Mary - Salvation

[simonthezealot]

Would a Catholic lose their salvation if they were to deny the marian dogmas?

 

[simonthezealot]

Anyone?

 

[Rhamiel]

I do not know, it is a heresy, but God judges the heart
i think it would be more serious for a Catholic to deny the Marian Dogmas then for a Protestant to, because as a Catholic the person should trust the doctrines of the Catholic Church while Protestants are taught not to trust the Catholic Church, so some of the culpability is taken away

 

[Polycarp1]

No. Because a Catholic iz supposed to follow their informed conscience, assenting to the teachings of the Church -- and that's according to Catholic teaching. That word 'assent' is important -- it's not 'believe'. It's saying, "if I'm a Catholic, pledged to follow the teachings of my Church, and I 'just don't get it' about some teaching, I'm to accept it as what the Church teaches, and probably right." It's not "school yourself to believe seven impossible things before breakfast,' in Carroll's famous phrase.

Further, a Catholic is considered to be in a state of grace if he or she has been baptized, is attempting to follow Jesus as Lord and Savior, has been forgiven his/her sins, and has not willfully sinned since his/her last absolution. Not believing some 'fact' (dogma) that one does not understand is not willful sin, and will not interfere with God's grace and mercy.

P.S.: As far as I am concerned, Jesus was truly God and truly man -- and as a man, and a Jewish man, obliged to keep the commandment, Honor thy Father and thy mother. I figure that what our Lord may have done to honor and save His mother is between him and her, not any of my business either way.

 

[E.C.]

Two things needing pointing out...

1) In Roman Catholic theology salvation is not something, if I recall correctly, earned in this life rather it is something earned or rewarded or whatever after one's soul is judged by God.

2) Only God determines who goes where, only God can judge hearts, etc. That being said, let God do the judging and the human beings do the living on this earth.

 

[&Abel]

denying "Marian Dogma" is heresy?

 

[Rhamiel]

denying "Marian Dogma" is heresy?

all the doctrines of the Catholic Church are true, atleast according to the Catholic Church lol
to preach things that contradict the Catholic CHuch and claiming your message is "true Christianity" is heresy.
that is the definition of heresy is it not? to present missinformation as correct Christian ideas, so every Christian is a heretic to some other Christian

 

[boswd]

I just think if you don't believe in the Church's views on Mary then I would ask why then be a Catholic or an Orthodox for that matter? There are plenty of other theology's and teachings out there that separate us. That would be like, " I don't believe in anything Martin Luther taught but I am a Luthern or I don't believe in believers baptism but I'm a Southern Baptist.
It's part of the Catholic and Orthodox Church's teaching about Mary.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.

Would a Catholic lose their salvation if they were to deny the marian dogmas?

They are DOGMAS in the RCC - the highest level of importance and certainty. To knowingly deny such is to be a heretic and as my priest noted, "Heaven is not populated by heretics." On the other hand, the RCC is VERY hesitant to say whether one is "heaven bound" OR "hell bound." Catholics are left with a pretty big question mark there, so I think the RCC would hesitate to say that one who DENIES any of these dogmas (and I don't - I just don't accept them all as DOGMAS) would THEREBY be damned and hell-bound.


That's how I understand it, anyway....


Pax


- Josiah




.

 

[Sphinx777]

Dogma refers to an article of faith revealed by God, which the magisterium of the Church presents to be believed. The resurrection of Jesus Christ is the basic truth from which salvation and life is derived for Christians. Dogmas regulate the language, how the truth of the resurrection is to be believed and communicated. One dogma is only a small particle of the living Christian faith, from which it derives its meaning. Roman Catholic Dogma is thus: "a truth revealed by God, which the magisterium of the Church declared as binding." The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

* The Church's Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these.

The faithful are required to accept with the divine and Catholic faith all, what the Church presents either as solemn decision or as general teaching. Yet not all teachings are dogma. The faithful are only required to accept those teachings as dogma, if the Church clearly and specifically identifies them as infallible dogmas. Not all truth are dogma. The bible contains many sacred truths, which the faithful recognize and agree with, but which the Church has not defined as dogma. Most Church teachings are not dogma. Cardinal Avery Dulles points out that in the 800 pages of the documents of the Second Vatican Council, there is not one new statement for which infallibility is claimed.

 

[E.C.]

It's part of the Catholic and Orthodox Church's teaching about Mary.

The only real length that the Orthodox Church has made regarding Mary is that she is the Theotokos which when translated means she is the "God-bearer". Meaning that she is the one who bore God, that is Christ, into the world and not a rock.

It was deemed that to call Mary "Christokos", Christ-bearer, as opposed to Theotokos is heresy because it denies the divinity of Christ as well as the hypostatic union of God and Man within Christ. This was concluded to in 431 at the Third Ecumenical Council at Ephesus which refuted the Nestorian heresy. Nestorius' rational was that Mary only bore the humanity of Christ and not His divinity along with it which resulted in his saying that Christ had two bodies, one human and one divine! To deny the Theotokos-ness of Mary is to deny the unity of Christ's divinity and humanity.

The Roman Church has gone as far as to dogmatize things like co-mediatrix and co-redemptrix while the Orthodox Church has not.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The only real length that the Orthodox Church has made regarding Mary is that she is the Theotokos which when translated means she is the "God-bearer". Meaning that she is the one who bore God, that is Christ, into the world and not a rock.

It's the same in Lutheranism. It is doctrine among us that Our Lady is "The Mother of God." We also embrace that she was a virgin at the annunciation and at the birth of Jesus.

We don't officially deny the RCC Marian Dogmas, some in fact embrace them as "pious opinion." But they aren't dogmas among us. And we don't hold such as necessary for salvation. My Lutheran pastor embraces these Marian views, I tend to leave them alone - neither accepting or rejecting them. We have no "issues" with each other. I'm not arguing for his excommunication and he's not arguing for mine. Neither of us is saying the other is a damned heretic.

The Roman Church has gone as far as to dogmatize things like co-mediatrix and co-redemptrix while the Orthodox Church has not.

... I tend to agree.





.

 

[Polycarp1]

The only real length that the Orthodox Church has made regarding Mary is that she is the Theotokos which when translated means she is the "God-bearer". Meaning that she is the one who bore God, that is Christ, into the world and not a rock.

It was deemed that to call Mary "Christokos", Christ-bearer, as opposed to Theotokos is heresy because it denies the divinity of Christ as well as the hypostatic union of God and Man within Christ. This was concluded to in 431 at the Third Ecumenical Council at Ephesus which refuted the Nestorian heresy. Nestorius' rational was that Mary only bore the humanity of Christ and not His divinity along with it which resulted in his saying that Christ had two bodies, one human and one divine! To deny the Theotokos-ness of Mary is to deny the unity of Christ's divinity and humanity.

The Roman Church has gone as far as to dogmatize things like co-mediatrix and co-redemptrix while the Orthodox Church has not.

A key part of Anglican Christological doctrine is Acta V of the Council of Chalcedon, defining the two natures in Christ... and reiterating the Theotokos. It is not, in intent, a statement about Mary at all, but about Jesus Christ... that the identity between Jesus of Nazareth the man and the Eternal Son of God is so rock-solid that even in his mother's womb he was still God the Son, so she is properly referred to as Theotokos, the one who bore God within her. Jesus is truly God and truly man, not a man through whom God worked or God in the semblance of man, but from conception to ascension totally and completely both God and man.

 

[Musa80]

The Roman Church has gone as far as to dogmatize things like co-mediatrix and co-redemptrix while the Orthodox Church has not.

As far as I'm aware neither of those titles have been declared dogma.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

A key part of Anglican Christological doctrine is Acta V of the Council of Chalcedon, defining the two natures in Christ... and reiterating the Theotokos. It is not, in intent, a statement about Mary at all, but about Jesus Christ... that the identity between Jesus of Nazareth the man and the Eternal Son of God is so rock-solid that even in his mother's womb he was still God the Son, so she is properly referred to as Theotokos, the one who bore God within her. Jesus is truly God and truly man, not a man through whom God worked or God in the semblance of man, but from conception to ascension totally and completely both God and man.

.

 

[Thekla]

Actually, as far as I know at least, all dogma and teaching re: Mary have been at their source (and simultaneously point to) Christological and Soteriological.

 

[boswd]

It's the same in Lutheranism. It is doctrine among us that Our Lady is "The Mother of God." We also embrace that she was a virgin at the annunciation and at the birth of Jesus.

We don't officially deny the RCC Marian Dogmas, some in fact embrace them as "pious opinion." But they aren't dogmas among us. And we don't hold such as necessary for salvation. My Lutheran pastor embraces these Marian views, I tend to leave them alone - neither accepting or rejecting them. We have no "issues" with each other. I'm not arguing for his excommunication and he's not arguing for mine. Neither of us is saying the other is a damned heretic.





... I tend to agree.





.

That's the same position of the UMC, The Methodist Church neither accepts nor deny's but is silent on that position of the Marion studies and just like your Church there are many in our congregation that do accept them and some that don't but many find the subject of great interest. But we all share the same view of given her high honor and don't just treat her like any other woman nor conisder her irrelevant as our Fundy Protestant's do.

I remember after Church we went out for Breakfast with a few people of our fellowship and it came up and the debate never got heated or anything and it moved on to how some of these other churches are almost afraid to say her name for fear of looking too "Catholic"or "Mary is Catholic Thing" . There was one guy who went on to say " I hope those Churches are 100% sure in their assesment of her because what a "fly in their soup" would it be if on Judgement Day there Mary is sitting next to Christ and the Father!! He went on acting like Ralph Cramden from the old TV show "The Honeymooners" whenever Ralph (Jackie Gleason) got caught doing something wrong or stupid he would have his claissic. " Ahummnina hummnia hummnia" sweating and moving all about all uncomfortable. LOL We thought that was hilarious.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

That's the same position of the UMC, The Methodist Church neither accepts nor deny's but is silent on that position of the Marion studies and just like your Church there are many in our congregation that do accept them and some that don't but many find the subject of great interest. But we all share the same view of given her high honor and don't just treat her like any other woman nor conisder her irrelevant as our Fundy Protestant's do.

I remember after Church we went out for Breakfast with a few people of our fellowship and it came up and the debate never got heated or anything and it moved on to how some of these other churches are almost afraid to say her name for fear of looking too "Catholic"or "Mary is Catholic Thing" . There was one guy who went on to say " I hope those Churches are 100% sure in their assesment of her because what a "fly in their soup" would it be if on Judgement Day there Mary is sitting next to Christ and the Father!! He went on acting like Ralph Cramden from the old TV show "The Honeymooners" whenever Ralph (Jackie Gleason) got caught doing something wrong or stupid he would have his claissic. " Ahummnina hummnia hummnia" sweating and moving all about all uncomfortable. LOL We thought that was hilarious.

.

 

[katholikos]

Would a Catholic lose their salvation if they were to deny the marian dogmas?

For a Catholic to deny Dogmas is the textbook definition of heresy, which is damnable, strictly speaking.

However, there is also a Church teaching regarding your conscience. If a Catholic TRULY TRULY TRULY believes that they are doing the right thing... ....or better yet, if a person believes TRULY that something is wrong then they must obey their conscience. Not to do so is ALSO a sin. For ANY human being of any faith to do something they think is wrong is a sin - whether the thing is obvjectively wrong or not.

So again, Catholic teaching is not so cut and dry.

 

[simonthezealot]

So again, Catholic teaching is not so cut and dry.

That is true...Usually i'd start pasteing pictures of the catechism then its companion then the vat 2 documents the council of trent documents and then suggest there's your answer...

And that is a major issue I have with your church, it seems to drive toward confusion in its effort to clarify..I (me personally) just don't believe God authors such difficulty in understanding. You know the label of SS being the cause multiple interpretations maybe true but I'm just not convinced that slightly different views of Romans 5:1 from different churches is any better or worse than having to peruse the list of books I listed above to try and understand them in order to interpret that same verse. Know what i'm saying?