Marian dogmas: important and essential for our salvation?

[PRmerger]

1st of all the premise of the OP is essentially Protestant and we arguing Catholic doctrine on a premise that’s absent in Catholic belief. But anyway let it be. Talking about the ‘essential for salvation’ is unchristian and a modern Protestant innovation; not all Protestants though. There is no such thing in Christianity as the essential for salvation because it is a package not a pick and chooses.

If one loves Jesus, one will love everything about him not the minimum requirement.

'zactly! Asking what’s the minimal amount of contact one can have with the Beloved is just…wrong.

“Our goal, according to Scripture,** is not to achieve bare minimums** of love, fellowship and discipleship with Christ and His Bride, but to “attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ;… we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by every joint with which it is supplied, when each part is working properly, makes bodily growth and upbuilds itself in love” (Ephesians 4:13-16).”-Mark Shea

 

[Good_Fella]

The reason given that the Marian dogma’s reflect Christ works to a point, the dogma that Mary is Theotokos which was handed down at Ephesus is not about her, but about Christ - it says that he was God, however a doctrine like the Assumption of Mary says nothing about Christ as far as I can see. Simply saying that rejecting it (which in this case I don’t), means rejecting Christ just makes no sense to me.

The dogma of the Assumption presupposes that Jesus is the Son of God and of Mary, that Jesus perfectly honors both his heavenly Father and Blessed Mother. If Mary weren’t the Theotokos, then the Assumption would not have taken place. But since she is, let us not imagine that the true Jesus could actually dishonor his mother. Please see my article below.

www.justinangel.stblogs.com/a-wild-assumption

PAX :harp:

 

[Todd520]

fixed two mistakes

1st of all the premise of the OP is essentially Protestant and we arguing Catholic doctrine on a premise that’s absent in Catholic belief. But anyway let it be. Talking about the ‘essential for salvation’ is unchristian and a modern Protestant innovation; not all Protestants though. There is no such thing in -]Christianity /-] Catholicism as the essential for salvation because it is a package not a pick and chooses.

If one loves Jesus, one will love everything about him not the minimum requirement. Just as Peter said in the washing of the feet, ‘if that is so Lord, let me wash not just the feet but all your body’. -]Christianity /-] Catholicism is like that; one loves everything about it. And Jesus is just not thrown for nowhere from heaven and appeared on earth just like that. He was a man, had a family, parents, an occupation and livelihood like all human do. Thus it is not logical to pick and choose about him.

So to the question: why is belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity or her immaculate nature or her being assumed into heaven essential for my salvation?

Actually it is what you do with the belief or unbelief. If in your unbelief, you would go around gathering signatures and petition to the Vatican denying the doctrine, it would most probably affect your salvation as then you are causing confusion to the people of the Church besides being disobedient.

But I suppose the most practical thing that could happen because you do not believe, you will not attend the Feast of the Assumption mass and will not confess it as sin as violating the day of obligation. Then you will be in sin as it will be against the Church Commandment and persisting doing it will probably affect your salvation.

But if in your unbelief, you just keep it in your heart but at the same time go to church as usual an observing all activities related to the Assumption, most probably you will be saved. You will only fall into the category of little faith perhaps without realizing it. It is little faith; it is not totally unbelief because you are still participating in the said activities. The Lord says it is OK to have little faith as we cannot underestimate the power of the grace of God to change unbelief to believe.

So I think, it depends on the degree of your unbelief before it can seriously affect your salvation.

God bless.

 

[Reuben_J]

fixed two mistakes

Catholicism = Christianity

 

[Good_Fella]

When did Mary become Diety? I believe Mary was kept free from sin in order to conceive Jesus, as sin and God cannot coexist together.

We Catholics believe the same thing. Being sinless does not make Mary a goddess.

Historically, we do not know what actually happened to Mary after the crucifixtion of Jesus. The RC teaches that Mary was assumed body and soul into heaven. How so?

By faith. A historian will tell you that we do not actually know what happened to Jesus after he was crucified to death on the cross. Not even the ancient historian Josephus paid any attention to the rumours that were spreading around Palestine shortly after Pentecost. Anyway, the Assumption of Mary wasn’t witnessed by the Apostles as Christ’s resurrection and ascension were, but a private tradition of what must have happened to Mary after her death arose in Palestine soon after the Apostles discovered her tomb empty.

Even Jesus was transfigured into a spiritual being when he rose into the heavens. If you believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, then you must believe this.

Three of the apostles witnessed Christ’s transfiguration, so naturally this event could also be recorded in Scripture. The Annunciation could be included in the Gospel of Luke because Mary was still around to testify to what had happened to her, it being a private affair just like her Assumption.

If it was important for God to reveal to man through the Bible that Mary was assumed into Heaven, It would have been included.

Mary’s Assumption into Heaven is implicitly revealed in the Scriptures. There is a veiled prophecy of this event in Psalm 132, 8. St. Luke typifies Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant in his narrative of Mary’s visitation to her cousin Elizabeth by alluding to 2 Samuel 6. Sacred Scripture must be interpreted in light of Sacred Tradition.

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

What Jesus means is that He alone has redeemed the world by his precious blood. He is not implying that we must not ask others to pray for us in His name. Both the saints in heaven and the righteous ones on earth are living members in the mystical body of Christ, who is the head. The apostle Paul has exhorted us to pray and make intercession for one another, and he also asked others to pray for him as a minister instead of just directly praying to the Father on his own. We are a community of members and one spiritual family with God as our Father and Jesus as our brother and head of the community. It is as a man that Jesus intercedes for us before God as the eternal High Priest, and we participate in his mediation as adopted children in and through Him alone. This theology of human mediation is Pauline. We affirm what the apostle has taught us by asking Mary to pray for us. If she isn’t offering intercessory prayers on our behalf in support of our own by virtue of her holiness, then Paul must have got things confused.

PAX :harp:

 

[jmcrae]

My thread is not about whether or not Mary is holy, special, set apart, Immaculate, a great intercessor, close to Christ in heaven, etc. My thread OP was about why the Catholic Church elevated these Marian dogmas to infallible, anathema-level proclamations that require total agreement or else one can start stoking the fires of brimstone. It’s not whether or not Mary is Theotokos, sanctified, immaculate. It’s about whether one’s salvation is dependent upon believing she was assumed? It’s not a thread hell-bent on trashing Mary. I would NEVER seek to do that. I’m teaching my 4-year-old daughter how to pray the rosary right now as well as the Marian prayers. I’m a fan, as I said, just not convinced these are essential to my salvation and like the (name removed by moderator)ut people have given. I appreciate it as well.

God bless.

Everything is “essential.” The Christian life isn’t a college degree, where there’s a set of core programming that you must complete, with a set of options that you can pick and choose from.

Jesus didn’t do the minimum - He gave His all. We are called to do the same.

Our primary task is to love one another as He has loved us. This isn’t something you can do without Mary, because Mary is the Queen of the “us” - the “one another” whom we are to love. She is Queen by virtue of having given birth to a King - that’s Biblical.

Someone once said, “You can’t love Mary any more than Jesus did. So, when you find yourself on a Cross, being crucified to take away her sins, you can stop. At that point, you have loved her enough.”

 

[Todd520]

Catholicism = Christianity

I think a whole lot of protestants might disagree with you
Catholics are christian, but not all christians are catholic

 

[jmcrae]

I think a whole lot of protestants might disagree with you
Catholics are christian, but not all christians are catholic

Actually, in a mystical sense, all Christians are related in some way to the Catholic faith, since it is the Catholic faith from which they received (albeit unknowingly) every teaching they have that is true.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I disagree. And I think your analogy is a poor one in that you’re setting up a strawman with loving Mary. Nobody is saying they don’t love Mary. I’ve made it clear multiple times that I DO. My discussion/concern is about Marian dogmas like the Assumption being necessary for our salvation. I never asked, “do we have to love Mary?”

And no one said that salvation and our walk with Christ is a college degree style journey. But there are things in the world of Christianity that are NOT essential for our salvation. For example, praying to saints. I don’t have to do that. Praying the rosary isn’t necessary either although I do it from time to time. Beliefs about where babies go when they die are speculative and I don’t have to believe in limbo. I don’t have to believe in some traditions. I don’t have to believe in some apparitions, etc. Not everything is essential.

Everything is “essential.” The Christian life isn’t a college degree, where there’s a set of core programming that you must complete, with a set of options that you can pick and choose from.

Jesus didn’t do the minimum - He gave His all. We are called to do the same.

Our primary task is to love one another as He has loved us. This isn’t something you can do without Mary, because Mary is the Queen of the “us” - the “one another” whom we are to love. She is Queen by virtue of having given birth to a King - that’s Biblical.

Someone once said, “You can’t love Mary any more than Jesus did. So, when you find yourself on a Cross, being crucified to take away her sins, you can stop. At that point, you have loved her enough.”

 

[nordskoven]

ALL Marian dogma reflect on the nature of Christ and are unique to the Virgin Mary. A negative example is the “Final Dogma” forwarded by the condemned seer, Ida Peerdeman: “The Lady of All Nations Who Once Was Mary: Coredemptrix, Mediatrix, & Advocate.” Condemned by Pius XII onward, the sanitized form of the “Final Dogma” lobbied for by Franciscan University/Steubenville professor, Mark Miravalle, was “Coredemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocate.” This was dismissed under Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, as confusing and not unique to the Virgin Mary. As all are called to be co-redeemers with Christ; to be mediators in prayer and works; and to be advocates coming alongside neighbors; this is not unique to the Virgin Mary, not worthy of dogmatic declaration. And the “Final Dogma” in no way illumines Christ’s nature. The Assumption is the proper conclusion of the Immaculate’s sinless life–proper to her marital unity with the Holy Spirit Who can tolerate no sin. The Virgin Mary is the Mother of God, Christ being wholly God and wholly Man.

 

[jmcrae]

I disagree. And I think your analogy is a poor one in that you’re setting up a strawman with loving Mary. Nobody is saying they don’t love Mary. I’ve made it clear multiple times that I DO.

Yes, but you seem to be speaking on behalf of people who don’t, or who can’t see the reason for it.

My discussion/concern is about Marian dogmas like the Assumption being necessary for our salvation.

And again, it’s essential because it shows us who Jesus is, and prevents us from believing in a false Jesus of our own invention.

But there are things in the world of Christianity that are NOT essential for our salvation. For example, praying to saints. I don’t have to do that. Praying the rosary isn’t necessary either although I do it from time to time.

These are practices; not doctrines. The doctrines that lie behind these practices are, in fact, required for belief - the Communion of Saints, and the necessity of prayer.

Beliefs about where babies go when they die are speculative and I don’t have to believe in limbo. I don’t have to believe in some traditions. I don’t have to believe in some apparitions, etc. Not everything is essential.

This is something that we actually don’t know. Obviously, we can’t be required to believe in something that we don’t know - nor would it be wise to come up with a belief that doesn’t exist. You can’t say, “All babies go to Heaven,” for example - because we don’t know whether they do or not. We have the hope that they do, but we can’t believe it with dogmatic certainty.

 

[schaick]

…

If Mary fulfilled a role, and that role is over (I think that is what you meant) - then why does the bible tell us that her soul magnifies the Lord? How does her soul magnify the Lord or was that some past event in your mind?
,

**The way we use the word today **no one can magnify GOD - make HIM greater then HE already is.

It appears you are giving some kind of power to Mary saying her soul magnifys the Lord, as a magnifying glass enlarges words for us with tired old eyes!!.

Well my soul also magnifys the Lord! And I am sure yours does too as does every Christians’ soul.

doth magnify g3170 μεγαλύνω megalynō

Luk 1:46 And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord,

That same word is used here:

Act 10:46 For1063 they heard191 them846 speak with2980 tongues1100, and2532 magnify3170 God2316. Then5119 answered611 Peter4074

Magnifying GOD=praise GOD, to declare great, esteem highly, celebrate,

 

[PRmerger]

**The way we use the word today **no one can magnify GOD - make HIM greater then HE already is.

So do you think that the words written by Luke in Scripture are in error? Mary’s soul can not magnify the Lord?

 

[PRmerger]

B]Well my soul also magnifys the Lord!

And I am sure yours does too as does every Christians’ soul.

Indeed. It is very Catholic of you to say that, shaick!

Every gift that Mary received is also promised to all of us Christians, her children.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

The key word is “seem.” I’m simply saying for anyone, be they devotees of Mary or not, are these essential? I’m not a spokesman for anybody here.

Yes, but you seem to be speaking on behalf of people who don’t, or who can’t see the reason for it.

The Assumption of Mary shows us who Jesus is? Then why didn’t Paul or the apostles mention it and it took around 1900 years to be revealed? If it’s this pressing and essential in telling us who Jesus Christ is, the Christians of the first 1,900 years are sorely lacking in an essential element? The truth is, this doesn’t tell us anything about who Jesus is. He’s the son of man, truly God and truly Man, the Saviour of the world, King of Kings, died for my sins, is seated at the right hand of the Father. The Gospels tell me who my saviour is, not a doctrine about Mary being pulled up into heaven? That’s a real stretch IMO.
And again, it’s essential because it shows us who Jesus is, and prevents us from believing in a false Jesus of our own invention.

True. And for 1,900 years the assumption and these now-dogmas were speculation and not at all essential.
These are practices; not doctrines. The doctrines that lie behind these practices are, in fact, required for belief - the Communion of Saints, and the necessity of prayer.

We don’t actually know what happened to Mary either except by the word of a pope almost 2,000 years later? Does it even matter? The pope knows she was assumed but somehow he doesn’t know if she was alive or dead at the time? The Holy Spirit must give the pope information with fuzzy reception on that one?
This is something that we actually don’t know. Obviously, we can’t be required to believe in something that we don’t know - nor would it be wise to come up with a belief that doesn’t exist. You can’t say, “All babies go to Heaven,” for example - because we don’t know whether they do or not. We have the hope that they do, but we can’t believe it with dogmatic certainty.

 

[schaick]

This might seem like an off topic question but It isn’t really it may help mere Christians put the Mary dogmas in perspective.

Has the Catholic Church added any new dogmas/doctrines about Jesus that are not already in the Bible? Ones that are important for our salvation?

 

[PRmerger]

Has the Catholic Church added any new dogmas/doctrines about Jesus that are not already in the Bible? Ones that are important for our salvation?

The answer is yes. The canon of Scripture is an excellent example of this. That’s not in the bible.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Indulgences, the treasury of merit, purgatory.

This might seem like an off topic question but It isn’t really it may help mere Christians put the Mary dogmas in perspective.

Has the Catholic Church added any new dogmas/doctrines about Jesus that are not already in the Bible? Ones that are important for our salvation?

 

[dianaiad]

Yes, it is peculiar that some Protestants deny Mary her Rapture, but claim the right to their own Assumption. That is, Mary–she who held Divinity itself insider her–cannot be assumed into heaven, but they can be assumed into heaven at the Rapture. :whacky:

I’m not certain, but I believe that the ‘rapture’ (please excuse me, but this is from what I have been told; I could be wrong) involves more of an ‘instant resurrection’ than an assumption as I understand the Catholic explanation of Mary’s Assumption is.

If we are talking about that instant resurrection/change from mortal to resurrected state, I don’t know anybody who denies that Mary was not worthy–just that it did not happen.

I do believe that most Protestants (who actually believe in a physical resurrection…some don’t…) believe that Mary will, at the very least, be among the ‘first fruits,’ if not #1 on the list.

The problem, I repeat, isn’t one of worthiness–of course she was. The problem is–where is the evidence that it happened?

 

[dianaiad]

Catholicism = Christianity

Absolutely right.

However, Christianity >Catholicism.

(or however one expresses relationships in Venn diagrams…)

Christianity encompasses Catholicism, but Catholicism does not encompass Christianity.