Marian dogmas: important and essential for our salvation?

[Nine_Two]

It really isn’t a big deal if we know if Mary died before being assumed into heaven, and the Church has not made a definitive statement on this either way. But why is it so bad to believe in this from certain non-Catholic points of view? It is something that has been believed for far longer than the Reformation.

Pope Pius XII declared it dogma in 1950, so yes the Church has made a definitive statement.

Gurney’s question is not, why is this correct belief, but why is it required belief.

 

[ariel7978]

When did Mary become Diety? I believe Mary was kept free from sin in order to conceive Jesus, as sin and God cannot coexist together. Historically, we do not know what actually happened to Mary after the crucifixation of Jesus. The RC teaches that Mary was assumed body and soul into heaven. How so? Even Jesus was transfigured into a spiritual being when he rose into the heavens. If you believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, then you must believe this: **“Now I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God…” ** 1 Corinthians 15:50

If it was important for God to reveal to man through the Bible that Mary was assumed into Heaven, It would have been included. The other thing about Marian Doctrine that bothers me is her being an intercessor like Catholic saints are considered, to Jesus. Again, if this were so, God would have revealed it to all the world in the Bible, yet He says: “No one come unto the Father except by me.” I take that to mean that I can go to Christ directly without going to Mary or anyone else. So why does the RCC teach that which contradicts Christ? :tiphat:

Scripture does not record the Assumption of Mary. We depend on Apostolic Tradition for our belief. Though, Scripture does give us every indication that “this” could occur; Enoch was taken to heaven without dying (Heb 11:5) and Elijah was whisked into heaven by a fiery chariot (2 King 2:11). Matthew 27:52 suggest a bodily assumption before the Second Coming.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

But why is knowing this about Mary essential to the salvation of each person?

Scripture does not record the Assumption of Mary. We depend on Apostolic Tradition for our belief. Though, Scripture does give us every indication that “this” could occur; Enoch was taken to heaven without dying (Heb 11:5) and Elijah was whisked into heaven by a fiery chariot (2 King 2:11). Matthew 27:52 suggest a bodily assumption before the Second Coming.

 

[KathleenGee]

Guerny,

Definitely deeply thought provoking…Mary is like a bridge…she is a creature like us and through her Christ, True God and True Man connected with our humanity. That is a truth…She reflects us and she reflects sinlessness like Christ, but still a creature…but no other having a constitution like hers…

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I know that the fact that Mary points the way to the Lord is often a theme used in justifying why we must believe in these Marian dogmas but I often feel that it is distractive. Paul, Mary, Mary Magdalene, Thomas, Peter, Augustine, and thousands and millions of people have been changed by Christ, pointing the way to Him. If Mary was set aside as Immaculate by God, we should focus not on the creature made this way, but on the author, the source, and the Saviour. If justification for Marian dogmas being esential for salvation is that they show an amazing work of spirituality done by God, then believing in many, many conversions and saintly stories would be attached to anathemas and thus essential to being saved? I don’t think anyone would argue the great holiness and humility, openness to God’s will, and piety as well as obedience to the Lord that Mary showed. It was a great testimony to lively faith. She went through a singularly painful, gut-wrenching, horrific experience with Her Son’s Passion and seeing Him hanging from the Cross. A sword pierced her heart. She was a key part of the life of our Lord on so many levels. Certainly she is the greatest of saints. But I guess I’m just confused as to why the actual details of her character and make-up and death are key to salvation? Jesus’s death and resurrection are the key. Mary’s details seem non-essential and just interesting speculation and discussion? We don’t see any indication by the early church or fathers that this in any way has salvific ramifications, just interesting and pious discussion, etc.?

 

[zdon011]

I would say if a Catholic [didn’t believe in Our Lady’s perpetual virginity] that they should just shut up about it. Just like a Mormon who believes the Book of Mormon is inspired myth instead of historical. Keep it to yourself and don’t make waves if you want to be accepted.

Shhh, Catholic20064!
You KNOW there’s only one way Mormons are supposed to talk about the dogmas of their faith:
xtranormal.com/watch/7001615/
And before I get any hate mail, I did not make this video. It’s a light-hearted caricature by a former Mormon who is a member of this forum.

 

[O.S.Luke]

Gurney:

Great post. I don’t really have much argument over the Marian dogmas (even those more recently pronounced), but I don’t see the Marian dogmas as “deal breakers” for our salvation. And this in no way is at variance with either the Apostles’ or Nicene Creeds. It seems to me that if the Marian dogmas WERE essential to salvation, they would have been included in the creeds.

My 2¢.

 

[elvisman]

A major problem for me is that the last two Marian dogmas were only recently defined. If they are necessary, wouldn’t they always have been necessary? If Thomas Aquinas could deny the Immaculate Conception, at least in the way it was ultimately defined, and still be a saint and doctor of the church, why would it become a necessary belief in 1854? Why did something that was optional suddenly become mandatory?

This is why:
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 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. **

**It’s important to remember that when the Church declares a dogma, it *nothing *new. It’s a belief that the Church has held that is in need of defining because of a heresy or other challenge. Thomas Aquinas was a brilliant theologian - but he was not infallible. **

 

[Scoobyshme]

What “truth”? And why? What do these “truths” have to do with salvation? For what reason does God actually care.

The “truth” is not a what, but a Who, Jesus Christ. He is the “truth,” the way, and the life.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Obviously Nine knows Truth is Christ Jesus. You’re taking his post out of context. He was reacting to another poster’s implication that Marian dogmas are the truth and necessary for salvation. He was asking for clarification as to what truth about the Marian dogmas one must believe to be saved. That is my take anyway.

The “truth” is not a what, but a Who, Jesus Christ. He is the “truth,” the way, and the life.

 

[KathleenGee]

Guerny,

Been thinking about this … What is essential for our belief is affirming 100% of the Nicene/Apostles Creed. This is what makes us Catholic. And it is said in communion as Church every Resurrection Sunday. The only perfection we can attain as Catholics in this world is this profession of faith with all our conviction.

The Creed says that Christ…‘was born of the Virgin Mary’…that is all. So it is essential that we affirm the Virgin birth.

True devotion to Mary is always Christ oriented…

Another part of the Creed…‘We believe in the communion of saints…’ Mary is the greatest of all saints, the greatest contemplative, the first lay evangelist, and the Mother of all Christians. Without her, we would not have Jesus. And as the New Eve, she also restores the particular dignity of women.

It was at Fatima that she requested reparations against the sins committed against her…but this is for Catholics. And Catholics are not bound to believe in private revelations. Fatima and all other apparitions of Mary are private revelations. A Catholic is 100% Catholic without approved visitations of Mary, her requests and messages.

 

[Scoobyshme]

Obviously Nine knows Truth is Christ Jesus. You’re taking his post out of context. He was reacting to another poster’s implication that Marian dogmas are the truth and necessary for salvation. He was asking for clarification as to what truth about the Marian dogmas one must believe to be saved. That is my take anyway.

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?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

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?

I think that does, actually. We don’t know WHY the Holy Spirit revealed the truth of the Marian dogmas of the Assumption. But we do know that since it is revealed truth, it is as ‘necessary’ as any other revealed truth.

Because Jesus Christ IS truth. The whole truth.

Any truth then is a ‘part’ of the ‘whole truth’, right?

So to reject any part of truth, no matter how small, has an effect (for the one rejecting it) on that whole truth.

If the ‘part’ of the truth about Mary’s assumption is even the smallest possible fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the ‘whole’ truth that is Jesus, and we reject it, then we have ‘reduced’, in essence, the 100% truth of Jesus by that ‘itty bitty’ fraction. Even though it is so ‘tiny’ (and in fact it may be much larger than an ‘itty bit’, we don’t know for sure). . .the reduction of 100% to LESS than 100% makes that ‘perception’ of Jesus as being the lesser truth-- wrong. We’ve been told, in Scripture, to “Be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect.” Well, we know we’re a bunch of sinners even when we ‘try’. . .but Jesus is still telling us to ‘be perfect’. Obviously then ‘being perfect’ (and that includes knowing and accepting 100% rather than less than 100%) is important (otherwise Jesus would not have required it). . .

 

[TMC]

I don’t think the Marian dogmas are essential to salvatoin - in fact the cannot be.

The dogmas are important only to the extent that it is important to understand God and God’s nature. The Marian dogmas help shed some light on those topics, and thus can help lead us to God. But other than being a help in that way, believing the Marian dogmas has little or nothing do with salvation.

I know that must be true for several reasons.

First, because we are not saved by knowledge. Salvation is not a theology exam, its about opening oneself to accepting the saving grace of Christ. Faith in Christ is an important element of that, but faith in Christ does not mean being exactly right on Christology, Mariology or any -ology. If it is, we will all fall short.

Second, if these dogmas were essential to salvation, I have to believe that Paul or the Evangelists would have mentioned that at some point. I am not saying that Paul is the beginning and ending of theology, quite the contrary. But if understanding certain facts were essential to salvation, I have to believe Paul would have taken a moment to write those facts down, but he never mentions Mary in any of his writings.

Finally, specific theological beliefs can’t be essential to salvation because the Church teaches that non-Catholics can be saved, and that non-Christians can be saved. If that it true (and I agree with the Church that it is), then believing in the Marian dogmas cannot be essential to salvation.

 

[Todd520]

Well said TMC

I don’t think the Marian dogmas are essential to salvatoin - in fact they cannot be.

First, because we are not saved by knowledge.

Second, if these dogmas were essential to salvation, I have to believe that Paul or the Evangelists would have mentioned that at some point.

Finally, … non-Catholics can be saved, and that non-Christians can be saved.

Though I don’t believe the doctrine, they are clearly effective in helping many people come closer to God.

 

[Scoobyshme]

I don’t think the Marian dogmas are essential to salvatoin - in fact the cannot be.

The dogmas are important only to the extent that it is important to understand God and God’s nature. The Marian dogmas help shed some light on those topics, and thus can help lead us to God. But other than being a help in that way, believing the Marian dogmas has little or nothing do with salvation.

I know that must be true for several reasons.

First, because we are not saved by knowledge. Salvation is not a theology exam, its about opening oneself to accepting the saving grace of Christ. Faith in Christ is an important element of that, but faith in Christ does not mean being exactly right on Christology, Mariology or any -ology. If it is, we will all fall short.

Second, if these dogmas were essential to salvation, I have to believe that Paul or the Evangelists would have mentioned that at some point. I am not saying that Paul is the beginning and ending of theology, quite the contrary. But if understanding certain facts were essential to salvation, I have to believe Paul would have taken a moment to write those facts down, but he never mentions Mary in any of his writings.

Finally, specific theological beliefs can’t be essential to salvation because the Church teaches that non-Catholics can be saved, and that non-Christians can be saved. If that it true (and I agree with the Church that it is), then believing in the Marian dogmas cannot be essential to salvation.

I think you’re operating at a distinct disadvantage.

The deposit of faith, i.e., Divine Revelation, was given by Jesus Christ to mankind through the Apostles, and their successors, the bishops, for 2000 years.

SOME, but not all, of what Jesus revealed was written down. (see John 21:25) We call this the New Testament. There is much, however, that wasn’t written down, but passed on orally. We call this Holy Tradition. Both of these, however, must be interpreted by the Magesterium of the Church, the successors of Peter (the Pope) and the Apsotles (the bishops in communion with the Pope). Like the Trinity is three Divine Persons in one God, inseparable and perfectly united, so too is the Word of God transmitted to us by Holy Tradition, Holy Scripture, and the Magesterium of the Church. So, don’t get stuck believing that “unless it’s in the Bible, it ain’t true.” The Word of God is more than just the Bible, and much more than the Bible, personally interpreted. Like any book, it needs an authentic interpreter, which Jesus provided for us in the Church.

We do not “make up” these teachings, but only pass on what we have been given by Christ. We do try to explain these teachings in terms people can understand in the age and culture in which they live, but we never, ever change them. Never have, never will. We don’t claim the authority to correct Jesus Christ.

Now. That being said, when we talk about the “necessity of belief” of the teachings of Christ, this principle must be conditioned by the fact of the ability and opportunity of each individual. For example, not everyone has the same intellectual ability to understand certain things. Some can understand all the doctrines and dogmas. Some are still learning and haven’t covered them all yet. God, being infinitely just and infinitely merciful, would never require that of us of which we are incapable. What is required, though, is religious assent to all that the Church teaches, because it is all of what Jesus Christ revealed to mankind. In other words, an individual may say, “Well, I don’t really quite understand the dogma about the Immaculate Conception, but I accept the teaching from the Church because I know it came from Jesus, Who is the Truth.”

 

[TMC]

I think you’re operating at a distinct disadvantage.

The deposit of faith, i.e., Divine Revelation, was given by Jesus Christ to mankind through the Apostles, and their successors, the bishops, for 2000 years.

SOME, but not all, of what Jesus revealed was written down. (see John 21:25) We call this the New Testament. There is much, however, that wasn’t written down, but passed on orally. We call this Holy Tradition. Both of these, however, must be interpreted by the Magesterium of the Church, the successors of Peter (the Pope) and the Apsotles (the bishops in communion with the Pope). Like the Trinity is three Divine Persons in one God, inseparable and perfectly united, so too is the Word of God transmitted to us by Holy Tradition, Holy Scripture, and the Magesterium of the Church. So, don’t get stuck believing that “unless it’s in the Bible, it ain’t true.” The Word of God is more than just the Bible, and much more than the Bible, personally interpreted. Like any book, it needs an authentic interpreter, which Jesus provided for us in the Church.

We do not “make up” these teachings, but only pass on what we have been given by Christ. We do try to explain these teachings in terms people can understand in the age and culture in which they live, but we never, ever change them. Never have, never will. We don’t claim the authority to correct Jesus Christ.

Now. That being said, when we talk about the “necessity of belief” of the teachings of Christ, this principle must be conditioned by the fact of the ability and opportunity of each individual. For example, not everyone has the same intellectual ability to understand certain things. Some can understand all the doctrines and dogmas. Some are still learning and haven’t covered them all yet. God, being infinitely just and infinitely merciful, would never require that of us of which we are incapable. What is required, though, is religious assent to all that the Church teaches, because it is all of what Jesus Christ revealed to mankind. In other words, an individual may say, “Well, I don’t really quite understand the dogma about the Immaculate Conception, but I accept the teaching from the Church because I know it came from Jesus, Who is the Truth.”

I don’t see where anything you said is at odds with anything that I said. I also don’t understand why you assume me to be somehow disadvantaged.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

I’d like to add a comment from an Eastern Church perspective, if I may.

The term “Orthodox” means two things at once - right believing and right worshipping. In fact, one cannot exist without the other and how we worship indicates our faith.

This is why dogmas were established in the early Church only when they were under attack, in other words, the faith in them and their reality already existed in the Church and were indicated in the Church’s liturgy. Definition of them was required when the Church was upset by those who denied what the Church already believes as manifested in its liturgy.

So the main touchstone for what we believe is, and always has been, the Church’s liturgy in the first instance. It brings together scripture and tradition and the Fathers and etc.

For Eastern Christians, Catholic and Orthodox alike, the Marian dogmas of the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception were unnecessary and even superfluous for them because the Eastern Church has always believed in the total holiness and sinlessness of the Mother of God and in her being translated, body and soul, into heaven.

The Liturgy is where we also meet and are united to our Lord, God and Saviour, Jesus Christ. It is where He actually comes among us as He did 2,000 years ago in the Eucharist and in His Word.

Faith is more than a series of dogmas, although it is certainly that. It is a sacramental relationship with the Most Holy Trinity in and through our membership in the Body of Christ. That also includes the Communion of Saints. It is only in that Communion and through the Liturgy that we are given the Grace to behold the Face of God and Christ in the midst of the heavenly Hosts and Saints. It is in that mystical relationship that the Church, as the Body of Christ, reveals to us what she believes about the Virgin Mary, the Saints and many other matters. We accept that revelation insofar as God empowers our faith and calls us to His Kingdom. The various attributes of the Mother of God, the person through whom God the Word came to us in His human nature, are there because of her special role in salvation history. Those attributes point to that role, point to Her Son (as she always does), and celebrate the Divine Incarnation of God in Christ.

Her attributes, her all holiness, intercession, perpetual virginity and being taken to heaven body and soul - all these celebrate her own special partaking in the Divine nature, as St Peter reminds us all, and reflect only on the truth of the Divine Incarnation.

Without a proper understanding of her role, we would be led to reduce the Incarnation to a mere Docetism or to see Christ as God alone or Man alone.

This is why the Church, in the wisdom of the Spirit, addresses her as “Theotokos” or God-bearer/Mother of God. That is and always has been the touchstone of Christian Incarnational orthodoxy. So it is by the Faith of the Church and obedience to it that we are saved.

So, in response to the original question . . . yes!

Alex

 

[KathleenGee]

In my professional training by my archdiocese, our conviction of faith is found in the Nicene Creed. The Creed is indeed what is essential to our profession of faith as Catholics.

But I am still researching more about Marian dogmas. Mary represents the Church, the one with perfect faith. Again, recall her dogmas only came out in the past 200 years or so. These dogmas teach us spirituality, and prayerful discernment of virtue vs sin, of having the life of Christ…

 

[KathleenGee]

Alex,

Agree with you…the Liturgy is capable of explaining mystery to us…which words can never fully explain…

In the meantime, I went back to the Universal Catechism. It is divided into 4 parts. The first part is the full explanation of the Creed found in the Profession of Faith, including the part, ‘and was born of the Virgin Mary’. The second part covers the Celebration of the Christian Mystery --Liturgy and Sacraments, sacramentals, and celebrations of funerals. The third part covers Life in Christ – Life in the Spirit-- the beatitudes, the conscience, morality, virtues and sin; the human community including social justice, and breakdown of the 10 commandments. The final part, (4), is Christian prayer.

Going back to the profession of faith, the heart of catechesis is Christ. In Article 3, “He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, and was born of the Virgin Mary”…Jesus became flesh in order to save us by reconciling us with God and that we might know God’s love. And the Word became flesh to be our model of holiness.

1. What the Catholic faith believes about Mary is based on what it believes about Christ, and what it teaches about Mary illumines in turn its faith in Christ.

Right there, considering the supreme act of love Almighty God did for mankind to reconcile us to His Son, truly the Blessed Mother also shared in this unique mission. Her mission is unique and undivided. How can she focus on any other than that of her Son’s and His salvation and redemption of the world??

1. Throughout the Old Covenant the mission of many holy women prepared for that of Mary…

We go from Eve to Sarah. Then God choosing the weak and powerless to show 'His faithfulness to his promises…through Hannah, Deborah, Ruth, Judith and Esther and many other women.

From there the catechism does continue on under the title, ‘The Immaculate Conception’.
491. Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, “full of grace” through God, was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses…

1. …The “splendor of an entirely unique holiness” by which Mary is “enriched from the first instant of her conception” comes wholly from Christ: she is redeemed in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son." The Father blessed Mary more than any other created person “in Christ wtih every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places” and chose her 'in Christ before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless before him in love."
2. The Fathers of the Eastern tradition call the Mother of God “the All-Holy” (Panagia) and celebrate her as “free from any stain of sin, as though fashioned by the Holy Spirit and formed as a new creature.” By the grace of God Mary remained free from every personal sin her whole life long.
3. Jesus is Mary’s only son, but her spiritual motherhood extends to all men whom indeed He came to save…
4. Mary is a virgin because her virginity is the sign of her faith 'unadulterated by any doubt", and of her undivided gift of herself to God’s will.

Recall, she asked the Angel Gabriel how could this be because she was virgin…a committed virgin and she would not give up her virginity, it already consecrated to God.

1. At once virgin and mother, Mary is the symbol and the most perfect realization of the Church: “the Church indeed … by receiving the Word of God in faith becomes herself a mother. By preaching and Baptism she brings forth sons, who are conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of God, to a ;new and immortal life. She herself is virgin, who keeps in its entirety and purity the faith she pledged to her spouse.”

Consecrating herself to God, God became her spouse.