc. I reject that notion. I know plenty of Protestants (and Catholics) who believe in the virgin birth, the miracles Christ showed on earth, and his resurrection and assumption but they don’t believe in the Marian stuff. Why does rejecting the idea of Mary’s body being taken up to heaven conjur up a phony Jesus image? I don’t understand this post at all…

The Marian Dogmas teach us who Jesus is, by revealing to us the exact nature of Mary’s relationship with Him.

Knowing who Jesus is, is a strong remedy against creating a false mental image named “Jesus” that we end up worshipping in the place of the real Jesus.

But someone who says, “I can’t believe in the Jesus whose mother was a perpetual virgin,” or “I can’t believe in the Jesus who assumed His mother into Heaven body and soul,” then we have a person who can’t believe in the Jesus who really existed, and who has created a fantasy Jesus in His place - a fantasy Jesus who will have no power to save that person’s soul at the moment of death.

That’s why it’s important.

 

[beehumble]

“No one argues that Jesus saves us, Mary answers the question? how.”

That is a great part of it - the how. Inor der to save us God had to die. In order to die, He had to become man. In order to become man, He had to be born of a woman.

The infallible statements about her by the popes make it clear these things must be accepted in order to be saved. I’m asking why and how this can be so.

As I said earlier in more detail, to deny the Immaculate Conception is to deny the Incarnation.(God cannot become man and die for us w/o a pure womanly vessel in which to dwell as a fetus. The universe was contaminated by the fall. The Holy One chose to enter that contaminated universe but cannot be nurtured with ‘contaminated by sin’ nourishment, so a pure vessel was needed. The Ark of the Covenant was treated as the Holy place where God dwelled. But it was the Shekinah Glory that came and entered the box called the ark - it took nothing from that box for sustenance. All flesh dwelling in a mother takes sustenance from that mother for that flesh to live - once God became flesh inside the ‘box’ of Mary, He would need to take sustenance from the box known as ‘Mary’. He could not ‘drink’ from contaminated waters, so to speak. He is The Holy, The One. So the stream was made pure beforehand in anticipation of Mary’s role, which we refer to as Immaculate Conception. W/o this, God could not become flesh and dwell within a woman, SO TO DENY THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION IS TO SAY AN INCARNATION OF GOD IS IMPOSSIBLE. In fact this is what the Muslims and Jews say. The Muslims feels it is degrading to God to imagine Him dwelling in flesh, which is sinful. Jews too say the Holy One cannot dwell in sinful man as flesh. **SO TO DENY THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION IS A BACKDOOR WAY OF SAYING AN INCARNATION OF GOD IS IMPOSSIBLE. **And to deny the incarnation is a grave error - all of Catholicism hangs on that. How can you seriously believe God as flesh drank from an impure stream and His blood co-mingled to a degree with her blood which would have been contaminated by sin - so his internal makeup literally would have ‘sin’ flowing in His veins? This is not bs - it is real - think about it. Again, the Shekinah Glory dwelled in the box of the ark but took nothing from the box.

The God-fetus dwelled within Mary’s flesh and blood and did take things from her blood and it did mingle with His God-man-blood.)

Without the Immaculate Conception, how do you answer Muslims and Jews who say God could not become man because God is perfectly Holy and man is not and so God could not mingle Holy blood etc with an unholy woman’s blood - whoever the woman that would be His mother?

My mother is great and saint-like but the Book says she is not worthy to look upon the face fo God and live. Somebody worthy enough to “house” God had to be created first befor eHe could beomce man and die to save us.

And there was not another way to save us - the way was for God to become man and die. Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane asked the Father is there was any other way , could that be done? And the answer from the Father was basically, “No, there is no other way.”

The nails/ cross etc are valid points. One cannot just say Jesus died on the cross and thereby saved us – that is child-like. There has to an explicit method as to how our salvation was done, if it is real and not myth. How did God dwell in corrupt flesh of a woman, is the first question that needs to be addressed and “Immaculate Conception” answers that question. There is no other satisfactory answer.

And to deny the Assumption is to deny the salvific power of Christ’s death on the cross, the resurrection of the Body, and life everlasting in Heaven with God (this extends from the Immaculate Conception - if you have that as true, then it follows that since the wages fo sin is death, and Mary was and is immaculate then her body should not see corruption and so she should be assumed into heaven. Said another way, if immaculate, why should her body rot in a grave? It makes out God an impotent God in a way.)

 

[dianaiad]

I’ve been waiting for someone else to respond to this, but no-one has, yet.

Co-Redemptrix is a common title for Mary, although it is not doctrinal. Yes, it does cause a problem with non-Catholics. She has many other titles. She is a model for all women.

Here is an non-authoritative explanation of it, which explains the qualifications which make it more palatable to Protestants.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix

It doesn’t have to be ‘palatable’ to anybody but Catholics, LJ, any more than some LDS doctrine needs to be ‘palagable’ to those who disagree with us. It’s all a matter of faith…it’s just that we (ok, make that …‘me’)…would prefer to understand the concept from the Catholic POV.

Thanks for the link!

 

[cruisin]

Do the Marian dogmas really teach us who Jesus is? The great ecumenical councils of the unividided Church didn’t seem to feel that way? The Nicean Council defined for us who Jesus is with regard to being begotten, not made, one in being with the Father, etc. It never mentioned Christ’s mother being immaculate, perpetually a virgin, or assumed to guide the understanding. And the later councils that taught us about Christ, rejecting Monothelitism, etc. never used the Marian dogmas to rationalize or explain anything? There were no demands placed on the faithful as to what they must believe in order to understand Christ? You’re basically saying that the individual who rejects Marian speculation is incapable of believing that Jesus was miraculously born, lived miraculously, died and was raised supernaturally etc. I reject that notion. I know plenty of Protestants (and Catholics) who believe in the virgin birth, the miracles Christ showed on earth, and his resurrection and assumption but they don’t believe in the Marian stuff. Why does rejecting the idea of Mary’s body being taken up to heaven conjur up a phony Jesus image? I don’t understand this post at all…

Originally Posted by jmcrae View Post
The Marian Dogmas teach us who Jesus is, by revealing to us the exact nature of Mary’s relationship with Him.

Knowing who Jesus is, is a strong remedy against creating a false mental image named “Jesus” that we end up worshipping in the place of the real Jesus.

But someone who says, “I can’t believe in the Jesus whose mother was a perpetual virgin,” or “I can’t believe in the Jesus who assumed His mother into Heaven body and soul,” then we have a person who can’t believe in the Jesus who really existed, and who has created a fantasy Jesus in His place - a fantasy Jesus who will have no power to save that person’s soul at the moment of death.

That’s why it’s important.

Gurney,

I may be wrong, but it seems that posts like this are from the position, this is what i was taught by the church, not this is why I believe it and this is my proof. by taking the churches authority out of the conversation, I see an inability to really come up with plausible and competent defenses. For me this is concerning.

Again I could be wrong. Just making an observation.

I find no reason to accept the idea that I must believe the assumption of Mary for my salvation. It seems to me that certain people demand me to believe the way they want me to, because they have decided so.

If those on this board wish to believe in this, I have no problem with it, but don’t force it on me without defining evidence.

 

[beehumble]

As I said earlier in more detail, to deny the Immaculate Conception is to deny the Incarnation.(God cannot become man and die for us w/o a pure womanly vessel in which to dwell as a fetus. The universe was contaminated by the fall. The Holy One chose to enter that contaminated universe but cannot be nurtured with ‘contaminated by sin’ nourishment, so a pure vessel was needed. The Ark of the Covenant was treated as the Holy place where God dwelled. But it was the Shekinah Glory that came and entered the box called the ark - it took nothing from that box for sustenance. All flesh dwelling in a mother takes sustenance from that mother for that flesh to live - once God became flesh inside the ‘box’ of Mary, He would need to take sustenance from the box known as ‘Mary’. He could not ‘drink’ from contaminated waters, so to speak. He is The Holy, The One. So the stream was made pure beforehand in anticipation of Mary’s role, which we refer to as Immaculate Conception. W/o this, God could not become flesh and dwell within a woman, SO TO DENY THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION IS TO SAY AN INCARNATION OF GOD IS IMPOSSIBLE.*** In fact this is what the Muslims and Jews say. The Muslims feels it is degrading to God to imagine Him dwelling in flesh, which is sinful. Jews too say the Holy One cannot dwell in sinful man as flesh.*** SO TO DENY THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION IS A BACKDOOR WAY OF SAYING AN INCARNATION OF GOD IS IMPOSSIBLE. And to deny the incarnation is a grave error - all of Catholicism hangs on that. How can you seriously believe God as flesh drank from an impure stream and His blood co-mingled to a degree with her blood which would have been contaminated by sin - so his internal makeup literally would have ‘sin’ flowing in His veins? This is not bs - it is real - think about it. Again, the Shekinah Glory dwelled in the box of the ark but took nothing from the box.

The God-fetus dwelled within Mary’s flesh and blood and did take things from her blood and it did mingle with His God-man-blood.

Without the Immaculate Conception, how do you answer Muslims and Jews who say God could not become man because God is perfectly Holy and man is not and so God could not mingle Holy blood etc with an unholy woman’s blood - whoever the woman that would be His mother?

My mother is great and saint-like but the Book says she is not worthy to look upon the face fo God and live. Somebody worthy enough to “house” God had to be created first befor eHe could become man and die to save us.

And there was not another way to save us - the way was for God to become man and die. Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane asked the Father is there was any other way , could that be done? And the answer from the Father was basically, “No, there is no other way.”

The nails/ cross etc are valid points. One cannot just say Jesus died on the cross and thereby saved us – that is child-like and for those who drink milk (although it works for me - I have faith, in some ways like a child!!). Those more developed and mature in understanding the faith, eat meat. **There has to an explicit method as to how our salvation was done, if it is real and not myth. **How did God dwell in corrupt flesh of a woman, is the first question that needs to be addressed and “Immaculate Conception” answers that question. There is no other satisfactory answer.

And to deny the Assumption is to deny the salvific power of Christ’s death on the cross, the resurrection of the Body, and life everlasting in Heaven with God (this extends from the Immaculate Conception - if you have that as true, then it follows that since the wages fo sin is death, and Mary was and is immaculate then her body should not see corruption and so she should be assumed into heaven. Said another way, if immaculate, why should her body rot in a grave? It makes out God an impotent God in a way.)

 

[mark_a]

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

Marian dogma, like any dogma Catholic dogma, cannot be denied by the faithful. That doesn’t necessarily mean we each need to be able to understand and explain Marian Dogma as well as Scott Hahn does.

 

[Hesychios]

Marian dogma, like any dogma Catholic dogma, cannot be denied by the faithful.

Just a technical question here.

I think I understand what “cannot be denied” usually is, ‘denied’ probably would be like saying “I believe that it is not true”, but can a person say “I don’t know” or " I don’t understand it" or “I haven’t decided whether I believe it” ?

Can a person chose to have no opinion on them and remain a member in good standing? Can a person chose to have no opinion on them and yet become a member in good conscience?

 

[dianaiad]

Without the Immaculate Conception, how do you answer Muslims and Jews who say God could not become man because God is perfectly Holy and man is not and so God could not mingle Holy blood etc with an unholy woman’s blood - whoever the woman that would be His mother?

Well, first, since I don’t happen to believe in original sin the way Catholics do…or rather, I believe that Jesus’ redemptive sacrifice took care of original sin for all mankind (including His mother,) that all infants are born utterly innocent and without the stain of original sin…so that, in one sence, we all have had an 'immaculate conception."

However, even if one does agree with the idea that infants are born with that stain upon them, one says to the questioner…“omnipotence. It’s an important word.” As in: God can do anything He wants to.

The point is, not everybody is worried about that, Beehumble.

<And to deny the Assumption is to deny the salvific power of Christ’s death on the cross, the resurrection of the Body, and life everlasting in Heaven with God (this extends from the Immaculate Conception

er…how does it do that? Even Jesus died physically before His resurrection; why does figuring that Mary did the same thing deny anything salvific? We are all going to die; comes with being mortal. Christ defeated death-…“for as in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive,” right? Why would believing that Mary followed the example of Her son right down to physical death be denying His Atonement?

< - if you have that as true, then it follows that since the wages fo sin is death, and Mary was and is immaculate then her body should not see corruption and so she should be assumed into heaven. Said another way, if immaculate, why should her body rot in a grave? It makes out God an impotent God in a way.)

Actually, the 'wages of being born" are death…at least physically. The wages of sin are a death of a slightly different sort—but back up. FIRST you have to establish to your questioner’s satisfaction that bit about Mary being “Immaculate” and that her body 'would not see corruption." Frankly, Beehumble, you did a speed of light whoosh right past me with that one.

There’s a lot about Marian dogma that I didn’t know about, and am having to say a huge WHOA on this before I dare comment. I’m, quite frankly, very confused, and I"m not going to dip my toes in this conversational pool until I know what the situation actually IS in regard to standard Catholic dogma here. All I have are bunches of questions.