What do Mormons Think of Mary - Mother of Jesus

[PaulDupre]

More on celibacy…

In 1 Corinthians 7,Paul actually endorses celibacy for those capable of it: “To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion” (7:8-9).

It is only because of this “temptation to immorality” (7:2) that Paul gives the teaching about each man and woman having a spouse and giving each other their “conjugal rights” (7:3); he specifically clarifies, “I say this by way of concession, not of command. I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another” (7:6-7, emphasis added).

Paul even goes on to make a case for preferring celibacy to marriage: “Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage. . . those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. . . . The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband” (7:27-34).

Paul’s conclusion: He who marries “does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better” (7:38).

Jesus also taught that celibacy “for the sake of the kingdom” is a holy estate:

"Not all can accept this word, but only those to whom it is granted. Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of God. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it" (Matt. 19:11–12).

Notice that this sort of celibacy “for the sake of the kingdom” is a gift, a call that is not granted to all, or even most people, but is granted to some. Other people are called to marriage. It is true that too often individuals in both vocations fall short of the requirements of their state, but this does not diminish either vocation, nor does it mean that the individuals in question were “not really called” to that vocation. The sin of a priest doesn’t necessarily prove that he never should have taken a vow of celibacy, any more than the sin of a married man or woman proves that he or she never should have gotten married. It is possible for us to fall short of our own true calling.

Celibacy is neither unnatural nor unbiblical. “Be fruitful and multiply” is not binding upon every individual; rather, it is a general precept for the human race. Otherwise, every unmarried man and woman of marrying age would be in a state of sin by remaining single, and Jesus and Paul would be guilty of advocating sin as well as committing it.

Also, you must know that

1. Celibacy for clergy is a discipline, not a doctrine
2. There are married priests in the Catholic Church. But it is not the norm.

Mostly borrowed from the Catholic Answers library. Thanks, CA!

God be with you,
Paul

 

[jediliz]

how did a discussion on the LDS religion’s view of the Blessed Mother turn into a discussion on married priests?

I think its GOOD that there is the discipline of Celibacy. Catholic priests don’t make a lot of money. They also get moved around every two years (this is on average for a newly ordained priest). Having a wife and family and then having to move ever so often would place a burden on the family. Not to mention all the duties that are required - bringing communion to the sick, visiting people in the hospital, daily Mass, sometimes teaching Religion classes at schools, etc.

Back to the subject at hand - Mary was chosen as Jesus’ mother because she was consecrated to God. The story goes that her parents prayed to God for a child. And they were blessed with Mary. They consecrated her to GOD in the temple. She was Immaculately conceived without sin so that God could send his son to be born from a pure and holy vessel.

Also, for the first two years after Jesus’ birth, the Holy Family was hiding from King Herrod.

Oh, and if Jesus did have half siblings - why weren’t they present at the foot of the Cross with HIS mother? Why did Jesus give Mary to the care of John his apostle if he had half siblings?

Just some thoughts to ponder.

 

[MEP]

BJ Colbert:

Thomas More, why is it wierd to ask if there is a book telling of Mary’s life?
MEP, thank you for your remarks, interesting, I really have never thought of Mary very deeply. I just know she was a virgin and the Mother of Jesus Christ. That is all I know about Mary. I would like to know more, if someone can tell me where the official Church record is about her life, I would buy it and read it.
Thanks to anyone who knows and can tell me.
BJ

Personally, I don’t think it’s wierd to ask. However, there really is no one book that encompasses all of Marian doctrine. The doctrine itself is formed from a collection of references spread throughout the Bible, the writings of the Early Church Fathers and the traditions of the early Church. Marian doctrine today is pulled together from a myriad of different sources. I would expect that almost any book from the Catholic Store that is about Mary would probably be a good starting point. There are a lot to choose from, read the book jacket and pick the one that sounds most interesting to you.

I wish I could offer more direct assistance in finding what you’re looking for, but the subject of Mary is something that each Catholic approaches from a very personal perspective, it’s not something that the Church outlines for us on a regular basis (though the Catechism has a lengthy section devoted to Mary in it and that might be a good start for you). For each of us, finding Mary is a personal discovery and so there really isn’t any one great book or one definitive source for all Marian doctrine.

Each book that is out there though (that really is Catholic and not some propaganda written to discredit us) should make reference to where we find our evidence of Mary’s life in the bible (what little is in there) and in church tradition.

I think contemplation of Mary is very important for any Christian. Here is a woman who said, “Let it be done according to your will.” She didn’t ask questions, she didn’t ask for anything in return. She just obeyed her God, and loved her son. She watched her only son die on the cross, tortured to death. She watched her only son sacrifice himself for her and for every one else. She never failed to obey her God’s will. She was the ultimate strong woman. She was the epitome of what all Christians should be. And she was the mother of our God.

Marian devotion does not distract us from Jesus as some people might claim. Mary points the way to Christ always. She is one of our guides, and perhaps the finest example, except Christ himself, of a human being serving God’s will. I don’t personally think any of us can really understand Christ without also understanding his mother. His sacrifice was her sacrifice (Mormons who always talk so much about parenting and the incredible joy that children bring to parents and how parents love their kids more than anything else have to see this). To watch your son die torturously and not question it, to stand by as your son remakes the world you live in, changing everything you grew up with and turning the whole world against you (for a time), to do what she did was one of the finest examples of a Christian life.

I wish more non-Catholics would understand that.

 

[Paul_G]

Robert in SD:

Hello Friends;

Seeing as how the Catholic Church just celebrated the birthday of the Blessed Virgin Mary (Sept. 8) I’m curious to know what the LDS church teaches about the mother of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ? Specifically, do you believe any of the following Catholic doctrines…

(1) the Immaculate Conception (born without original sin)

(2) Mary’s perpetual virginity (even after Jesus’ birth - i.e. no siblings (or half-siblings to be more accurate))

(3) the Assumption - (at the end of her life, assumed into Heaven body and soul)

(4) Mary’s position as the Queen of Heaven (crowned Queen of Heaven by her Son who honored her with His glory in accordance with God’s Commandment - a powerful advocate to her Son on our behalf)

I would love to hear LDS beliefs/responses/doctrines on Mary.

Thanks

I believe LDS reverence Mary as the mother of Jesus, but not to the extent that the Catholic Church does. The question I would like ask in return is, are all the above believes about Mary part of the saving doctrines of the Catholic Church?

 

[Chris-WA]

amgid:

What is the justification for the Catholic Church’s rule of enforced celibacy in the clergy? Paul specifically states that a requirement of a good bishop is that he should be married, and be able to govern his household well! (1 Timothy 3:1-5.) In modern scripture, the Lord has revealed:

D&C 49:

15 And again, verily I say unto you, that whoso forbiddeth to marry is not ordained of God, for marriage is ordained of God unto man.

You violate this law by forbidding your priesthood to marry. It is not even optional. This historically has been one of the greatest sources of evil in the Catholic Church. Much of the paedophilia and homosexuality that has been rampant among the Catholic clergy and monastic institutions throughout history would have been averted had this evil law not been in force. In the LDS Church, the unwritten law is that bishops should be married! I have yet to come across an LDS bishop or stake president that hasn’t been married. I doubt if there has ever been one!

amgid

Amgid, you continue to bewilder me with your outrageous assertions. Other posters have already adequately dealt with your misunderstanding of what Paul said regarding marriage, and they have shown you that Christ certainly allowed for celibacy. Oh, and by the way, Christ himself wasn’t married–and He is the highest of high priests! What you have done in your biblical interpretation is selected a few quotes out of context to prove your point, while disregarding what scripture really says.

What I really want to deal with is your rediculous claim that celibacy leads to sexual abuse/homosexuality. You have absolutely no basis whatsoever to make this claim. This is an emotional and irrational response, and does not hold up to scrutiny. Celibacy is not evil. Christ was celibate. St. Paul was celibate. Sacred Tradition holds that St. Joseph and the Blessed Virgin Mary were celibate. Yes, most of us are called to marriage. It is a holy and wonderful thing. But some are called to celibacy. It is also a holy and wonderful thing, and other posters here have shown you that scripture clearly states this. What you are doing is taking “modern revelation” and allowing it blot out what Christ already revealed regarding marriage and celibacy in the New Testament.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Paul G:

I believe LDS reverence Mary as the mother of Jesus, but not to the extent that the Catholic Church does. The question I would like ask in return is, are all the above believes about Mary part of the saving doctrines of the Catholic Church?

They are all defined doctrine. I’m not sure what you mean when you qualify the term “doctrine” with the adjective “saving.” However, it is understood that Mary played a key role in salvation history that was made possible by her Immaculate conception, it is understood that Mary’s perpetual virginity confirms the divinity of Jesus’ birth, and her Assumption and title as Queen of Heaven confirms Christ’s perfect fulfillment of God’s laws - including the commandment to honor your mother as well as your father. If your question asks whether one must believe in all of these doctrines to obtain salvation, that’s a complicated answer for another thread, but the short answer is - Mary is there to help us find the saving Christ, and we poor souls need all the help we can get.

 

[Chris-WA]

MEP:

I think the “queen of heaven” thing is very poorly phrased so far. It’s not a postition of authority in the sense that “queen” usually indicates and this is exactly the kind of thing that leads non-catholics to believe that we worship Mary as a deified being. Mary is the second mother of all man kind (Eve being the first). Through Eve, we were born into original sin. Through Mary’s motherhood of Christ, we are all born into eternal salvation. She is the mother of the Lord of our salvation and is thus a mother to our salvation, the spiritual mother of us all. She is a mother to all and an advocate for our sake, not a ruler.

Actually, queen of heaven is a perfect title for Mary if you understand the scriptural background. In Old Testament Israel, the wife of the king of Israel was not the queen–the mother was. She was the “queen mother.” This position of honor existed in the Davidic kingdoms, as well as other ancient Middle Eastern kingdoms. She had a throne to the right of the king (place of highest honor) in the palace and was an advocate for the people to the king. It was a great setup because although the king was ruler over all, even over his own mother, he still had to listen to her because she in fact was his mother. This is demonstrated in scripture with King Solomon and his queen mother. She is described as pleading on behalf of the people to him, and he grants her requests because she is his mother, even though he is her king.

Now take Mary, the mother of the greatest of the Davidic kings, Christ. She is the queen mother for all eternity, because He is the king for all eternity. She is an advocate for us to Him. She brings us to Him. She perfectly fulfills the office of queen mother for the heavenly kingdom.

With this background, the exchange between Jesus and Mary at the wedding in Cana makes perfect sense. She advocates on behalf of the wedding party to Christ. His response is not one of rebuke, as some misinterpret, but of the highest respect, and He honors her prompting by performing His first public miracle.

Mary is not just the queen mother, she is the queen mother.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

amgid:

What is the justification for the Catholic Church’s rule of enforced celibacy in the clergy? Paul specifically states that a requirement of a good bishop is that he should be married, and be able to govern his household well! (1 Timothy 3:1-5.) In modern scripture, the Lord has revealed:

D&C 49:

15 And again, verily I say unto you, that whoso forbiddeth to marry is not ordained of God, for marriage is ordained of God unto man.
You violate this law by forbidding your priesthood to marry. It is not even optional. This historically has been one of the greatest sources of evil in the Catholic Church. Much of the paedophilia and homosexuality that has been rampant among the Catholic clergy and monastic institutions throughout history would have been averted had this evil law not been in force. In the LDS Church, the unwritten law is that bishops should be married! I have yet to come across an LDS bishop or stake president that hasn’t been married. I doubt if there has ever been one!

amgid

Please do not hijack my thread!
If you want to start your own thread on celibacy of the priesthood, you are free to do so. Please don’t divert the discussion away from the original topic.

 

[PaulDupre]

Paul G:

I believe LDS reverence Mary as the mother of Jesus, but not to the extent that the Catholic Church does. The question I would like ask in return is, are all the above believes about Mary part of the saving doctrines of the Catholic Church?

If you mean “does a Catholic need to practice Marian devotion to be saved?” the answer is no. The Marian Dogmas (her perpetual virginity and her assumption into heaven) like all other dogmas must be assented to, but that’s the end of it.

A Catholic can go through his whole life without ever saying a “Hail Mary” or singing “Salve Regina” and be saved just fine. In fact, you could go to mass every Sunday for the rest of your life and never hear anything about Mary, except when her name is listed along with the saints, the apostles and the angels in heaven who continually praise God.

God love you,
Paul

 

[BJ_Colbert]

MEP and Tom Nosser,
I especially like your answers and will read the things suggested,
Thank You,
BJ

 

[Robert_in_SD]

BJ;

Probably the best place to go for an understanding of Catholic beliefs associated with Mary is to read the sections of the Catechism of the Catholic Church that discuss her. There are references to source documents throughout the discussion, but there is no “Book of Mary” in the Bible.

Catholics believe Mary is foreshadowed throughout the OT, however, in Eve, the Ark of the Covenant, and the mother of King David. She is also prophesied in Revelation:

[1] And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars;
[2] she was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery. (Rev 12:1-2.)

You can access the CCC discussion on Mary online HERE.

Peace

 

[BJ_Colbert]

TOmNossor:

BJ,
The perpetual virginity of Mary has very ancient roots in the Early Church. It was sealed by the first Lateran Council and became dogma (what Catholics must believe) in 649AD.

When I tried to determine if I could believe this, I concluded that I could in fact embrace this (if I were Catholic).

There is a very early writing called the Protoevangelium of St. James. It was written about 125AD and explains that Mary was a committed (generally) virgin and was given to marry Joseph a widower. Joseph was older and was to protect her and her virginity. Partially deriving from this account I believe comes the theory that the brother’s of Jesus were Joseph’s children. This was the most popular orthodox view until the 5th century.

In the 5th century AD St. Jerome was particularly unsatisfied with this concept and the now popular cousins of Jesus theory stems from him. I had previously thought his problem was similar to Aquinas in that he was uncomfortable suggesting that Mary took a “vow of virginity” which would seem to be prohibited by Dt 7:14(Aquinas lists Dt 7:14, 1 Cor 7:25, and 1 Tim 5:12; but I had only remember Jerome being concerned with Deuteronomy). I am not so sure this was his issue any longer, but he does seem to be responsible for the emergence of the now popular cousins theory. (Augustine before Jerome had no problem with a “vow of virginity” for Mary).

Aquinas defends the idea that Mary could have taken a non-absolute vow of virginity, and then when God makes it clear what she is to do, she could absolutely vow to remain a virgin.

One of the more interesting recent (2002) discoveries is a bone box that says it contains the bones of “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus.” Before and after this my preferred view was that “half-brother” was the best Catholic solution on account of its very early witness, but as this ossuary is further verified, it seems to only strengthen the half brother idea. Catholics are free to believe either as I understand (or rather they must believe that Mary was ever virgin).

The internet is a great source for all of this and the Protoevagelium of St. James is an interesting read and the www.newadvent.org has a lot of interesting things on it.

The perpetual virginity of Mary is pretty solid in the early church. The Bible is not simple to rectify with Mary’s perpetual virginity. But on the whole, I do not find it to have much to say about the Catholic truth claims, either for or against.

BTW, one of the more interesting LDS stories I heard about Mary is that Elder McConkie repeatedly asked that a chapter in a book he was reviewing be omitted or changed because he was uncomfortable with the way the author spoke about Christ’s mother. I knew McConkie was a secret fan of the Catholics!!!

Charity, TOm

Tom, this was and is very interesting. I have added this site to my favorites, so I can read it at my leisure. It has so much information on every subject “Catholic” that I have questions about. It will keep me busy, so I won’t have to bug the forum for answers, and make them think I am mad, because my questions are so stupid.
I will come back when I have learned more about the subjects being discussed and can converse more intelligently, if that ever happens. Thanks for the patience from those who tried to explain Catholic beliefs to me, and sorry for the impression I left of being facetious. It always surprised me to have someone think I was not sincere in my questions.
BJ

 

[amgid]

Tmaque:

Jesus himself asked those who could be celibate to do so, in order to focus on his kingdom.

Matthew 19,12 NAB

“Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.”

From the KJV : “He that is able to receive it, let him receive it”

Here Jesus is saying celibacy is a gift from God and whoever can receive it should recieve it. Jesus praises and recommends celibacy when it’s done for his kingdom.

I don’t think you have understood those verses correctly. There is a time and place for everything. There is a time to be celibate, and a time to get married. When our young elders are sent on their missions, they are commanded not to get married while on their missions so that they can give their time 100% to their missions. But after their missions are accomplished, they are expected to get married. I don’t believe those verses are recommending celibacy as a way of life.

Matthew 19,29 NAB

“And everyone who has given up houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands for the sake of my name will receive a hundred times more, and will inherit eternal life.”

Here Jesus says that whoever gives up children for the sake of His name will receive a hundred times more and will inherit eternal life. Certainly Jesus isn’t recommending people abandon thier children! No, Jesus is praising celibacy when it is done for the sake of His kingdom.

You have misunderstood this verse also. This scripture has no relevance to celibacy at all. If your reading was correct, then Jesus is advocating that people shouldn’t have any brothers and sisters, and fathers and mothers either! What Jesus is referring to here is our willingness to suffer the loss of such things, usually as a result of persecution, rather than to deny God, or fail to fulfill His commandments, in order to avoid such a loss. Celibacy has nothing to do with it.

St. Paul believed very much in celibacy for clergy…

Snip/…

Paul was anti-women! He made terrible gaffs about women which nobody would seriously consider following today:

1 Cor. 14:

34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

1 Tim. 2:

11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
Is that how you tell your wife to behave themselves in the Catholic Church?

Amgid, you have a very unsophisticated and bigoted viewpoint toward the Catholic church.

Now I don’t agree with you about that! I have presented you with sound arguments, and when you find that you can’t respond to them you hurl insults at me! That only exposes the weakness of your theological position.

It’s unfortunate that you won’t step out of your LDS paradigm for a moment and try to see why a former devout LDS like me would leave the LDS Church after serving a mission, holding many church callings and having a strong testimony.

You are wrong about that too. I am very interested to know why someone like you would want leave the LDS Church and become a Catholic.

(Continued in the next post…)

amgid

 

[amgid]

(Continued from the previous post…)

Isn’t it just possible that I am a sincere honest person who, through a factual and spiritual process, came to an intellectually honest opinion that, although you disagree with, has at least some validity?

That is perfectly possible, and I am entirely willing to grant you that. People leave the LDS Church and loin other religions for different reasons. The great majority of those who leave the LDS Church simply become inactive, lose their testimony, and wonder off into the rest of the world; but they don’t turn against the LDS Church, and usually they don’t join another church either. Many of them still retain a small flicker of testimony in their hearts.

There are a much smaller number who leave the Church and then become fully-fledged apostates. They deny the Holy Ghost, and completely turn against the Church. They become bitter enemies of the Church, and fight against it tooth and claw. Those people often join another religion in order to use it as a platform from which fight against the LDS Church. But the Catholic Church is not the commonest religion of choice for those types of people. The religion of choice most commonly favored by those groups of people tend to be Evangelical Protestantism, because they are the most visible enemies of the LDS Church But you do find a scattering of them in the Catholic Church too.

And finally, there is a third group of people who leave the LDS Church, and join another Church, who do so out of sincere belief. They are the smallest of the three groups. They are distinguished by the characteristic that they don’t fight against the LDS Church. They maintain their own religious beliefs, whatever that is, and leave the LDS Church alone. You probably belong to this latter group. I have not noticed the kind of venomous hatred and malice against the LDS Church coming from you, which characterizes those groups of people. Time will tell, but I hope I am not wrong about that; I am very much interested in entering into a dialogue with you as to the reasons for you change of religion.

Are you so narrow minded that you aren’t even a little curious?

I am certainly not. I am very curious to know about the reasons for your decision to change your religion.

I’m very curious when a smart LDS like Tom chooses the LDS Church, when it’s so obvious to me that he’s wrong. I want to understand his thought process. I want to understand why he made the decision he did. And the more I understand it the more respect I gain for his thought process AND his sincerity. That is a GOOD thing. I hope you can understand that.

Absolutely, see above.

amgid

 

[amgid]

PaulDupre:

What Joseph Smith said is irrelevant.

What Joseph Smith said is extremely relevant, because he was a prophet of the Lord, and his revelations were given him of God. Reject him at your peril.

This interpretation leads to obvious absurdities. For one, if “the husband of one wife” really meant that a bishop had to be married, then by the same logic “keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way” would mean that he had to have children…

That quote from Paul does not mean that a bishop must be married; but it does mean that there is nothing wrong if he is; and the expectation is that he is most likely to be. The RCC lays down the rule that they should not be.

As for the rest of your post, see my response to Tmaque above.

amgid

 

[Robert_in_SD]

amgid:

I don’t think you have understood those verses correctly. There is a time and place for everything. There is a time to be celibate, and a time to get married. When our young elders are sent on their missions, they are commanded not to get married while on their missions so that they can give their time 100% to their missions. But after their missions are accomplished, they are expected to get married. I don’t believe those verses are recommending celibacy as a way of life.

You are reading into Scripture what you would like it to say. Paul is quite clear about the propriety of one who chooses not to marry so he can devote all of his energies to the ministerial priesthood. (1 Cor 7:32-35.)

amgid:

You have misunderstood this verse also. This scripture has no relevance to celibacy at all. If your reading was correct, then Jesus is advocating that people shouldn’t have any brothers and sisters, and fathers and mothers either! What Jesus is referring to here is our willingness to suffer the loss of such things, usually as a result of persecution, rather than to deny God, or fail to fulfill His commandments, in order to avoid such a loss. Celibacy has nothing to do with it.

Again, you are reading into Scripture what you have been taught to believe, rather than what is there. Even Jesus praised those who would renounce sex for the sake of the kingdom of God. (Mt 9:12)

amgid:

Paul was anti-women! He made terrible gaffs about women which nobody would seriously consider following today:

1 Cor. 14:

34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

1 Tim. 2:

11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
Is that how you tell your wife to behave themselves in the Catholic Church?

Are you suggesting that Scripture is inaccurate? Perhaps you are simply misinterpreting this passage as well?

amgid:

Now I don’t agree with you about that! I have presented you with sound arguments, and when you find that you can’t respond to them you hurl insults at me! That only exposes the weakness of your theological position.

To the contrary, your objections have been answered cogently and with sincerity. It is your inflammatory comment that cause others to lose sight of the real issue. Also, it seems that it is you who has sought to turn the discussion in this thread from Mary to an entirely unrelated topic of the priesthood. As I indicated in my earlier post, please don’t hijack a thread for your own issue. Start your own thread.

amgid:

You are wrong about that too. I am very interested to know why someone like you would want leave the LDS Church and become a Catholic.

You can’t tell that from your posts. You appear to be present for no other reason than to castigate others for their non-LDS beliefs.

 

[Paul_G]

PaulDupre:

If you mean “does a Catholic need to practice Marian devotion to be saved?” the answer is no. The Marian Dogmas (her perpetual virginity and her assumption into heaven) like all other dogmas must be assented to, but that’s the end of it.

A Catholic can go through his whole life without ever saying a “Hail Mary” or singing “Salve Regina” and be saved just fine. In fact, you could go to mass every Sunday for the rest of your life and never hear anything about Mary, except when her name is listed along with the saints, the apostles and the angels in heaven who continually praise God.

God love you,
Paul

Thanks Paul

That being the case, not being a saving doctrine, from my point of view I don’t see what the problem is. I think many people get way too bent out of shape arguing non-essentials issues.

 

[PaulDupre]

Agreed!

 

[twf]

Paul G: No, that is not quite accurate. It is necessary to assent to all that Holy Mother Church presents for our belief…and this includes the Marian doctrines. They are not optional. PaulDupre was simply saying that it is not necessary for salvation to foster a personal devotion to our Holy Mother. I would suggest, however, that to stay on the straight and narrow, as a Catholic, without the intercession of our spiritual Mother, would be much much more difficult. A true and pious devotion to Mary, like the devotion of a good son to his mother, can only strengthen our relationship with Christ, and ensures that we will keep from mortal sin and go on to everlasting life. Mary always directs us to Christ, and like the Queen Mothers of Israel, has the ear of the King, and can intercede for us before Him. (Of course we go directly to Christ as well, but Mary, as His Mother, is a most powerful advocate).

For any Mormon:
Taking into account the Mormon concept of celestial glory, why couldn’t Mary be the Queen of Heaven in some sense? Wouldn’t she have an important position as the Mother of Jesus?

 

[Robert_in_SD]

twf:

Paul G: No, that is not quite accurate. It is necessary to assent to all that Holy Mother Church presents for our belief…and this includes the Marian doctrines. They are not optional. PaulDupre was simply saying that it is not necessary for salvation to foster a personal devotion to our Holy Mother. I would suggest, however, that to stay on the straight and narrow, as a Catholic, without the intercession of our spiritual Mother, would be much much more difficult. A true and pious devotion to Mary, like the devotion of a good son to his mother, can only strengthen our relationship with Christ, and ensures that we will keep from mortal sin and go on to everlasting life. Mary always directs us to Christ, and like the Queen Mothers of Israel, has the ear of the King, and can intercede for us before Him. (Of course we go directly to Christ as well, but Mary, as His Mother, is a most powerful advocate).

For any Mormon:
Taking into account the Mormon concept of celestial glory, why couldn’t Mary be the Queen of Heaven in some sense? Wouldn’t she have an important position as the Mother of Jesus?

Good points twf.