Marian dogmas: important and essential for our salvation?

[jmcrae]

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.

Jesus died on the Cross for our sins, but He doesn’t pray for us - Mary prays to Jesus for us. Jesus is the one being prayed to; not the one doing the praying.

Jesus is our Mediator, but Mary is our intercessor. Of course, like her, we should all be intercessors. She should not be unique in that regard. But she sets the example for us to imitate.

Jesus is the type of Adam, and the prototype of the Christian priesthood. We can’t be like Him, though, because He is divine. Mary is human, and imitated Him in every way that is possible for a human being, so it is she who is our model.

A friend of mine likes to say, There are two ways to become a Christian - either you can do it Jesus’ way, by means of being broken on the Cross, or you can do it Mary’s way, by being poured into a model of grace. Mary’s way is less painful, I think.

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.

Right, and you can see then already how it is that the teachings about Mary show us Christ more clearly.

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.

The other topics weren’t under discussion at that time, and even in modern Catechesis, they tend to be discussed in different lessons. It isn’t necessary to say everything about Mary all in one speech, or all in one Council.

Mary is a prototype of the Church in the Book of Revelation, chapter 12. She is a prototype of what our relationship with Christ should look like. Mary was immaculate; we, too, should be without sin. Mary was assumed into Heaven; so will we be. Her Assumption affirms the promise made to us - we can say “Yes, this will happen, because we know it has already happened, to Mary.” She is us.

 

[KathleenGee]

Very good explanations here…

We as Catholics are not relating to God not only as individuals, but as a Church…together.

I went to Mass after Christmas this year…dreary Sunday morning…but sitting on the side, I got inspired and sensed the Holy Spirit carrying the people as a whole closer to Christ as they faced the altar…and also as a Church together going to the Lord for eternity.

 

[PRmerger]

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

The Catholic Church agrees. Necromancy is forbidden.

However, the saints are not dead. They are alive. See 1 John 5:13.

There’s a reason it’s called eternal LIFE and not eternal DEATH.

 

[Hesychios]

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.

I agree, wholeheartedly.

But it isn’t up to her … something about ‘wrath’.

 

[KathleenGee]

Michael…

So we have to trust in God’s mercy for ourselves and each other. Each day the sun comes back up, I see it as a sign hope and mercy…God giving me another numbered day…

 

[Nine_Two]

I saw this this morning and there were a few points I meant to respond to but coulding because I was in a hurry to get out.

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).

The difference I’d say is that the excommunication says “You have erred and need to look at what you are doing, hopefully this will force you to.” while the anathema says “You have erred in a way that is dangerous to the community and until you repent we can have nothing to do with you.” Excommunication may leave the door open a bit more but that is still semantic.

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.

Actually if you read the Canons of the Councils and what they say about excommunication, if one is in danger of death one is to be given communion regardless. If they recover they resume their status of not being allowed communion, but they are nonetheless allowed it that one time. Communion is the partaking of the body and blood of our Lord and savior for the forgiveness of sins, though it does not directly change whether or not one has gained salvation, it is of extreme importance, which is why Last Rites have always been so important (to the extent that, as I said, the canons specify that they are to be granted to any Christian regardless of their status in the communion).

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.

The proscription is attached to the dogma, but has been stated infallibility. If you believe the pronouncement was Ex Cathedra then all of it was, including the proscriptions, if those parts aren’t, why should anyone believe the rest was?

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

I never said they were dogmatic, only that they were infallibly decreed.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Great post, jm, I enjoyed it greatly. Great way of looking at things. Thanks!

Jesus died on the Cross for our sins, but He doesn’t pray for us - Mary prays to Jesus for us. Jesus is the one being prayed to; not the one doing the praying.

Jesus is our Mediator, but Mary is our intercessor. Of course, like her, we should all be intercessors. She should not be unique in that regard. But she sets the example for us to imitate.

Jesus is the type of Adam, and the prototype of the Christian priesthood. We can’t be like Him, though, because He is divine. Mary is human, and imitated Him in every way that is possible for a human being, so it is she who is our model.

A friend of mine likes to say, There are two ways to become a Christian - either you can do it Jesus’ way, by means of being broken on the Cross, or you can do it Mary’s way, by being poured into a model of grace. Mary’s way is less painful, I think.

Right, and you can see then already how it is that the teachings about Mary show us Christ more clearly.

The other topics weren’t under discussion at that time, and even in modern Catechesis, they tend to be discussed in different lessons. It isn’t necessary to say everything about Mary all in one speech, or all in one Council.

Mary is a prototype of the Church in the Book of Revelation, chapter 12. She is a prototype of what our relationship with Christ should look like. Mary was immaculate; we, too, should be without sin. Mary was assumed into Heaven; so will we be. Her Assumption affirms the promise made to us - we can say “Yes, this will happen, because we know it has already happened, to Mary.” She is us.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

The concerns I still have about the Marian devotions and theology are pretty simple. First of all, she isn’t mentioned by Paul or in the Epistles or Acts, etc. as an intercessor or the new Eve or the Ark or the chief intercessor, etc. that we see the CC talk about. Secondly, the early Church did talk about her role and compare her to the new Eve but the level of chief intercessor and the high level she has now was nowhere near what she was considered then? The Mary I see in Scripture is quiet, humble, and always, always, always points to Jesus “do what he says”…but in the appartitions, while still focused on her Son, she asks for people to make medals with her face on it, statues with her face, consecrate things to her and not Jesus, and things are more focused on her by her, less on Christ. I’m still looking into these apparitions and deciding how I feel about them. They sound like a different Mary to me sometimes. But the message is also powerful and deep, and the miracles evidenced by so many. Jury’s still out.

 

[nilofc]

From all the posts I read form this thread, there are two things that separates those who believe and accepts the dogmas about Mother Mary…and those who don’t.

INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE.

Yes… it is possible that you may obtain salvation without these Marian Truths (which is true for all generations…from Adam to Joe Six Pack from the pew)…only because you didn’t know (Refer to CCC)

But to reject what the Church teaches about Mary…rejects Christ (Luke 10:16)

I don’t think you can claim Invincible ignorance having known that these Marian Truths were proclaimed Dogmas by the mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church.

So to answer the Thread’s original question… it is not necessary, if you haven’t come across it…although, for all the people who have responded in this thread…I believe, IT IS, whether you are catholic or not.

By the way, anyone who is ignorance of this, will come to know and accept these truths before they even enter the gates of heaven since nothing Undefiled and imperfect will ever enter the Kingdom of God. And the Kingdom of God is the Church…

On a personal note… I believe that you will become a member of the Catholic Church and accept these Marian Truths if you wish to enter heaven…the choice may not be necessarily made here on earth… but you will make that choice.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Nine_Two,

I saw this this morning and there were a few points I meant to respond to but coulding because I was in a hurry to get out.

No explanation necessary, brother - this is coming from one who has a habit of leaving a discussion for several weeks or months without any warning because of my real-life obligations.

The difference I’d say is that the excommunication says “You have erred and need to look at what you are doing, hopefully this will force you to.” while the anathema says “You have erred in a way that is dangerous to the community and until you repent we can have nothing to do with you.” Excommunication may leave the door open a bit more but that is still semantic.

Actually if you read the Canons of the Councils and what they say about excommunication, if one is in danger of death one is to be given communion regardless. If they recover they resume their status of not being allowed communion, but they are nonetheless allowed it that one time. Communion is the partaking of the body and blood of our Lord and savior for the forgiveness of sins, though it does not directly change whether or not one has gained salvation, it is of extreme importance, which is why Last Rites have always been so important (to the extent that, as I said, the canons specify that they are to be granted to any Christian regardless of their status in the communion).

That is a great point, brother. But I think this validates my point. An excommunicated person has the possibility of receiving communion at the point of death. An anathemized person would not (unless they repented). That’s because of that fundamental difference between excommunication having a corrective purpose, while an anathema is a condemnation proper.

The proscription is attached to the dogma, but has been stated infallibility. If you believe the pronouncement was Ex Cathedra then all of it was, including the proscriptions, if those parts aren’t, why should anyone believe the rest was?

Yes, I understand that this is the traditional view of Orthodoxy (both Eastern and Oriental, though in Oriental Orthodoxy, it is not as stringent), but that is not the case in Catholicism. In the Catholic communion, infallibility only applies to doctrine proper, and you can ask any Catholic here to verify that. In fact, it is a solid Catholic principle that in a dogmatic decree, which is normally composed of an apostolic Constitution, the dogma, and a proscription, the immediate protection of infallibility only applies to the dogma proper - i.e., the teaching being defined.

For example, in the Decree Munificintissimus Deus, the only infallible portion of the Decree is the statement “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.” There may be other infallible teachings contained in the Apostolic Constitution of the Decree by virtue of them being part of infallible Sacred Tradition, but the immediate subject of infallibility within that Decree is the teaching being defined and only the teaching being defined.

I never said they were dogmatic, only that they were infallibly decreed.

I used the word “dogmatic” because I assumed you were not distinguishing between a Decree, on the one hand, and the dogma contained in the Decree, on the other. As stated earlier, the subject of infallibility is doctrine proper. One can say “this teaching was infallibility decreed” or “this dogma was infallibly decreed,” but it is erroneous to say “this punishment was infallibly decreed.”

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

First of all, she isn’t mentioned by Paul or in the Epistles or Acts, etc. as an intercessor or the new Eve or the Ark or the chief intercessor, etc. that we see the CC talk about.

Don’t you mean, the Catholic and Orthodox Churches?

Secondly, the early Church did talk about her role and compare her to the new Eve but the level of chief intercessor and the high level she has now was nowhere near what she was considered then?

Have you ever read St. Ephraem or St. Andrew of Crete, or St. Gregory Palamas? “She was the cause of her own salvation” and “Mary save us!” — these are common exclamations from the Eastern Church.

I’m still looking into these apparitions and deciding how I feel about them. They sound like a different Mary to me sometimes. But the message is also powerful and deep, and the miracles evidenced by so many. Jury’s still out.

That is wise.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Nine_Two,

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.

If you want to appeal to EENS, wouldn’t it be fair to do so according to how the Church understands it? The Catholic Church does not teach that EENS means that one has to be within the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church to be saved. Rather, the Church teaches that EENS means that the Church is the font of God’s salvation, and that the Grace of salvation can only come from and through the Church.

A person may be saved outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church, but any salvific Grace that exists outside those visible boundaries have come from and through the Catholic Church.

To relate it to our other discussion on the difference between excommunication and anathema, the excommunications contained in the Decrees on the Marian dogmas should not (and cannot) be interpreted to mean that denying the dogma is a condemnation to hell.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[GaryTaylor]

Mary alone found grace with God for herself and for every individual person. No patriarch or prophet or any other holy person of the Old Law could manage to find this grace.

It was Mary who gave existence and life to the author of all grace, and because of this she is called the “Mother of Grace”.

God the Father, from whom, as from its essential source, every perfect gift and every grace come down to us , gave her every grace when he gave her his Son. Thus, as St Bernard says, the will of God is manifested to her in Jesus and with Jesus.

God chose her to be the treasurer, the administrator and the dispenser of all his graces, so that all his graces and gifts pass through her hands. Such is the power that she has received from him that, according to St Bernardine, she gives the graces of the eternal Father, the virtues of Jesus Christ, and the gifts of the Holy Spirit to whom she wills, as and when she wills, and as much as she wills.

Often Marys humility and direction to her Son is interpreted as lack of Grace. And wrongly so, that Mary was able to obtain this Grace from God while alive is in itself of utmost importance. Imagine the respect she receives now in Heaven? We can’t, all we can do is underestimate her reality.

As far as the Catholic Faith, theres this and then interpretations of it. And a interpretation of it in essense becomes your own religion, based on what you chose to believe and disbelieve. The Catholic Church is the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ. Thus it is Jesus Christ. When we then speak of other religions, what are we really doing? Picking and chosing what we as simple humans chose to be right or wrong. How could this not be wrong when we consider reformers like Martin Luther? Have you actually studied this man? And of course the ecumenical council futher seperates denominations of Christology.

When the very reality of Mary creates a denomination, that in itself is a crisis. We know what te Bible states and what it doesn’t state. Mary is Full of Grace. She is chosen by God as Gods Mother in the flesh. Angels greet her “Hail Mary”. Who else has found favor by God in the NT Bible? Because chapters on this alone haven’t been written doesn’t make her reality any less. It only creates assumption. Mary was resurrected immediatly into Heaven, those of Old Law claim in full body? They were there, we definatly were not. Because the first century left us with no mass communication and several other issues revolving around communication. This doesn’t make Marys reality less, only more of a mystery. Yet the more you look at Mary and listen to what the Bible is saying and not saying. Its really not even a mystery.

Much of what Luke wrote is through conversation with Mary at the home of the Holy Family. Though Luke doesn’t elaborate on Mary, he paints one of the most revered Madonnas of Mary. St Luke is the patron Saint of painters. Is by no coincidence he receives this title.

We know in the Old Testament that Mary wasn’t essential to Heaven. Yet God chose to come to us through Mary in the New Testament. And the NT fulfills the prophecy of the OT by the Messianic Prophecys. So why wouldn’t we be expected to go to God as he chose to come to us, through Mary?

Finding Mary is a Blessing and is salvation. Debating if you can find heaven without Mary is equivalent to finding home, blind in the dark. Mary isn’t only the God Bearer, shes the path to God.

 

[schaick]

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.

It always seems to me that Catholic Church teachings point away from Jesus.

No you misunderstand. **Mary is not the Ark of the Covenant but the Tabernacle/Temple **of the Lord. The “dwelling place” of the Lord, where Jesus as the Ark of the Covenant resided:

We are Temples not arks:
1 Corinthians 3
16Don’t you know that you yourselves are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit lives in you

Mary was the first Christian Temple/Tabernacle of the Lord because she carried the Ark of the New Covenant in her womb.

**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. She was not the Ark of the New Covenant.

Jesus as the new Ark represents GOD, as the old Ark represented GOD.**

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.

Jesus’ blood is the New Covenant, HIS shell/humaness is the Ark:
Matthew 26
28This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins

In the Ark was the golden pot of manna.
Contained in Jesus is the bread of life:
John 6
48I am the bread of life. 49Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. 50But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die.

 

[schaick]

…

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. …

…

Protestants for the most part are hostile to Blessed Mary, for some reason that Catholics do not understand.

…

Yes too many generalizations!

Non-Catholic Christians hold great love for Mary. She is the best example of an odediant servant of the Lord.

You think that because **our worship services focus on Jesus **that we ignore Mary, are hostile towards her. Not true.

 

[schaick]

Schaick…

…

Our profession of faith at Sunday Mass simplies says Christ was born of the Virgin Mary.
…
Because studying Mary is studying the Christian practice of faith and spirituality and she is the model par excellence.
…

Non-Catholic Christians would have no problem ageeing with this.

 

[KathleenGee]

Hi Schaick,

Correct…but we are also called to integrity of faith – to love the Lord with our whole heart, soul, and strength.

and to love God we are also being called to know Him more. So you can go on and on, and then you can delve into His nature, the Holy Trinity…and then Mary comes back up again…more to learn in greater depth the significance of the Virgin birth…and then it goes back to understanding ourselves, Christ and then God better. And the message is how much of God’s love permeates all of Creation.

The entire universe, according to Catholic teaching, was created by God through Jesus Christ…I thought it would be interesting for the SDA discussion to compare the Catholic Christ to the SDA Christ, but it was just too extensive. The part in the catechism I drew on about Mary just goes so far but the few parts it covers is quite alot about Mary…and subsequently about the nature of God and His love for us.

When we go to Mass, it is not about Mary. We are entering into a living experience, an encounter with God where we are offered up with Jesus Christ to the heavenly Father. And every ordinary Sunday we encounter the same presence and power of Jesus Christ as was there 2,000 years ago on Easter Sunday.

The problem is most Catholics need to learn more about the Mass, its power and meaning and most people do not have time for classes.

I think you should be one as well to get hold of a universal catechism and look at each paragraph that is numbered. The first part deals with the Profession of Faith that breaks down each statement we make at Mass on Sunday and every day.

August 15 to September 15 have a series of Marian feast days.

 

[jmcrae]

Yes too many generalizations!

Non-Catholic Christians hold great love for Mary. She is the best example of an odediant servant of the Lord.

You think that because **our worship services focus on Jesus **that we ignore Mary, are hostile towards her. Not true.

The Mass is also totally focused on Christ - even more so than most Protestant services I have ever attended, which seem to be focused on the people, or on the preacher, or on someone’s birthday.

We get the impression that Protestants are hostile to Mary when they call her a vain idol made with hands, and when they use names for her that cannot be repeated in polite company.

 

[dianaiad]

The Mass is also totally focused on Christ - even more so than most Protestant services I have ever attended, which seem to be focused on the people, or on the preacher, or on someone’s birthday.

We get the impression that Protestants are hostile to Mary when they call her a vain idol made with hands, and when they use names for her that cannot be repeated in polite company.

Please do not judge all Protestants by the actions of anti-Catholics, jmcrae. that’s a lesson I have to keep learning myself–not to judge all Catholics/Protestants by the actions of the anti-Mormons.

I keep reminding myself that there is a very real difference between a Protestant and an anti-Catholic, just as there is a very real difference between a Catholic and an anti-Mormon. I think the antis all share a belief system…and it’s hate. If they also happen to have a religious belief of their own, it seems to be secondary to their real aim–which is to destroy someone else’s faith.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Mary didn’t find grace for herself; she was given it by being born Immaculate, right? Didn’t God give it to her?

Mary alone found grace with God for herself and for every individual person. No patriarch or prophet or any other holy person of the Old Law could manage to find this grace.

It was Mary who gave existence and life to the author of all grace, and because of this she is called the “Mother of Grace”.

God the Father, from whom, as from its essential source, every perfect gift and every grace come down to us , gave her every grace when he gave her his Son. Thus, as St Bernard says, the will of God is manifested to her in Jesus and with Jesus.

How do you figure? Can you show us anything from Scripture or the Early Fathers or Councils to prove this?
God chose her to be the treasurer, the administrator and the dispenser of all his graces, so that all his graces and gifts pass through her hands. Such is the power that she has received from him that, according to St Bernardine, she gives the graces of the eternal Father, the virtues of Jesus Christ, and the gifts of the Holy Spirit to whom she wills, as and when she wills, and as much as she wills.

Isn’t the Church the Bride of Christ and all Christians make up Christ’s "body?"
As far as the Catholic Faith, theres this and then interpretations of it. And a interpretation of it in essense becomes your own religion, based on what you chose to believe and disbelieve. The Catholic Church is the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ. Thus it is Jesus Christ. When we then speak of other religions, what are we really doing? Picking and chosing what we as simple humans chose to be right or wrong. How could this not be wrong when we consider reformers like Martin Luther? Have you actually studied this man? And of course the ecumenical council futher seperates denominations of Christology.

When the very reality of Mary creates a denomination, that in itself is a crisis. We know what te Bible states and what it doesn’t state. Mary is Full of Grace. She is chosen by God as Gods Mother in the flesh. Angels greet her “Hail Mary”. Who else has found favor by God in the NT Bible? Because chapters on this alone haven’t been written doesn’t make her reality any less. It only creates assumption. Mary was resurrected immediatly into Heaven, those of Old Law claim in full body? They were there, we definatly were not. Because the first century left us with no mass communication and several other issues revolving around communication. This doesn’t make Marys reality less, only more of a mystery. Yet the more you look at Mary and listen to what the Bible is saying and not saying. Its really not even a mystery.

How do you know this? Source? Evidence?
Much of what Luke wrote is through conversation with Mary at the home of the Holy Family. Though Luke doesn’t elaborate on Mary, he paints one of the most revered Madonnas of Mary. St Luke is the patron Saint of painters. Is by no coincidence he receives this title.

We know in the Old Testament that Mary wasn’t essential to Heaven. Yet God chose to come to us through Mary in the New Testament. And the NT fulfills the prophecy of the OT by the Messianic Prophecys. So why wouldn’t we be expected to go to God as he chose to come to us, through Mary?

Christ is the path to God. Mary merely told everyone, “do as He says.” She never claimed herself the path but rather Christ the path, right?
Finding Mary is a Blessing and is salvation. Debating if you can find heaven without Mary is equivalent to finding home, blind in the dark. Mary isn’t only the God Bearer, shes the path to God.