Marian dogmas: important and essential for our salvation?

[Edwin78]

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 …

Well, maybe this is the reason:

Hi gurneyhalleck1

Well, I was thinking about it, and it struck me. What if the Marian doctrines are ultimately not a requirement for the salvation of man, but a requirement for identifying the True Church?

I was reminded by Mary’s song: the Magnificat.

Luke Chapter 1:
[46] And Mary said, "My soul magnifies the Lord,
[47] and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
[48] for he has regarded the low estate of his handmaiden.
For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed;
[49] for he who is mighty has done great things for me,
and holy is his name.
[50] And his mercy is on those who fear him
from generation to generation.
[51] He has shown strength with his arm,
he has scattered the proud in the conceit of their hearts,
[52] he has put down the mighty from their thrones,
and exalted those of low degree;
[53] he has filled the hungry with good things,
and the rich he has sent empty away.
[54] He has helped his servant Israel,
in remembrance of his mercy,
[55] as he spoke to our fathers,
to Abraham and to his posterity for ever."

Notice the verses after verse 48.

Those are prophecies.

“henceforth all generations will call me blessed…”

Of course, Mary has been called “blessed” by all generations since then.

And yet, how blessed is Mary? THAT is the main conundrum, isn’t it. Mary is blessed, but how much?

The Magnificat is a prophecy of what the True Church (“his servant Israel”) is: it must be the one that tries its utmost to know how much blessed the Blessed Virgin is. For how can you call someone “blessed” if you do not even know how blessed she is, right?

And how about those who would not listen to the True Church how blessed the Blessed Virgin is? Well…“He has scattered the proud in the conceit of their hearts.”

(EDIT) Wait…if the Marian Dogmas identify what the True Church is, then you should believe them to be part of the True Church…which IS a requirement for your own salvation.

…WHOA…

God bless us all through the Blessed Virgin.

 

[joe370]

Excellent point Kathleen. There are many catholics who really, have no deep devotion to Jesus’ mother. Mary’s soul will always magnify the Lord (My soul magnifies the Lord…) - and all people have recourse to her, but her soul will never detract attention away from our Lord and this is, sadly, what many non-Catholics believe happens when we ask Mary to pray for us.

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 …

To use an analogy from an ECF: If the church regardless of denomination, is the metaphorical moon that reflects the sun (Jesus) -onto the earth, then how much more does the mother of God, whose soul, in Heaven, not only reflects, but magnifies the sun onto the earth, if only we choose to go to her in prayer. Perhaps that is why Rev. portrays her as the queen clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet.
*
“A great and wondrous sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head.” *

Edwin , excellent point! You said:

The Magnificat is a prophecy of what the True Church (“his servant Israel”) is: it must be the one that tries its utmost to know how much blessed the Blessed Virgin is. For how can you call someone “blessed” if you do not even know how blessed she is, right?

All generations in the CC (as well as the EOC) - have referred to our mother Mary as blessed. Outside the CC no one ever, in my experience, refers to our mother Mary as blessed or as his/her mother, even though Mary is the mother of Jesus who is the Mystical Body, the church, ergo she is the mother of all Christians. As a former non-Catholic I know this to be true. To even mention, to our protestant brothers and sisters, our blessed mothers name, conjures up all kinds of imagery, in their minds of Mary worship. Very sad indeed…

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Catholicism in itself is highly legalistic, Kathleen. You know that. There are holy days of obligation, confession for mortal sins, penances handed out, laws against this, laws against that, satisfaction for sins, sins of omission, sins of veniality, eternal vs. temporal consequences, laws for liturgy, canon law, on and on and on. If anything, I’ve never heard a Catholic say, “be less legalistic!” Catholicism, unlike Orthodoxy, is endless laws and legalities. So to be a Catholic, one must look through that lens. We can’t change the goal posts half way into the game. Obviously I look at Mary as a spiritual person. You’re assuming a lot here. You’re assuming I haven’t prayed to her, don’t pray the rosary, haven’t thought and meditated a great deal on her role and holiness. You’d be wrong on all counts. I have indeed prayerfully sought her out. And you’re missing the fact, and I have said it a multitude of times here on this very thread, I have no problem believing in the perpetual virginity of Mary, the Assumption of BVM, or the immaculate conception of the BVM either. Not a problem. What I’ve said is that since these dogmas are infallible and anathemas understood along with them, I fail to see the significance of them to the salvation of the laity. That’s all. I’m not questioning the truth of them, but the relevance to salvation and as an ecumenical stumbling block. They are deal-breaking dogmas for converts who find them hard to accept and that seems to be a bad thing. Why must they be so codified, definite, and necessary is my question. I’m not putting a spirit of condemnation on anything? I’m not sure why you say that. And legalism isn’t getting in the way. Catholicism is legalism squared and to ignore these laws and rules is impossible in the environment Catholicism has created?

Guerny…

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]

Hey Gurney…

Catholicism in itself is highly legalistic, Kathleen. You know that. There are holy days of obligation, confession for mortal sins, penances handed out, laws against this, laws against that, satisfaction for sins, sins of omission, sins of veniality, eternal vs. temporal consequences, laws for liturgy, canon law, on and on and on. If anything, I’ve never heard a Catholic say, “be less legalistic!” Catholicism, unlike Orthodoxy, is endless laws and legalities. So to be a Catholic, one must look through that lens. We can’t change the goal posts half way into the game.

What would you change about the CC, legalistically speaking, so that they could be more orthodox?

Obviously I look at Mary as a spiritual person. You’re assuming a lot here. You’re assuming I haven’t prayed to her, don’t pray the rosary, haven’t thought and meditated a great deal on her role and holiness. You’d be wrong on all counts. I have indeed prayerfully sought her out. And you’re missing the fact, and I have said it a multitude of times here on this very thread, I have no problem believing in the perpetual virginity of Mary, the Assumption of BVM, or the immaculate conception of the BVM either. Not a problem. What I’ve said is that since these dogmas are infallible and anathemas understood along with them, I fail to see the significance of them to the salvation of the laity.

If they are true then why should they not be codified and believed by all? Why would they be too hard to accept? They seem pretty harmless and they don’t detract anything from Christ; just the opposite. We are saved by Jesus alone and we worship the creator (Jesus) - not the creature (the blessed Mary) - and salvation is found through the creator alone, not the creature, so why would anyone be against the codification of these doctrines? If belief in the official Trinitarian dogma, eventually defined in the 4th century or the 5th century dogma, theotokos, was mandatory for one’s salvation then a whole bunch of people that lived prior to the official defining of these 2 dogmas are in a whole lot of trouble, which of course is not the case, because we are saved by the atoning work of Jesus on the cross, alone - right? Perhaps the anathema’s have something to do with the binding and loosing regarding the church? Why do you think Jesus said the following to His church? It certainly seems like a blanket statement of authority. As a former protestant I never knew what to do with these word:

I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Nine_Two,

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.

Aaah, but I think you have mistaken the goose for a duck. Simply because one is not Catholic is by no means an automatic indication that one is anathematized. The principle of invincible ignorance was established by God Himself since OT times, demonstrated by the fact that according to His Laws, sins done willfully had a much more severe penalty than sins that were not done willfully. This is a principle that has been maintained by the Church down through the ages.

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.

Not at all. Anathemas differ from excommunications in another way that may not have been obvious in my previous explanation. Excommunications are not condemnations, but have a primarily corrective purpose. That is why it is effective only in this world - it is a hope that the excommunication will inspire an offender to correct him/herself. In stark distinction, anathemas are condemnations proper. Though anathemas may have a corrective effect, it’s primary purpose is as a condemnation. That is why, in line with what I noted earlier that anathemas have effect even beyond this mortal coil, the early Church imposed anathemas even on deceased persons. So to say “you can’t be Catholic if you deny this belief” (excommunication) is fundamentally different from saying “you are condemned if you deny this belief” (anathema).

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?

That’s a non-sequitur in several ways:

1. If communion were required for salvation in the way you mean, then that would mean that those who die as catechumens have no chance of salvation. Neither the Catholic nor Orthodox Churches teach such a thing.
2. If communion were required for salvation in the way you mean, that means that the universal practice of the early Church which imposed penances of minor excommunication (denial of the Eucharist) for as long as 20 years for some sins (!!!) must be condemned for they were actually placing the salvation of the souls of their flock in jeapardy!
3. If communion were required for salvation in the way you mean, then the EOC is in error for not teaching more definitively that non-Christians will go to hell (instead of the current admission that “we don’t know”).
   In short, what I’m saying is, bringing Christ’s exhortation on the necessity of communion into this discussion is a bit of a red herring.

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 already explained, the possibility of repentance is not the difference, since both an excommunication and an anathema can result in repentance. The real difference lies in the very purpose behind each act - an anathema is an actual condemnation, while an excommunication is not.

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.

The proscriptions attached to dogmas from the earliest days of Church have never been part of the dogma The dogma and the proscription together make up a Decree. The dogma is the theological part of the Decree, while the proscription is the disciplinary part of the Decree. Think about it. Let’s take the teaching of the divinity of the Holy Spirit. The decree establishing the dogma is promulgated, and the decree contains the proscription of an anathema for those who deny it. Here comes heretic A and heretic B who deny the dogma. The proscription applies to them and they are anathematized. But a week later, heretic A repudiates his error. If it is true that the proscription is part of the dogma, instead of being more generally part of the decree, then heretic A would still be anathematized even if he repented of his error, because dogmas can never be cancelled or rescinded. But, of course, the Church will rescind the anathema with respect to the former heretic. Since the anathema was rescinded, it cannot possibly be considered part of the dogma.

Taken from another angle – since dogmas are universal, it must apply to all people in all circumstances. In other words, it cannot be the case that it would be relevant for person A but not relevant for person B. The fact that a proscription can be relevant for heretic B in the previous discussion while losing its relevance for heretic A under a different circumstance demonstrates that proscriptions are not part of the dogma.

As stated earlier, proscriptions are disciplinary, and not dogmatic.

Conclusively, removing the proscription from the dogma would in no way impugn the principle of infallibility, either for a pope, a council or the Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Gurney,

Judging from your many examples, I think the word you are looking for is not “legalistic,” but the word “legal” – as in, “governed by law.” “Legalistic” does not mean “dependence on law” or even “excessive dependence on law.” “Legalistic” means “dependence or adherence to law to the point of harming those that the law is supposed to protect or serve.” That’s how Jesus used the word.

Catholicism in itself is highly legalistic, Kathleen. You know that. There are holy days of obligation, confession for mortal sins, penances handed out, laws against this, laws against that, satisfaction for sins, sins of omission, sins of veniality, eternal vs. temporal consequences, laws for liturgy, canon law, on and on and on. If anything, I’ve never heard a Catholic say, “be less legalistic!” Catholicism, unlike Orthodoxy, is endless laws and legalities. So to be a Catholic, one must look through that lens. We can’t change the goal posts half way into the game. Obviously I look at Mary as a spiritual person. You’re assuming a lot here. You’re assuming I haven’t prayed to her, don’t pray the rosary, haven’t thought and meditated a great deal on her role and holiness. You’d be wrong on all counts. I have indeed prayerfully sought her out. And you’re missing the fact, and I have said it a multitude of times here on this very thread, I have no problem believing in the perpetual virginity of Mary, the Assumption of BVM, or the immaculate conception of the BVM either. Not a problem. What I’ve said is that since these dogmas are infallible and anathemas understood along with them, I fail to see the significance of them to the salvation of the laity. That’s all. I’m not questioning the truth of them, but the relevance to salvation and as an ecumenical stumbling block. They are deal-breaking dogmas for converts who find them hard to accept and that seems to be a bad thing. Why must they be so codified, definite, and necessary is my question. I’m not putting a spirit of condemnation on anything? I’m not sure why you say that. And legalism isn’t getting in the way. Catholicism is legalism squared and to ignore these laws and rules is impossible in the environment Catholicism has created?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[KathleenGee]

Guerny.

I guess I wasn’t clear to you that I already acknowledged your devotion and fidelity to Mary.
On a previous post, I guess it is elsewhere, I pulled out the catechism…and it stated that the Church has been learning about Mary down through the centuries. And it also states that she represents the church, all our faith…the woman with the 12 stars around her head is both symbolic of the Church and of the perfect faith of Mary.

I never related to a plaster madonna. My devotion to Mary came later. But it came through experience, not through my head…what helped was studying the faith in practice…the walk of holiness taught by the doctors of the Church that in time helped me to understand the dogmas of Mary.

But what I am trying to say here is that during that time prior, I know I was not committing anathema.

And to understand Mary more and have confidence in Church teachings, some times it doesnt work through intellectual understanding but through experience. That’s all.

Certainly you have great devotion to Mary, to God and to working towards…(work!!! – the Bohemian…) possessing the Kingdom and an authentic faith!

 

[schaick]

Sorry if I missed it- What is the concrete evidence that proves one must believe in the Marian dogmas to be saved?

Someone said something very confusing aout the immaculate conception. It reminded me of the time I had to explain to Catholic family members that the Catholic celebration of the immaculate conception deals with Mary and not Jesus.

Of course Jesus was immaculately concieved and yes GOD could have had a SON through Mary whether she was immaculately concieved or not. To say it is not possible limits the power of our all powerfull GOD.

Not to confuse anyone, I am surprised that Catholics don’t realize that it is Jesus that is the “Ark of the New Covenant” and not Mary.

Mary for a short time - 9 months? was the tabernacle.

1 Corinthians 3
16Don’t you know that you yourselves are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit lives in you

Jesus’ blood being the New Covenant:
Matthew 26
28This is my blood of the[a] covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins
Footnotes:
Matthew 26:28 Some manuscripts the new

The Ark in Old Testament times represented the very presence of GOD, it was GOD’s throne. Mary in no way represents the presence of GOD. Jesus does, Jesus is.

2 Samuel 6
2 He and all his men set out from Baalah of Judah to bring up from there the ark of God, which is called by the Name, the name of the LORD Almighty, who is enthroned between the cherubim that are on the ark.

Isaiah 37
16 "O LORD Almighty, God of Israel, enthroned between the cherubim, you alone are God over all the kingdoms of the earth. You have made heaven and earth.

Jesus Christ our King:
Exodus 25
11And thou shalt overlay it with pure gold, within and without shalt thou overlay it, and shalt make upon it a crown of gold round about.

The Ark and Jesus went before the people:
John 10
4And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice.

Joshua 3
6And Joshua spake unto the priests, saying, Take up the ark of the covenant, and pass over before the people. And they took up the ark of the covenant, and went before the people.

 

[PRmerger]

Sorry if I missed it- What is the concrete evidence that proves one must believe in the Marian dogmas to be saved?

I, personally, cringe when I see questions with the phrase “concrete evidence” and which ask for “proof texts” as it applies to theology.

Atheists use the same modus and it’s fruitless.

Someone said something very confusing aout the immaculate conception. It reminded me of the time I had to explain to Catholic family members that the Catholic celebration of the immaculate conception deals with Mary and not Jesus.

Yes, sadly, there are more poorly catechized Catholics than Catholics who can “provide a reason for the hope that is in them”. :sad_yes:

Of course Jesus was immaculately concieved and yes GOD could have had a SON through Mary whether she was immaculately concieved or not. To say it is not possible limits the power of our all powerfull GOD.

Indeed.

 

[KathleenGee]

Schaick…

He was referring to recent dogmas…those coming out in 1856 or so and then 1954 regarding the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary into heaven.

Our profession of faith at Sunday Mass simplies says Christ was born of the Virgin Mary. It doesn’t say later on she wasn’t a virgin either.

But alot of people do not understand the reasoning behind the assumption of Mary because they do not understand Catholic spirituality. And you have to be ready, led by the Spirit in your faith walk to gain anything from learning about such spirituality. My time now is so busy that I do not have the focus to go into such studies. Fortunately I did it when my kids were napping or asleep at night. We have doctors of the Church who consistently explained it down through the ages to the point that the study helped us to understand Mary better.

Because studying Mary is studying the Christian practice of faith and spirituality and she is the model par excellence.

There have been great theologians in the Church who disputed these ideas that led to the dogmas. But also, there have been great events in favor of helping the Church through the intercession of Mary that caused greater reflection on her.

Thus, we had Mary appeared at Lourdes who named herself as the Immaculate Conception. Then we had the great and tragic events of the 20th century…and August 6 is the feast day of the Transfiguration of Christ…where He gives the apostles a foretaste of His coming divine ministry after His death and resurrection to August 15, the feast day of the Assumption of Mary into heaven.

I believe the first atomic bomb was dropped Aug 6 and the 2nd shortly after. One dropped directly over the Catholic Church in Nagasaki…where the Japanese Catholics worshipped…and we see them as assumed in fire to God…and the war ending around the date of Aug 15…then in '54, the Pope declared Mary was assumed into heaven.

If you don’t understand such dogmas, you are not condemned or made anathema. It is Christ who saves us. But the more we learn about Mary, we learn again about Christ, and subsequently ourselves. So Mary also represents the faith of all Christians and works actively for the support of our faith, our temporal and our walk in salvation to be with the Lord someday.

 

[KathleenGee]

This also came to me as well, Mary the peacemaker…I cannot see her wanting people condemned because they do not understand some spiritual points about her.

 

[Edwin78]

Sorry if I missed it- What is the concrete evidence that proves one must believe in the Marian dogmas to be saved?

Someone said something very confusing aout the immaculate conception. It reminded me of the time I had to explain to Catholic family members that the Catholic celebration of the immaculate conception deals with Mary and not Jesus.

Of course Jesus was immaculately concieved and yes GOD could have had a SON through Mary whether she was immaculately concieved or not. To say it is not possible limits the power of our all powerfull GOD.

Not to confuse anyone, I am surprised that Catholics don’t realize that it is Jesus that is the “Ark of the New Covenant” and not Mary.

Mary for a short time - 9 months? was the tabernacle.

1 Corinthians 3
16Don’t you know that you yourselves are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit lives in you

Jesus’ blood being the New Covenant:
Matthew 26
28This is my blood of the[a] covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins
Footnotes:
Matthew 26:28 Some manuscripts the new

The Ark in Old Testament times represented the very presence of GOD, it was GOD’s throne. Mary in no way represents the presence of GOD. Jesus does, Jesus is.

2 Samuel 6
2 He and all his men set out from Baalah of Judah to bring up from there the ark of God, which is called by the Name, the name of the LORD Almighty, who is enthroned between the cherubim that are on the ark.

Isaiah 37
16 "O LORD Almighty, God of Israel, enthroned between the cherubim, you alone are God over all the kingdoms of the earth. You have made heaven and earth.

Jesus Christ our King:
Exodus 25
11And thou shalt overlay it with pure gold, within and without shalt thou overlay it, and shalt make upon it a crown of gold round about.

The Ark and Jesus went before the people:
John 10
4And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice.

Joshua 3
6And Joshua spake unto the priests, saying, Take up the ark of the covenant, and pass over before the people. And they took up the ark of the covenant, and went before the people.

ALL Christians are the Arks of the Covenant now, for the Holy Spirit now dwells in us.

But before that…compare 2 Samuel 6 with Luke 1:39-57.

 

[Nine_Two]

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.

The Trinity is the nature of God, not the nature of Mary. God is necessary for salvation.

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? *
Ephesus declared that all Christians must recognize her as “theotokos”, however this again was a doctrine on the nature of God. Additionally the idea which that dogma teaches were already in the Nicene Creed (“And in one Lord Jesus Christ… Very God of very God”). Though Ephesus also added the line “born of the virgin Mary” to the Creed, there was not, as far as I can tell, any argument over who his mother was.

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?

Because they are about God, not Mary, even if Theotokos is directed at Mary it is still stating that Christ was God. That’s why the title Christotokos was deemed insufficient. It is perfectly correct but avoids the question of Christ’s godhood. Additionally they were held from the earliest times. The doctrine of the Trinity was defined at Nicea where the Bishops met to define the faith, and the dogma of the Theotokos at Ephesus in the face of heresy stating otherwise.

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?

If you have to believe it to be a member of a Church which states there is no salvation outside it, it is necessary for salvation.

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:

Then what’s the point of being a Catholic, if you can go anywhere for salvation?

 

[dianaiad]

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

Just a note, appropo of absolutely nothing, and not criticial of any use of initials here AT all–

I understand that “BVM” stands for “Blessed Virgin Mary.” I am not in any way criticising using initials to refer to her, either.

I’m just intrigued a little by my own reaction to seeing the initials; it’s really ironic, actually. Here I am, Mormon, who believes that Mary was a unique woman in many ways–but a woman like the rest of us nonetheless. I believe that she was born utterly innocent of sin, yes–but then I also believe everybody else is born utterly innocent of sin, too. I believe that she was a virgin at the birth of her Son, and that she was chosen for her role because she was extraordinary.

However, I do not believe that she needed to be a Perpetual Virgin. I think it is highly probable that she was fully a wife to Joseph, and probably had other children with him. I think she died a very human death (though I have no problems with the idea that she may be resurrected already and be with her Son, I don’t see any evidence of an ‘assumption’ anywhere. I believe that she is a remarkable, fully human in all ways, woman. Worthy of utmost respect and admiration, but not veneration to the extent Catholics view her. I do not believe that she is ‘co-redemptrix’ with Christ, however that is interpreted.

This is my belief.

So here’s a question (and again, it’s not a criticism of your use of the initials at all!!! ) Why, every time I see the initials “BVM” do *** I *** feel uncomfortable at the use of initials, rather than using her full title?

Ironic as all get out, isn’t it, considering that you, who are using the initials, venerate her in ways that I, who get uncomfortable when I see them used, do not.

I was just thinking that it was a weird, and ironic, reaction to something that y’all probably don’t think twice about–and is in no way a symbol of disrespect for her when you use them.

 

[beehumble]

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.

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?

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.

Catholic dogma holds that Blessed Mary was conceived immaculate - without sin - because she was to become the “vessel” that would hold The Holy One within her, but that all of us others are conceived with Original Sin, due to the fall of Adam and Eve. With the fall we became children of Satan, spiritually. At baptism, we are spiritually children of God. Baptism removes the “stain” of original sin.

I am not Scott Hahn. I am not a theologian - I am just a simple joe six-pack guy and these are my understandings - they are much deeper of course and volumes have been written on these issues but this is my simple way of expressing some of it.

Another dogma we have is that Blessed Mary was assumed body and soul into heaven at the end of her earthly life - Jesus took her bodily to heaven (clarification: ‘ascension’ of Jesus differs from ‘assumption’ - ascension means He went to heaven on His own power and will - we creatures cannot do that - ‘assumption’ means God took the person to heaven.) The dogma does not say whether she physically died first.

Protestants generally do not believe Blessed Mary was immaculately conceived - they say she is just like everybody else in all ways except the Virgin Birth. Catholics elevate her because God ‘favored’ her - so in imitation of God we too favor her (“if it’s good enough for God who knows all things to favor her, it’s good enough for us” we say )

And Protestants generally do not believe in the Assumption either.

Protestants for the most part are hostile to Blessed Mary, for some reason that Catholics do not understand. Why they don’t like her we do not have a clue. It seems more like a childish immature reaction against Catholicism - “since Catholics venerate her, and we scorn Catholics, we also shall scorn her”. I say this because they claim to follow Scripture tightly, yet Scripture says 1) God favored her and 2) “all generations will call me blessed” but they refuse to call her blessed in direct opposition to the Scriptures they claim to hold so dear (word hypocrite come to mind?)

Why we can’t worship Jesus and venerate all the saints including Mary is beyond our understanding. Protestants have set up a false choice of “either Jesus or Mary”. We worship Jesus and venerate Mary and the other saints.
(Along these lines, my formerly protestant wife, upon attending her first Mass - which is where we worship God - her first comment was “I did not hear much about Mary, so I was surprised.” To which I said “Mass is where we go to worship God - we do not worship Mary.” )

Anyway, those are our dogmas. And Muslims and Jews hold that the Holy God cannot become man who is sinful - they find it scandalous to say God became man. The Immaculate explains some of the ‘how’ - but admittedly not all.

God bless you.

 

[joe370]

Hey Nine_Two…

The Trinity is the nature of God, not the nature of Mary. God is necessary for salvation.

I was not questioning that the council was affirming the deity of Jesus Christ regarding the Trinitarian dogma or the fact that it was affirming the nature of God, as opposed to the nature of Mary. What I am saying is: Many good Christians in the 1st and 2nd century never heard of the dogmatic definition of the Trinity, especially the language used to define it, yet their salvation is not questioned, if they lived their faith as it was revealed to them? One cannot be judged by something of which they are unaware. Their salvation did not depend on whether or not they subscribed to the official 4th century Trinitarian dogma which was unknown to them. In other words, this dogma in its strictest defined form, was not necessary for those who never heard of it prior to its codification, yet it has been defined as mandatory for all Christians, since its codification and continues to be required reading, so to speak, for all Christians, under anathema, so why would any non-Catholic try to make the argument against the dogmas of Mary due to there late definition, considering the fact that they have no problem deferring to the Trinititarian dogma or Theotokos dogma, which were also defined, centuries later? I was simply attempting to illustrate the analog between the Marian dogmas that Carl considers an obstacles to converts due to their late definition and the Trinitarian dogma, as well as the dogma, Theotokos, which were also defined centuries after Jesus walked the earth and also were obstacles to new converts but were, nonetheless, still made mandatory under anathema, for those Christians living post 4th century.

Because they are about God, not Mary, even if Theotokos is directed at Mary it is still stating that Christ was God. That’s why the title Christotokos was deemed insufficient. It is perfectly correct but avoids the question of Christ’s godhood. Additionally they were held from the earliest times. The doctrine of the Trinity was defined at Nicea where the Bishops met to define the faith, and the dogma of the Theotokos at Ephesus in the face of heresy stating otherwise.

It had nothing to do with Mary, at all? I agree that Theotokos has more to do with what it says about Jesus than any declaration about Mary, but it does have something to do with Mary. It confirms that she gave birth to God** as opposed to just a man **which is critical today, for many still believe that Mary did not. Just as was the case then, some protestants still insist that Mary cannot be truly Theotokos, but only Christotokos, so of course, I agree that the council of Ephesus was about confirming that Jesus Christ was both fully God and fully human upon his birth, as opposed to just being human, and by calling Mary, Theotokos, affirmed the fullness of God’s incarnation upon his birth, but it also confirmed that Mary was in fact truly the mother of God, which many were opposing and still oppose.

Then what’s the point of being a Catholic, if you can go anywhere for salvation?

Ask the CC or the EOC for that matter: 818 “However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers … All who have been justified by faith in Baptism **are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.”**272]

819 “Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth”[273] are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: “the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.”[274] Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,[275] and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.”[276]

 

[dianaiad]

Catholic dogma holds that Blessed Mary was conceived immaculate - without sin - because she was to become the “vessel” that would hold The Holy One within her, but that all of us others are conceived with Original Sin, due to the fall of Adam and Eve. With the fall we became children of Satan, spiritually. At baptism, we are spiritually children of God. Baptism removes the “stain” of original sin.
Anyway, those are our dogmas. And Muslims and Jews hold that the Holy God cannot become man who is sinful - they find it scandalous to say God became man. The Immaculate explains some of the ‘how’ - but admittedly not all.

God bless you.

Thanks, Beehumble…

I can’t speak for Protestants and why they don’t think as highly of Mary as Catholics do (or even whether they do so or not.) I can only speak for me.

I don’t see the problem with Catholics venerating Saints and Mary, either–at least, I don’t think that the fact that you DO means that you do not worship God, or that you put Mary and the Saints as equal with Him.

As a Mormon, I do believe that Mary is very blessed; she was, and is; being Jesus’ mother is an incredible calling and role. I would be the last to downplay it.

 

[mark_a]

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"

That seems ok to me. Its just my opinion though.

That’s a little more tricky. But why would I want to be a member of a Church whose non-negotiables I cannot believe?

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

Again, it would seem ok to me.

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

That would seem ok too, although the importance of the mystery would seem to drive folks to dig a little deeper.

I am reminded of the questions folks are asked before baptism and confirmation. They are very simple questions and don’t dive deeply into the whatnot of dogma.

I have always presumed that the Catholic approach would be similar to the Orthodox approach. No?

 

[jmcrae]

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.

You said that the Council of Nicea taught nothing about Mary - my point was that, yes they did. They showed us that Mary was a perpetual virgin, and that she was important in her self - not only because she gave birth (because those who gave birth but made no other contributions to our salvation are not listed by name in the Scriptures - only their husbands’ names are given) - if Mary were not important in her self, then it would have been phrased, “He was begotten of Joseph,” or else “He was born of the wife of Joseph”. And if she had not been a perpetual virgin (which is taught only by the Catholic Church) then they would not have referred to her as “The Virgin Mary,” but rather as, “the wife of Joseph, who was a virgin at that time,” or else, “of Mary, who was a virgin at that time.”

By naming her, they show that she is important in her self, and by giving her the title Virgin, they give us the first Marian Dogma.

But WHY does “assumed body and soul” and “born immaculate” aid my salvation?

Because Mary is the prototype of the Church. Her relationship with Christ is an image of what ours should look like. We, too, will one day be assumed body and soul into Heaven, if we are related to Christ in the way that she was. We, too, need to become without sin through Christ, as she was. Knowing (I hope) that Mary is the one loved most by Jesus, we look to Mary to imitate her, and to become as much like her as we can, because, since Jesus loves her best, we also ought to love her, with Him.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

But ultimately is Mary the propotype or is Christ? She was born immaculate but Christ is also born without sin and He is our rubric for what a human should be like. He is our mediator, according to Scripture, not a hint of Mary being so. The early church was right to credit her as Theotokos, mother of God, because she is. But the Council of Nicea wasn’t focused on Mary, it was focused on Christ. It wasn’t focused on her as a prototype, “be just like Mary” type of thrust, it was using Mary to show Christ’s God-Man status and that He was begotten, not made. That truth didn’t depend on an assumption for Mary or a perpetual virginity for Mary or an immaculate birth for Mary. It really wasn’t focused on her at all, but needed to reference her for the great role she played in showing the heretics that Arius was wrong in his idea that Christ was a created being. He wasn’t. Mary shows that. So the Marian prototype example isn’t something I necessarily buy.

You said that the Council of Nicea taught nothing about Mary - my point was that, yes they did. They showed us that Mary was a perpetual virgin, and that she was important in her self - not only because she gave birth (because those who gave birth but made no other contributions to our salvation are not listed by name in the Scriptures - only their husbands’ names are given) - if Mary were not important in her self, then it would have been phrased, “He was begotten of Joseph,” or else “He was born of the wife of Joseph”. And if she had not been a perpetual virgin (which is taught only by the Catholic Church) then they would not have referred to her as “The Virgin Mary,” but rather as, “the wife of Joseph, who was a virgin at that time,” or else, “of Mary, who was a virgin at that time.”

By naming her, they show that she is important in her self, and by giving her the title Virgin, they give us the first Marian Dogma.

Because Mary is the prototype of the Church. Her relationship with Christ is an image of what ours should look like. We, too, will one day be assumed body and soul into Heaven, if we are related to Christ in the way that she was. We, too, need to become without sin through Christ, as she was. Knowing (I hope) that Mary is the one loved most by Jesus, we look to Mary to imitate her, and to become as much like her as we can, because, since Jesus loves her best, we also ought to love her, with Him.