Marian dogmas: important and essential for our salvation?

[PRmerger]

There is no problem with starting a thread asking for feelings and opinions. It is not the same as asking about the Church Teaching.

Indeed.

Except a thread about one’s feelings and opinions has about as much theological oomph as a discussion between 2 people saying, “I think vanilla is the best ice cream flavor!” “Noooo! Chocolate is best!”

It’s essentially a wild goose chase without the golden goose of Truth.

 

[dianaiad]

The early Church kept the bones, hair, clothes, and personal possessions of every Apostle and every Martyr, both male and female - yet nothing exists of Mary except her house and her comb. No bones, no hair, no clothes.

Where did they go?

…yes, that is the claim. Unfortunately, jmcrae, it seems that several Saints had more than two hands, ten fingers…the circumstances of the deaths of these people were such that keeping relics wasn’t as easy as it sounds, and if we put all of the pieces of the ‘True Cross’ that people hauled around with them over the last two millenia, we could replicate two or three giant Sequoias.

I’m afraid that this argument really is an example of 'lack of proof is not proof of lack…"

…and I really don’t have a problem with the idea that Mary MIGHT have been resurrected within nanoseconds of her death, y’know. She certainly deserved that if anybody did. It’s just…there’s no evidence of it, and I honestly don’t see how belief in it would affect our salvation one way or the other. If it happened, it would be about Mary and her relationship to her Son, not anything to do with us.

Anyway, that’s how it seems to me.

 

[PRmerger]

…yes, that is the claim. Unfortunately, jmcrae, it seems that several Saints had more than two hands, ten fingers…the circumstances of the deaths of these people were such that keeping relics wasn’t as easy as it sounds, and if we put all of the pieces of the ‘True Cross’ that people hauled around with them over the last two millenia, we could replicate two or three giant Sequoias.

*Either way, the charge is nonsense. In 1870 a Frenchman, Rohault de Fleury, catalogued all the relics of the True Cross, including relics that were said to have existed but were lost. He measured the existing relics and estimated the volume of the missing ones. Then he added up the figures and discovered that the fragments, if glued together, would not have made up more than one-third of a cross. The scandal wasn’t that there was too much wood. The scandal was that most of the True Cross, after being unearthed in Jerusalem in the fourth century, was lost again! *source

 

[PRmerger]

and I really don’t have a problem with the idea that Mary MIGHT have been resurrected within nanoseconds of her death, y’know. She certainly deserved that if anybody did.

She certainly did deserve it. Much more than, say, Elijah, who was also assumed into heaven, right?

(And we don’t believe that Mary was “resurrected”; she was “assumed” into heaven.)

 

[dianaiad]

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?

Some claim that it actually happened by a witness to it.

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.

You are quite right about that one!

 

[dianaiad]

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!*

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?

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?

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

…and the odd thing is, the Assumption (without any eyewitness evidence or claim that it did actually happen) wouldn’t be a problem at all for us, given our beliefs in resurrection. It’s the perpetual virgin thing we have problems with.

 

[dianaiad]

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.

400?

Well, no…but certainly everything that is in the canon as well as the identified apocrypha.

 

[guanophore]

Gerry, I’m so disappointed that you’ve already not understood the point of the discussion. If believing in these Marian dogmas is important for our spiritual well-being, we shouldn’t need to reference the Church’s authority in it, just the reasons why these beliefs are spiritually beneficial. I’m not trying to get you to step into a trap. That’s a paranoid approach to this topic that I’m truly not trying to foster.

It is not appropriate to discuss what is spiritually beneficial to us apart from what the Church believes and teaches. It is the Church to which God has entrusted the responsibility for shepherding our spiritual benefit.

Let me give you an example. If I ask my son to help me prune our nectarine tree and he says “why?” Telling him, “because I said so,” isn’t going to explain the question or give him an idea as to why we need to do it? I could say, “because pruning off dead branches or suckers or branches interfering with the light getting through to the center of the tree helps the tree to be healthier, grow branches where we want them, and the fruit will be healther and more plentiful. The energy being wasted going to these branches will be transferred to the branches we want here…”

What’s wrong with that?

Nothing. It is a perfectly suitable question. HOwever, trying to discuss the benefits to our spiritual growth without including those that were commissioned by God to preserve and to teach them makes no sense.

Same thing here. The Church gives us rules of faith, de fide, for our own spiritual good. God isn’t arbitrary, He has a reason …

But you want to discuss those apart from those who from whom God will demand an account of our spiritual good?

So let's go back to my bold-colored question in the OP.  Why are these Marian dogmas healthy spiritually for us to the point they are required for our salvation? It's not a trick question or a trap. It's sincere from someone meditating on it right now.

I think the question is great. It is the parameters and the location where you placed the thread that are problematic.

And again, it is nothing but arrogance to assume that we can know all that is required for our salvation.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

It is not appropriate. It’s called thinking. I don’t check my brains out at the door. Not me. How can I possibly have a discussion here with “those that were commissioned by God to preserve and teach” these doctrines? Am I supposed to get on the red phone to Rome and get Benedict in this thread and a few cardinals from the curia? Come on?

If you’re an even decent Catholic apologist you can handle this issue without consulting Vatican officials. It should be plain and obvious to you, if you’re a decent apologist, the essential benefits and why these dogmas are required for us to be saved. Cuz I said so doesn’t cut it.

It is not appropriate to discuss what is spiritually beneficial to us apart from what the Church believes and teaches. It is the Church to which God has entrusted the responsibility for shepherding our spiritual benefit.

Nothing. It is a perfectly suitable question. HOwever, trying to discuss the benefits to our spiritual growth without including those that were commissioned by God to preserve and to teach them makes no sense.

But you want to discuss those apart from those who from whom God will demand an account of our spiritual good?

I think the question is great. It is the parameters and the location where you placed the thread that are problematic.

And again, it is nothing but arrogance to assume that we can know all that is required for our salvation.

 

[joe370]

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, I do grasp it and I totally agree with you. Marian dogma’s are not essential to your salvation. We only have one savior and again, if the CC taught that our blessed mother Mary was potentially another way to our heavenly home, other than Jesus, who is the way, truth and life, then I would not be a Christian belonging to the CC.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Hey Joe (isn’t that a Jimmy Hendrix tune? )

Thanks for the post. Blessings to you, brother.

Gurney, I do grasp it and I totally agree with you. Marian dogma’s are not essential to your salvation. We only have one savior and again, if the CC taught that our blessed mother Mary was potentially another way to our heavenly home, other than Jesus, who is the way, truth and life, then I would not be a Christian belonging to the CC.

 

[joe370]

Hey Joe (isn’t that a Jimmy Hendrix tune? )

Thanks for the post. Blessings to you, brother.

Right back at you brother. Is your avatar, Captain Jean-Luc Picard? The most recent Trek movie, (where Nimoy, Spak and the Kirk are all young) - is one of my favorite movies. I am a huge Star Trek fan…

With this new thread format I can’t seem to figure out how to log off. Either it isn’t there or I am a complete moron. LOL…Any suggestions? It’s probably right in front of me.

 

[guanophore]

Correct me if you’re wrong…

Naw. there is already too much of that going on around here.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Gurney,

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.

OK. Thanks for the explanation. But you must admit that a statement like, “But why not pray directly to Christ Jesus Himself who’s intercession is at the very right hand of the Father?” sounds awfully like an exhortation. You stated afterwards that is was your opinion, but the way it was presented made it seem like you were saying, “it’s my opinion that you should do this” instead of “this is what I do personally.”

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[PRmerger]

400?

Or so. Probably more.

Well, no…but certainly everything that is in the canon as well as the identified apocrypha.

So by whose authority have you determined what was inspired and what’s simply an ancient Christian text?

You accept that the Gospel of Mark is inspired why?

(My point: you accept it because my Mama told you. Not by any divine inspiration you’ve been given. Not by any study which allowed you to determine “the Gospel of Thomas is not theopneustos because of A, B and C and the Gospel of Mark is inspired because of D, E and F”. Only because you were* told* it was inspired)

 

[dianaiad]

Or so. Probably more.

So by whose authority have you determined what was inspired and what’s simply an ancient Christian text?

You accept that the Gospel of Mark is inspired why?

(My point: you accept it because my Mama told you. Not by any divine inspiration you’ve been given. Not by any study which allowed you to determine “the Gospel of Thomas is not theopneustos because of A, B and C and the Gospel of Mark is inspired because of D, E and F”. Only because you were* told* it was inspired)

Ok, first…remember that you are making this point to a Mormon. It is an invalid point made to a Mormon. Now I don’t pretend that many of us (and all children) do believe because Mommy said so. However, it is at the very core of our belief that this is a LOUSY way to decide religious truth. It’s a good way to learn about it; after all, trusted sources are trusted sources.

If you trust your mom, you are going to believe what she tells you because, well, she’s your mom. Being your mom, she is utterly trustworthy (hopefully). She has loved you, taught you, protected you, fed you, healed you of hurts, scolded you, played with you–moms do not betray you, in general. You trust mom–so you trust what she says.

However, there comes a time in LDS religious teaching when you have to get your own ‘testimony,’ when you can’t use Mom’s any more. There are some verses that are at the absolute basis of our beliefs regarding this issue; one is James 1:5," If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him." (KJV) But if any of you want wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth to all men abundantly, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.(Douay-Rheims).

…and then there is Moroni’s promise, found in the BoM, Moroni 3-7 (the promise is in 3-5, but I do love 6 and 7)

• 3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.
  4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
  5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.
  6 And whatsoever thing is good is just and true; wherefore, nothing that is good denieth the Christ, but acknowledgeth that he is.
  7 And ye may know that he is, by the power of the Holy Ghost; wherefore I would exhort you that ye deny not the power of God; for he worketh by power, according to the faith of the children of men, the same today and tomorrow, and forever.*

Breaking this down, we believe that first, you need to read whatever it is. Really read it. Then you need to 'ponder it in your hearts." That is, think about it. study it, work out all the …stuff…
Then (well, you should be doing this part all along, but let’s take this in the order it is mentioned in the verses) you pray to Father in Heaven, in the name of His Son Jesus Christ, and ask Him if this is true. The Holy Ghost will 'manifest the truth" to you.

By this way you can know the truth of anything.

Given our beliefs regarding this issue, your insistence that we believe anything because Mommy told us is missing the target by a few fields.

If you think about this for a moment, you can see why we can accept the bible as valid–and also accept that it might not be perfect…and why we can find value in apocryphal writings, and even in other writings. The thing is, truth is truth, no matter where you find it or what it is surrounded by.–and everybody has to get their beliefs and religious conviction, ultimately, from the Source Himself. Personally–after asking for it.

 

[jmcrae]

…yes, that is the claim. Unfortunately, jmcrae, it seems that several Saints had more than two hands, ten fingers…the circumstances of the deaths of these people were such that keeping relics wasn’t as easy as it sounds, and if we put all of the pieces of the ‘True Cross’ that people hauled around with them over the last two millenia, we could replicate two or three giant Sequoias.

Yep - and do you know why? Forgers forge valuable things that are known to exist, in order to profit by them.

Yet, no forger has ever - and I mean ever - attempted to forge the bones or the hair of Mother Mary.

Why would that be, do you suppose?

Perhaps it is because even the forgers of the first and second centuries were aware that Mary had been assumed, body and soul, into Heaven, and that there would be no profit to be made from faking her remains and attempting to sell them - because even the most gullible customers would have said, "Hey, wait a minute … "? :newidea:

 

[KathleenGee]

Guerny

This also came to me…we desire to spread the Gospel in our daily life.

But there is this other aspect of bringing people to Christ and that is Satan.

On the first page of Genesis, it speaks of the emnity between the woman and satan.

St. Michael, a creature of God, said, “Who is like unto God?” Both Mary and St. Michael are creatures. To further humiliate the pride of Lucifer, God chose Mary as the opposite force to satan in the sense of creature to creature. We Christians who see Mary as our mother, our seed, also share in this crushing of Satan through humility and the hidden life.

I had a particularly intense hospice case. Came to a house in the alternative district of my town where people are are into occult practices; many have crystal balls. I came into the house to do night shift. The woman had her boyfriend…his mother was there who was a Eucharistic minister.

The first night the RN was helping her. The patient kept wanting to get out of bed and run away…she kept trying to get out when I came in. Her house gave me the creeps. She had this statue she made of a lion with a man’s head next to her. She had a picture of a bagwan with his hands opened faced out next ot his face with an open mouth and frizzled hair…a Shinto goddess statuette…and on the table in the back was a small statue of Our Lady of Guadalupe. I had to use the bathroom. In there was a sculpted head of an infant with dark shading around its closed eyes, a scar like Frankensteins across its forhead with incense burners sticking out from its forehead.

I had to face her at night. So she called out her boyfriend and told hin Jesus was there and told him to get Him out of there. So he said, ‘here…let’s put your idols around you to protect you…the picture of the bagwhan and the Shinto goddess.’ He kept coming back. I finallly was able to start talking to her…and she was a very lovely person.

She told me she was having these terrible dreams and that the devil was going after her and putting her in jail. He was doing terrible things…she wanted to run away…

The boyfriend came back and I had to stop. The next night she was very afflicted, dying of uterine cancer and having all these awful visions and torments of the devil. The boyfriend finally was out for awhile. I asked her if she knew anything about the roses in December…it was about that statue of Mary. I brought it to her and explained to her what happened in Guadalupe…how the bishop had prayed for a sign…roses in December.

The bishop was praying for peace to come between the Spaniards and the Indians and conversions were very small. When the peasant came to the bishop after seeing Mary, the roses opened and fell from the tilma. when the people saw the tilma, they immediately converted to Christ because her image explained the Story through pictographs.

Continued. !!work!!, Guerny…back this afternoon…sorry lost track of time.

 

[GKC]

…yes, that is the claim. Unfortunately, jmcrae, it seems that several Saints had more than two hands, ten fingers…the circumstances of the deaths of these people were such that keeping relics wasn’t as easy as it sounds, and if we put all of the pieces of the ‘True Cross’ that people hauled around with them over the last two millenia, we could replicate two or three giant Sequoias.

I’m afraid that this argument really is an example of 'lack of proof is not proof of lack…"

…and I really don’t have a problem with the idea that Mary MIGHT have been resurrected within nanoseconds of her death, y’know. She certainly deserved that if anybody did. It’s just…there’s no evidence of it, and I honestly don’t see how belief in it would affect our salvation one way or the other. If it happened, it would be about Mary and her relationship to her Son, not anything to do with us.

Anyway, that’s how it seems to me.

As to the True Cross relics, this is a commonly stated but inaccurate claim. A study in 1870, by de Fleury, Mémoire sur les instruments de la Passion is the definitive account.

GKC

 

[Todd520]

As to the True Cross relics, this is a commonly stated but inaccurate claim. A study in 1870, by de Fleury, Mémoire sur les instruments de la Passion is the definitive account.

GKC

So what did the study reveal? don’t be mean and just tease us