Marian dogmas: important and essential for our salvation?

[jmcrae]

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.

Certainly it does. What do you think is embodied in the phrase “born of the Virgin Mary”?

First, we have a hint of the Immaculate Conception, since Jesus is not only born, but born to a particular woman who is mentioned by name - you have probably noticed in the Scriptures that women are not mentioned by name unless they have a definite role, beyond the role of simply giving birth, in the history of our salvation - so, we know that there is something special about this woman, that is different from ordinary women - they note that she is a Virgin - we know from their writings that the early Fathers did not give the title “Virgin” to anyone except one who died in that state; we do not hear of the Virgin Elizabeth, for example (although certainly at some point in her life she must have been a virgin) but we hear of the Virgin Barbara, who did in fact die in the state of virginity, and the Virgin Agnes, likewise - so when we hear the same group of men speak of the Virgin Mary, we know that they believed her to have died in the state of virginity - thus, they teach us that she was a perpetual virgin.

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 Council of Ephesus bestowed on Mary the title Theotokos, (the Mother of God) to remind us that Jesus is True God and True Man - so in at least one instance, we see the teaching about Mary directly applied to what we know about Jesus.

 

[jmcrae]

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” ?

You can say “I don’t know,” and “I don’t understand,” but to be a Catholic, you will also say, “I believe - help thou mine unbelief,” because you know that the Church cannot lie to you, since it speaks with God’s voice.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Nine_Two,

Section 47 of “Munificentissimus deus”, the bull defining the doctrine.

It doesn’t say anathema (in this translation), but it does say it will bring down the wrath of God on anyone who opposes it, which is essentially what anathema is.

There are several relevant points I ask you to consider:

1. Section 47 is not a proscription against denial of the dogma; rather, it is a proscription against opposing the authority of the Church. The proscription against the denial of the dogma is contained in Section 45.
2. The proscriptions of the most recent Marian dogmas are not anathemas. Anathemas are positive penalities assigned through the power of the keys given by Christ to the Church. In other words, the Church is actively taking responsibility in the condemnation.

If you read the proscriptions of the most recent Marian dogmas more carefully, you will notice that they do not do this. The responsibility for the penalty rests not with the Church imposing the penalty, but with the person opposing the definition.

1. The proscriptions contained in the most recent Marian dogmas are excommunications, not anathemas. There is a distinction between an anathema and an excommunication in terms of the severity of the penalty. An excommunication has affect only in this life; an anathema, in distinction, has affect beyond this mortal coil. An excommunication does not call one’s salvation into question, but merely excludes one from the visible communion of the Church. As another poster stated earlier, the Marian dogmas, in distinction from Christological dogmas, should not be regarded as Truths necessary for salvation, but rather as Truths necessary to identify one’s membership in the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church.

I’ve debated this issue in the past, and one of the opposing rejoinders is that though the distinction I pointed out existed during the middle ages, it no longer existed by the time the dogma of the IC was promulgated (and in fact no longer exists today). I respond by pointing out that Vatican 1 did in fact still issue anathemas. Conclusively, if Pio Nono intended to attach an anathema to the dogma of the IC, he would have indeed done so.

As an aside, it should be noted that proscriptions are not a necessary part of a dogma. If this concern over salvation in relation to Marian dogmas ever becomes serious enough, it is theoretically possible to have the proscriptions removed. However, the objective status of these dogmas as Truths from God will always remain.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Mary is a creature, a created being like we are. Even if she is immaculate, she is a creature, albeit a holy one. Mary is not essential for our salvation or necessary. She played a huge role in delivering the one who IS our salvation, and we love her for it. I do. But she is not my salvation. Her sweet son is. Paul spells out for us over and over what we need for salvation as do the other epistles and Gospels. Mary is never mentioned as necessary. And Holy Orthodoxy never makes this point either.

Who has told you this? Who or what are your sources? All I can say is that it is wrong.

Blessings

 

[Nine_Two]

Mary is necessary for our Salvation. Without her, you have no Jesus. If you think you can embrace the Son without His mother you are mistaken.

By that logic, Ruth, as an ancestor of Jesus, is necessary for our salvation. Why does she not have special veneration?

 

[OneAugustKnight]

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?

Saint Gabriel is a Saint with a capital S because we know he is in Heaven and we know what his name is. All people and angels in Heaven are saints, if we know their name they get a capital S. The Church has never canonized angels, but St Michael, St. Gabriel, and St Raphael are given the title Saint when we speak of them because they have always been in Heaven. They were even called Saint before there was a formalized canonization process, as were a number of holy individuals and martyrs.

 

[Nine_Two]

Saint Gabriel is a Saint with a capital S because we know he is in Heaven and we know what his name is. All people and angels in Heaven are saints, if we know their name they get a capital S. The Church has never canonized angels, but St Michael, St. Gabriel, and St Raphael are given the title Saint when we speak of them because they have always been in Heaven. They were even called Saint before there was a formalized canonization process, as were a number of holy individuals and martyrs.

To add t that, it should also be remembered that “Saint” and “Holy” are the same word in most languages, only English (as far as I know) draws a distinction. When one is called a “saint” one is saying they are “holy”, and as you say, those who are in heaven are holy.

 

[Nine_Two]

1. Section 47 is not a proscription against denial of the dogma; rather, it is a proscription against opposing the authority of the Church. The proscription against the denial of the dogma is contained in Section 45.

Ok.

1. The proscriptions of the most recent Marian dogmas are not anathemas. Anathemas are positive penalities assigned through the power of the keys given by Christ to the Church. In other words, the Church is actively taking responsibility in the condemnation.

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and says you can’t be Catholic if you disagree with it, it’s an anathema.

If you read the proscriptions of the most recent Marian dogmas more carefully, you will notice that they do not do this. The responsibility for the penalty rests not with the Church imposing the penalty, but with the person opposing the definition.

Anathema is simply a pronouncement, in Greek, that something is “devoted to evil, an accursed thing” (Liddell and Scott), saying “you can’t be Catholic if you hold this belief” is certainly much nicer and more polite, but the end result is the same. It’s semantics.

1. The proscriptions contained in the most recent Marian dogmas are excommunications, not anathemas. There is a distinction between an anathema and an excommunication in terms of the severity of the penalty. An excommunication has affect only in this life; an anathema, in distinction, has affect beyond this mortal coil. An excommunication does not call one’s salvation into question, but merely excludes one from the visible communion of the Church. As another poster stated earlier, the Marian dogmas, in distinction from Christological dogmas, should not be regarded as Truths necessary for salvation, but rather as Truths necessary to identify one’s membership in the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church.

I’m aware of the distinction between anathema and excommunication, however given that the question is why are the Marian dogma’s necessary for salvation, and since it is accepted that Communion is required for salvation, why is the Church putting a persons salvation into grave uncertainty for those who don’t believe?

I’ve debated this issue in the past, and one of the opposing rejoinders is that though the distinction I pointed out existed during the middle ages, it no longer existed by the time the dogma of the IC was promulgated (and in fact no longer exists today). I respond by pointing out that Vatican 1 did in fact still issue anathemas. Conclusively, if Pio Nono intended to attach an anathema to the dogma of the IC, he would have indeed done so.

I would have argued that had you not said this, however the fact remains that the difference is academic, even if there is a real difference. To be cut off from the sacraments is to be cut off from the Church, that it is expected that it should be lifted should the subject repent is the only real difference.

As an aside, it should be noted that proscriptions are not a necessary part of a dogma. If this concern over salvation in relation to Marian dogmas ever becomes serious enough, it is theoretically possible to have the proscriptions removed. However, the objective status of these dogmas as Truths from God will always remain.

It is generally accepted, from what I’ve read, that Pius XII issued the bull ex cathedra, and the proscriptions are part of that bull. If parts of ex cathedra statements can be discarded, then that brings the idea of infallibility into even further disrepute, but that is not the focus of this thread.

 

[AnneElliot]

By that logic, Ruth, as an ancestor of Jesus, is necessary for our salvation. Why does she not have special veneration?

Ruth does have a kind of special veneration… she is one of the few women mentioned in the genealogy of Jesus.

Ruth, however, is not necessary for our salvation in the same sense the Mary is. Are we indebted to Ruth for her cooperation with her part in God’s plan? In a sense. But we are indebted to Mary in a very particular way, not just because she said “Fiat” in response to St. Gabriel, and not just because she gave birth to Jesus… Mary’s entire life is bound up with the life of Christ (this is the essential truth of the Rosary), so much so that her role in God’s plan of Salvation hasn’t ceased. She is the Queen Mother of the Church, interceding on behalf of her children to the King. From Heaven, she distributes God’s graces to us. No other Saint has this sort of cooperation and role in salvation history.

“God has committed to the Blessed Virgin Mary the treasury of all good things in order that everyone may know that through her are obtained every hope, every grace and all salvation.” Pope Pius IX, Ubi Primum, February 2 1894

 

[KathleenGee]

For a long time I did not understand the assumption of Mary. I put it aside. That did not make me anathema and not understanding everything doesn’t mean one is a heretic or anathema. It took the Church almost 2000 years to understand Mary to declare dogmas about her. To condemn some individual because they cannot phanthom certain points of the Credo is incorrect and not Christ like.

 

[Nine_Two]

For a long time I did not understand the assumption of Mary. I put it aside. That did not make me anathema and not understanding everything doesn’t mean one is a heretic or anathema. It took the Church almost 2000 years to understand Mary to declare dogmas about her. To condemn some individual because they cannot phanthom certain points of the Credo is incorrect and not Christ like.

In the case of the Annunciation of Mary, this is something that has been part of the church teaching for at least 1500 years (the tradition, if correct, would have to itself date right back to the assumption, but it has been taught since at least this point). It is a very common belief in the East (I personally believe it, though I know people who don’t). This makes it quite difficult to accept that the Church has only recently come to understand it, since it did explicitly exist with wide acceptance during the age of the councils prior to the Great Schism, in fact I’m unaware of any great Church Father (East or West) who argued against it. At no time, however, did the Father’s declare that it was dogma.

While I can understand the idea of development when applied to something like the Immaculate Conception (even if I disagree with it), when you’re dealing with something that is supposed to be a historical event (it either did or didn’t happen, there is no “leading” to this idea) that just doesn’t cut it, especially when we know it has been around for such a long time.

I find it interesting though that while the Catholic Church has no belief regarding whether she died or not, the Orthodox Church teaches that she did in fact die (with the bit about her assumption after being a pious opinion, which is what the Catholic Church held it to be prior to 1950).

edit: I should clarify, the Catholic Church held the assumption to be pious opinion prior to 1950, no idea what the Church held regarding whether she lived or died, I would assume that was the same as now.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Jm, don’t insult me with the opening question. We’re both fairly bright folks, right? I hope you don’t think I’m lacking brain cells to the point that I need you to point out Christ being born of the Virgin Mary. I’m up to snuff on that tidbit so thanks. I’m good.

But WHY does “assumed body and soul” and “born immaculate” aid my salvation? Giving us details on the life of Mary is nice, interesting, maybe even edifying to some degree. Filling in blanks is great. But why is it infallibly something that all Catholics MUST believe or their salvation is imperiled? You keep mentioning the holiness, special nature of, and love for Mary. I share it and have no problem believing the dogmas, as I’ve repeatedly said. My question is, why are these facts mandatory belief for Catholics, deal-breakers if you will? And I don’t think the Assumption of the BVM tells me anything about Christ other than He loves His mother which I already knew before the assumption? Elijah was assumed on a chariot. It’s awesome. It’s fascinating. It’s miraculous. But it doesn’t change my salvific walk any. Jesus is the Way, the Truth, the Life, and Mediator, the Lamb. Knowing about how His mother was born or died should not imperil salvation if we accept and follow and believe deeply in the Son of Man.

Certainly it does. What do you think is embodied in the phrase “born of the Virgin Mary”?

First, we have a hint of the Immaculate Conception, since Jesus is not only born, but born to a particular woman who is mentioned by name - you have probably noticed in the Scriptures that women are not mentioned by name unless they have a definite role, beyond the role of simply giving birth, in the history of our salvation - so, we know that there is something special about this woman, that is different from ordinary women - they note that she is a Virgin - we know from their writings that the early Fathers did not give the title “Virgin” to anyone except one who died in that state; we do not hear of the Virgin Elizabeth, for example (although certainly at some point in her life she must have been a virgin) but we hear of the Virgin Barbara, who did in fact die in the state of virginity, and the Virgin Agnes, likewise - so when we hear the same group of men speak of the Virgin Mary, we know that they believed her to have died in the state of virginity - thus, they teach us that she was a perpetual virgin.

The Council of Ephesus bestowed on Mary the title Theotokos, (the Mother of God) to remind us that Jesus is True God and True Man - so in at least one instance, we see the teaching about Mary directly applied to what we know about Jesus.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Hi Kathleen,
Blessings to you. To whom is this post directed?

For a long time I did not understand the assumption of Mary. I put it aside. That did not make me anathema and not understanding everything doesn’t mean one is a heretic or anathema. It took the Church almost 2000 years to understand Mary to declare dogmas about her. To condemn some individual because they cannot phanthom certain points of the Credo is incorrect and not Christ like.

 

[KathleenGee]

Hi Guerny,

…Anybody…but again, the context. I never opposed Mary. I didn’t relate to a dogma…I had a certain faith though that some day it would make sense…so in the meantime, that does not make me anathema…or anyone else who goes to Mass, professes faith in the Virgin Mary at Mass, but may not understand in depth the reasoning of faith regarding her dogmas.

Nine Two brings up the Annunciation…I never doubted that one.

But look at what is going on in the world, how Catholics join organizations that degrade human life or organizations contrary to Catholic teaching and devalue human beings…that context is certainly different than a person not understanding the parts of the Profession of Faith in the Creed.

I don’t believe it, no priest would consider declaring their parishioners anathema who don’t understand the dogmas…the same people respect and venerate Mary…

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Hi Kathleen,

A moderate and intelligent position I’d say. But the problem I’d point out is, this is one of the few times, especially in modernity, that a pope spoke infallibly and everyone agrees it’s infallible. We could talk about Humanae Vitae or Apostolicae Curae, etc. and you’ll hear some Catholics say, “that’s not infallible” or “yeah, it is.” But with these Marian proclamations, they actually were deemed infallible and set in stone as necessary, binding, de fide for Catholics. So they are essential to salvation when they’re infallibly proclaimed and required for belief. If a Catholic says, “not buyin’ it” then they’re imperiling their salvation by rejecting infallible statements I’d say. This isn’t one of those speculative things one can choosen to say yea or nay on really. I personally don’t see why they were considered so important that they were elevated to proclamations by popes infallibly and considered so crucial, deal-breakers? And I totally don’t see how they tie to salvation at all. Nice info to know, interesting, speculative, fascinating, maybe even edifying, but salvation-attached and totally necessary? huh?

Hi Guerny,

…Anybody…but again, the context. I never opposed Mary. I didn’t relate to a dogma…I had a certain faith though that some day it would make sense…so in the meantime, that does not make me anathema…or anyone else who goes to Mass, professes faith in the Virgin Mary at Mass, but may not understand in depth the reasoning of faith regarding her dogmas.

Nine Two brings up the Annunciation…I never doubted that one.

But look at what is going on in the world, how Catholics join organizations that degrade human life or organizations contrary to Catholic teaching and devalue human beings…that context is certainly different than a person not understanding the parts of the Profession of Faith in the Creed.

I don’t believe it, no priest would consider declaring their parishioners anathema who don’t understand the dogmas…the same people respect and venerate Mary…

 

[PRmerger]

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?

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 the dogma of the Immaculate Conception was not newly formed in 1854. It was 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 1854 as the time to pronounce, declare and define this belief and practice.

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

 

[PRmerger]

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

'zactly! :extrahappy: :bowdown:

To ask whether a belief is necessary for salvation represents, what apologist Mary Shea rather cheekily calls, the “adult minimal daily requirement” question. IOW, it’s the exact WRONG question to be asking.

No lover asks “What’s the absolute bare minimum amount of contact with my Beloved I can get away with?” Similarly, if, as the Church claims, the fullness of revelation subsists in the Catholic communion, then “How little contact with the fullness of revelation can I get away with?” is the exact wrong question for somebody who is serious about discipleship to Christ.-Mark Shea

 

[KathleenGee]

Guerny…

It must be on another thread…I pulled from the Catechism that the Church has been growing in its understanding of Mary down through the centuries.

I put in a sensationalistic reference to the timing of the proclamation of Mary’s assumption into heaven proceeding from the August 6 Feast of the Transfiguration where Christ gave the Apostles a foretaste of his forthcoming Divine ministry following His death and Resurrection…and the timing of the atomic bomb, and many people assumed into the fire…the bomb dropped over the Catholic church in Nagasaki as well…and although the German Jesuits survived at Hiroshima…the devout Japanese Catholics were assumed into heaven through death.

The wages of sin is death. Mary did not sin, so did she experience death as a sinner would? I would think she died as Jesus had to die…but she is a creature and was not the ransom for us…so I can see why the Church can not define her manner…

But I believe the passing of centuries that taught us about the faith and holiness of Mary and her intercession, and the events of the 20th century on mankind seemed to accelerate the Holy Father to define her dogma in 1954. And the universal church recognized the Holy Spirit at work and accepted this in faith.

There are various degrees of truth. In the Church, the first degree is the spirit of the Church and its guidance that is the unity of the Holy Father, the bishops and believers. The second degree of truth is found in our church book, the catechism, the third degree of truth is found in the papacy and from that there are various degrees of truth in different encyclicals. A lay catechist told me one pope wrote an encyclical that all seminaries had to teach in Latin. Well, nobody followed that pope. So it must regard faith and morals, and be universally binding…and in God’s time as what happened with the dogmas of Mary.

I don’t know what else to say about it but that I think you are looking at this one point as too legalistic without the experience of the faith of the Church. I think some one hit it when h/she said Mary’s faith was really representing the entire Church’s faith; I see her as co-worker in Christ’s mission reflected in the Magnificat that was shared by that poster.

I would say to look more to Mary as a spiritual person than look at church rules and litigation…because it seems to be putting a spirit of condemnation on honest questioning and searching.

 

[joe370]

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?

That is a good point Carl. Of course the same could be said about the Trinity, embraced by all Christians, protestant or otherwise, today, as being necessary/mandatory. The Council of Nicea in 325 AD, affirmed the deity of Jesus Christ and established an official definition of the Trinity—the deity of The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit under one Godhead, in three co-equal and co-eternal Persons which was doubted by many up to that point.

Theotokos *decreed by the council of Ephesus in 431, was not dogmatically defined until 431 AD and was questioned by many up to that point. It stated that Mary was truly the Mother of God. Nestorianism at the time was teaching that Mary gave birth to only a man, and not the Logos, God the Son, and that God the Son merely dwelt within Jesus the man and this is believed by many protestants to this day. That dogma was not necessary for 300 plus years. If they are necessary, wouldn’t they have been necessary prior to the 5th century?

If the Trinity or Theotokos were necessary, why were they not necessary/mandatory prior to their definitions? The answer, doctrines develop in time, just as the NT took 300 years to reach its definitive moment. Do you really believe that the salvation of those Christians living prior to the dogmatic definitions of the New Testament, the Trinity or the Theotokos could have been in jeopardy? Of course not. The same principle applies here with the dogmatic definitions of Mary - right?

I searched through every papal bull, decree, encyclical that I could and came up empty handed regarding the dogmas of Mary being a source of our salvation. We are saved by JC only. I could also ask you: Why did the Trinitarian dogma which was optional suddenly become mandatory?

What I did discover is that one can fall away from what the CC teaches if they choose to reject her teachings, which is the case in every church, and we all know that the church believes that salvation can be found in other churches according to the CCC:

*"…by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory. Hence **if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.

---

 

[KathleenGee]

Joe,

Thanks for researching…because that was what I was thinking…the basic is that we believe in the profession of faith in the Creed…Christ was born of the Virgin Mary…and it doesn’t profess anything else other than she was virgin as well…

About the dogmas of Mary…those are pretty deep…hard to understand for many …I can’t see how the Church can bind people to understand it …