Marian dogmas: important and essential for our salvation?

[KathleenGee]

God came into this world through Mary, a creature.

Through her, we have Christ.

Just as Mary received the Holy Spirit who entered her being for the conception of the Son of Man…

Likewise, in imitation of Mary,Through Christ’s death and resurrection and the Eucharist…now God comes to us…to the depths of our souls so we can bear Him to others.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I can preach the Word of God and Christ, the Gospel, the Good News, to anyone without needing to reference Mary though?

God came into this world through Mary, a creature.

Through her, we have Christ.

Just as Mary received the Holy Spirit who entered her being for the conception of the Son of Man…

Likewise, in imitation of Mary,Through Christ’s death and resurrection and the Eucharist…now God comes to us…to the depths of our souls so we can bear Him to others.

 

[KathleenGee]

Guerny,

There are many priests who are like you…that venerate Mary the same as you do, but are not marked by a particular devotion to her, but they go about spreading the Good News.

If you are Catholic, then you believe in the Eucharist…and we recall Mary at every Mass…so in that sense, you cannot separate her from your reception. But you go out the door, the Holy Spirit is calling you to simply reflect on Jesus…then be thankful for a great grace…to want to share Him with others is grace in itself, Christ is alive with you…

How many do not care about Him?

 

[jmcrae]

I can preach the Word of God and Christ, the Gospel, the Good News, to anyone without needing to reference Mary though?

It depends on who you’re preaching to. Most people already know that Jesus was born of Mary, from listening to Christmas carols at the mall - so you wouldn’t have to mention it specifically, to most people. But she is an important part of the story, and if you were working with someone who had never been exposed to the idea that Jesus was born as a baby and that Mary was His mother, then yes, certainly, you’d have to explain Jesus’ relationship with her, and explain who she is.

 

[KathleenGee]

Yes, Guerny, you would have to properly explain the depth of Christ’s mission and His relatioship to us, and it would involve more than just saying Mary was a virgin…

you know, you have certain students that always are out there to ask those kind of questions…

 

[dianaiad]

Insofar as they partake of the teachings of the Catholic Church, they are, in a mystical way, Catholic. But they are separated from the visible Church at present due to heresy and schism within their communities.

So, in a nutshell, yes, they are Christian as far as they partake of what Christ established, which is the Catholic Church.

So you have gradations of Christianity, then…this guy is half a Christian, that one over there is 37% of one, and Catholics are 100% Christian?

How would that work, exactly?

 

[dianaiad]

It’s the same as the evidence for Jesus’ Resurrection. If the bones of Our Lord were ever found then Christianity would be proven false.

The problem is that we have quite a few eye witness accounts of Jesus’ resurrection, PRmerger. It was written about fairly extensively and very clearly; no allusions.

By the way, I don’t see how finding His mortal bones would prove anything false. Resurrection gets you an eternal, perfect body…if one leaves behind the old mortal one, I don’t see how that would disprove a resurrection into a new, perfected and eternal one, m’self.

That idea assumes that in order to BE resurrected, one would have to have some remains to change—and we know that the majority of the human race has not left behind anything physical of themselves–yet we are promised that everybody WILL be resurrected physically.

So…if the old body isn’t a strict requirement for resurrection, then–how would finding part of it disprove it? (just a thought…the above, as far as I know, isn’t addressed in LDS doctrine one way or another.)

We aren’t going to find Jesus’ mortal remains, of course–because the accounts of HIs resurrection state pretty clearly that they are gone.

By the way, It is a fact that there are victims of 9/11 who we KNOW perished in the flames, but whose bodies were so utterly consumed that no trace–no hint of DNA–will ever be found. is that proof that they have been assumed into heaven?

But, I believe in Mary’s Assumption 'cause my Mama, Holy Mother Church, told me so!

…and believe it or not, I have no problem with that whatsoever. You believe because you have faith in the source of the information. You should.

…but I"m not a Catholic. I can only use that evidence I do have faith in to inform my own beliefs, and–it’s just not there.

Just like you believe that the Letter of Titus is inspired–not because of any evidence in and of itself–because my Mama told you so!

.

Not quite. I don’t believe anything because someone told me so…especially things religious. I believe them, if I do, because Someone told me so. I read, I study, I pray–and I trust the answer to that prayer.

 

[Catholic20064]

The Assumption of Mary seems to be a very early tradition. As a Mormon I believed there were many saints who were resurrected at the time of Christ’s resurrection. I also believed that Peter, James and John the Baptist were resurrected. It is only natural that Christ’s mother would have been resurrected as well. I don’t think that tradition should present any problem to a Mormon. And of course we have well attested private revelation in which Mary has appeared many times since her Assumption. That’s an easy dogma for me to accept.

 

[joe370]

Hi Joe

Well, there is…from the document itself that infallibly defined the Assumption of Mary, Munificentissimus Deus.

1. For which reason, after we have poured forth prayers of supplication again and again to God, and have invoked the light of the Spirit of Truth, for the glory of Almighty God who has lavished his special affection upon the Virgin Mary, for the honor of her Son, the immortal King of the Ages and the Victor over sin and death, for the increase of the glory of that same august Mother, and for the joy and exultation of the entire Church; by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.
2. It is forbidden to any man to change this, our declaration, pronouncement, and definition or, by rash attempt, to oppose and counter it. If any man should presume to make such an attempt, let him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.

Attempting to change or oppose a dogma, which can draw the wrath of God upon someone, is different than suggesting that we are saved by the Marian dogmas, but yes, I see your point. Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut.

However, Jesus did give the key of His kingdom to His church leadership in His stead, as well as the power to bind and loose, which goes along with the authority that comes with such a commission. As a former protestant I really didn’t know what to do with those verses, but I do now.

 

[joe370]

Knowing about Paul makes us closer to Jesus, too, and knowing about Lazarus, knowing about Martha and Mary and Mary Magdalene, and Peter and on and on…knowing more about how Jesus interacts with people does indeed teach us more about Him. No argument there. But can I get to heaven without reading the Bible and knowing about these folks? Can I get to heaven without knowing how Jesus interacted with Mary? Is Mary so essential that I can’t truly know Christ without knowing her? The Scriptures don’t point to such a conclusion even remotely?

Gurney, you believe what the CC teaches regarding the Marian dogmas but you don’t think that they are necessary for our salvation?

I agree with you!

However, they are important and essential, regarding the fullness of truth, but we are not saved by believing these dogmas. We are saved by Jesus alone, as per the teaching of the Catholic Church. If the CC taught that we are saved by Jesus’ mother Mary or those defined Marian dogmas, I would not belong to the CC.

 

[Reuben_J]

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?

I am not so sure about your bringing this – the evidence. Been answered efficiently by other posters but I too always cringe when someone ask for ‘evidence’ about spiritual faith. Nevertheless, what kind of evidence you would want and expect?

Notwithstanding that the Church & Tradition preceded the written Bible, a deeper insight and understanding of the Catholic Church would help in explaining the evidence. In order word the belief we have has always been kept intact by the Church since its inception. One who appreciates the nature of the Church present today would likely to be more forthcoming in believing this belief whether explicitly declared as doctrine or not since it goes back to the ways and the teaching of the apostles themselves.

Just the other day the Vatican library was open for viewing to the public albeit the stringent security that’s being imposed. Its mind boggling - the amount of original documents and the knowledge of Christian history being kept there. One of it is the earliest known piece of Bible still preserved absolutely intact from the time of Constantine.

Protestants would have problem with history simply because when they rejected the Popes they have lost contact with what is stored in the treasure of Christian archive and history.

P/S -
I will not respond about the definition of Christian as I think the OP would not want it in the scope of this thread. From experience from this type of discussion, I note that there is quite a problem in defining Mormon vis-à-vis Christianity. But I suppose that is for another thread.

God bless.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Gurney,

And yes, Mary prays for us. But why not pray directly to Christ Jesus Himself who’s intercession is at the very right hand of the Father? That’s just my opinion and I think it makes sense. It’s like asking another teacher to tell the principal something for me here at school. Why don’t I just go to her office and ask her myself?

I’m surprised to read this from you. The intercession of Saints, both in this life and the next, is basic Catholicism/Orthodoxy 101. Saying “Why not pray directly to Christ Jesus Himself” is tantamount to saying, “Why are you asking me to pray (i.e. intercede) for you? Just go straight to Jesus.” The fact is, Scripture exhorts us to pray/intercede for each other, and to ask others to pray/interceide for us.

Blessings

 

[PRmerger]

The problem is that we have quite a few eye witness accounts of Jesus’ resurrection, PRmerger. It was written about fairly extensively and very clearly; no allusions.

Fair enough.

Existence of eye witness accounts for Jesus: 1 point
No theopneustos eye witness accounts for Mary: 0 points.

No relics of Jesus: 1 point
No relics of Mary: 1 point

The Scriptures testifying to the authority of the Apostles to hand on the deposit of faith, teaching the dogma of the Assumption: * immeasurable!*

By the way, I don’t see how finding His mortal bones would prove anything false. Resurrection gets you an eternal, perfect body…if one leaves behind the old mortal one, I don’t see how that would disprove a resurrection into a new, perfected and eternal one, m’self.

Perhaps in the LDS understanding of the Resurrection it wouldn’t matter, but Catholicism would clearly be proven false by the existence of Jesus’ bones. After all, if he appeared to his disciples, whose flesh and bones did they touch?

By the way, It is a fact that there are victims of 9/11 who we KNOW perished in the flames, but whose bodies were so utterly consumed that no trace–no hint of DNA–will ever be found. is that proof that they have been assumed into heaven?

No. But if they had a group of followers who claimed the victims were resurrected, and we found their bones we would know their followers had been dissembling, eh?

…but I"m not a Catholic. I can only use that evidence I do have faith in to inform my own beliefs, and–it’s just not there.

Nor would we expect you, a LDS, to believe in the Assumption.

 

[PRmerger]

Not quite. I don’t believe anything because someone told me so…especially things religious. I believe them, if I do, because Someone told me so. I read, I study, I pray–and I trust the answer to that prayer.

Did you read, study and pray about each of the over 400 ancient Christian texts to determine which ones were theopneustos…<she asks incredulously >

I suspect not.

Rather, you have taken the word of the Catholic Church that the Gospel of Mark is inspired, but not the Gospel of Thomas.

 

[guanophore]

Let me start by saying that I DO AFFIRM the dogmas of the Blessed Virgin Mary–the immaculate conception, assumption, perpetual virginity, all of it. I have NO problems with it whatsoever.

However, in my discussions with people who do disagree with me on these issues, the usual concern is "why is belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity or her immaculate nature or her being assumed into heaven essential for my salvation? Why anathemize people over these issues that are not salvific at all?"
I’d really like to have a discussion that answers that exact question.

It is the epitome of hubris for mankind to take upon himself the authority to decide what is salvific for him, and what is not.

 Plus I'd like to impose a rule if I may. Please do not say, "because Holy Mother Church tells me so" or anything about the Magisterium or papacy.  Why does the Church feel this is a salvation issue?

This does not make any sense. The Teaching of the Church is preserved by the Magesterium, in unity with the successor of Peter. You cannot ask “why does the Church”, and yet exclude this essential element of what defines “church”.

I’d love to hear people’s points of view on this. As stated, this isn’t about me. I already believe the dogmas. I’d just like a good discussion answering the bold question.

It sounds like what you want for your thread is people’s opinions. This is ok, but it does not necessarily equate to what the Church believes, or why.

 

[guanophore]

Your “rule” precludes meaningful Catholic discussion. It is impossible to discuss de fide truths while ignoring Catholic ecclesiology.

Maybe that is why he put the thread in the non-Catholic section? I mean, if he wanted a Catholic opinion, wouldn’t he put it over on Apologetics?

I must also ask: Are doctrines of the Church merely a matter of "feeling," like, say, a predisposition not to want to have an ice cream cone right now?

One is frequently asked to justify Catholic teachings from Protestant presuppositions. It’s a trap we mustn’t fall into.

Blessings,

Gerry

You have the good eye, Gerry. It is essential not to get sucked into meaningless parameters.

There is no problem with starting a thread asking for feelings and opinions. It is not the same as asking about the Church Teaching. I wish that all Catholics’ feelings and opinions conformed to the Teaching of the Church, but we know that is not the case.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I wonder why you’re constantly surprised by me mard. You make a great mistake in always assuming I don’t know things just because I don’t choose to walk that path? Please stop assuming with each post that I’m an ignorant goober who doesn’t know about saintly intercession? I’m well aware of it, but choose to pray directly to the source—the wellspring of grace, Christ Jesus. You might think that sounds too Protestant but, according to the Bible and 2,000 years of Christianity, these crazy Christians like me have been doing that same wacky thing—praying straight to the Son of God.

Just because I don’t choose to seek saintly intercession doesn’t make me ignorant of the history, theology, and rationale as well as existence of it, right? You know what happens when we assume, right?

And yes we all intercede for one another constantly when we pray for others and they for us. I get it. LOL…My IQ isn’t -10 you know.

Dear brother Gurney,

I’m surprised to read this from you. The intercession of Saints, both in this life and the next, is basic Catholicism/Orthodoxy 101. Saying “Why not pray directly to Christ Jesus Himself” is tantamount to saying, “Why are you asking me to pray (i.e. intercede) for you? Just go straight to Jesus.” The fact is, Scripture exhorts us to pray/intercede for each other, and to ask others to pray/interceide for us.

Blessings

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Well, guano, just call me old Hubie then because I don’t feel these doctrines will save my soul. Christ will. Peace.

It is the epitome of hubris for mankind to take upon himself the authority to decide what is salvific for him, and what is not.

Sure I can. Any proclamation by Mother Church should have a purpose behind it and wholesome benefit not merely a “cuz I said so hoss!” element to them. The councils didn’t just say, “Arianism is a heresy!” to which heretic bishops asked, “why?” in which the council would respond, “cuz we said so dang it!” They rationalized, explained, and expounded upon the reasoning with eloquence, purpose, sound reasoning, and, yes, get ready for this----Scripture! You’re considering me unreasonable and downright crazy for expecting a teaching by the Church to have spiritual benefit AND when an anathema and salvific urgency is attached to it, I’d like to know why? I have an intellect and free will as well as the desire to understand beliefs.
This does not make any sense. The Teaching of the Church is preserved by the Magesterium, in unity with the successor of Peter. You cannot ask “why does the Church”, and yet exclude this essential element of what defines “church”.

I’m fine with hearing people’s opinions. That’s what this pesky ole democracy is all about! And I obviously know what the Church teaches, look at the OP. I’m asking why we MUST affirm these Marian dogmas to be saved? They’re “infallible” in themselves so they pertain to our salvation pretty strongly. I have heard some good theories as to why and a lot of bad ones mixed in. I’m a weird guy. I like opinions and listening to different perspectives.
It sounds like what you want for your thread is people’s opinions. This is ok, but it does not necessarily equate to what the Church believes, or why.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

**With all due respect, why not just ask me why? LOL…I chose to put it here because I’d like to hear Protestant, Orthodox, AND Catholic perspectives on this issue. You’re mostly correct. I’d like to hear a lot of different takes.

Blessings…**

---

Maybe that is why he put the thread in the non-Catholic section? I mean, if he wanted a Catholic opinion, wouldn’t he put it over on Apologetics?

You have the good eye, Gerry. It is essential not to get sucked into meaningless parameters.

There is no problem with starting a thread asking for feelings and opinions. It is not the same as asking about the Church Teaching. I wish that all Catholics’ feelings and opinions conformed to the Teaching of the Church, but we know that is not the case.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

In a word—yes. I think the dogmas are fine. Don’t have a problem with them. I just don’t think they’re necessarily essential to save me. I don’t understand why people can’t grasp that? I believe in a lot of things about the Bible, theology, and the Church that aren’t necessarily deal-breaking salvation material? I believe that Elijah was assumed. I believe the story. Does it save me? Course not. I believe Jesus was friends with Lazarus. Does that save me? Nope. I believe Mary floated up into heaven. Does that save me? No way. Was Mary immaculate? I believe so. But that doesn’t save me. Her son will.

Gurney, you believe what the CC teaches regarding the Marian dogmas but you don’t think that they are necessary for our salvation?

I agree with you!

However, they are important and essential, regarding the fullness of truth, but we are not saved by believing these dogmas. We are saved by Jesus alone, as per the teaching of the Catholic Church. If the CC taught that we are saved by Jesus’ mother Mary or those defined Marian dogmas, I would not belong to the CC.