Immaculate Conception and assumption


What do these two doctrines have to do with being a Christian.
The Pope says if you don’t believe them you are anathema.

What do either of these doctrines have to do with the centrality of Jesus as the Savior?

Any help would be appreciated.


Authority, is it in a nutshell.

If the pope said one must eat peanuts to be saved, then I’m going to the store to buy up peanuts.

But seriously, the Immaculate Conception is Christ-centered. Catholics teach that just like the Old Testament Law, the 10 Commandments, Jesus, the New Covenant Law, resided in a pure and spotless vessel. Nothing less than perfect would suit for Jesus’ introduction into the world as man. (well, first as a child, but you get the picture).

The Assumption then springs out of the teaching of the IC. Since Mary was sinless, and without Original Sin, then she wouldn’t suffer the corruption of the body at death. So she was assumed into heaven.

But to be honest with you, I was very serious on the peanuts comment. It all boils down to the authority that Jesus gave the Church to “bind and loose”.


I have to agree with NotWorthy about authority. By being obedient to the Church that Jesus established on the rock Peter we are obedient to Christ Himself. Since the gates of hell won’t prevail against the Church, It cannot teach error.

The fruit of pride is disobedience
The fruit of humility is obedience


One comment: B does not follow from A.

Carry on with the great Mary debate.


Immaculate Conception:
Because without Jesus redeeming us, Mary wouldn’t have been able to be sinless from the moment of her conception. That is, Mary did not make herself sinless. God did.

Jesus assumed Mary into Heaven. She had no power to do so herself.

So how does this relate to us? Mary shows us where we are all going. Someday we will be sinless, in Heaven, with our mortal bodies, just like Mary is right now.


To not believe these two Doctrines is to call Jesus a liar. Believing Jesus to be a liar will greatly affect your salvation.


You’re never going to help anyone convert by telling them that they risk not being saved.


Well we can only speculate as to why God chose to do these things, and why he chose to reveal them to his Church. I’m sure there are a thousand things that you as a Protesant believe that have no obvious connection to “the centrality of Jesus as the Savior”, and yet you believe them. So why the hangup on these two?


Why the hang up???
deep down,
anti-Catholics hate Mary.
They don’t hate Joseph, they don’t have knee-jerk reactions when the Protestant reformers are praised, they don’t get upset if you speak with great admiration of Noah or Samson or Nathan or David or even Deborah or Jael. But start speaking admirably and highly of Mary and you’ll lose your fundy audience REALLY quick. There is simply something about her that inwardly they can’t stand, and that attitude does not come from God.

If they examined themselves and their emotions closely,
they would come to realize that.

When I was a JW, I loathed seeing any honor at all
paid to Mary. I had a deep, unreasonable resentment
toward her and a great disrespect. I didn’t mind hearing praise heaped upon Peter or Paul or Samson or David or the Governing Body of JWs or upon “the Society,” but if I heard anyone go beyond calling Mary a mere “nice lady,” my blood started to freeze. Examining myself,
I came to realize that I regarded her as a common sinner
that God caused to get pregnant, and whom Jesus told-off
at the wedding in Cana (( What have I to do with thee, Woman, for my hour has not yet come )). I was real big on that verse,
but never “noticed” that Mary didn’t slink away like some
sinner who had just been chastised, but rather she went RIGHT TO the servants, sent them to Jesus, and Jesus worked the miracle because of Mary’s persistent prayer.



I’d re-phrase that. Anti-Catholics don’t hate Mary, and this is just inflammatory language.

What they hate is what Catholics teach about Mary because they (incorrectly) feel that this detracts from Jesus.


Jesus said, “You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.” (John 8:32)

These doctrines are part of the truth of our faith, and the Catholic Church teaches them because she knows them to be true.

Why wouldn’t you consider these things important?

Consider this analogy: if you met a man and fell in love with him, you would want to know everything about him: his favorite books, movies, music and restaurants, where he went to school, where he grew up, etc. You’d want to know all about his family, too.

It’s the same with Jesus; when we fall in love with Him, we want to know as much as we can about Him: how he thinks, what He said, where He lived and taught, etc. We want to know all about His family, too.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:


So, these are boiled peanuts? :stuck_out_tongue:


Honey roasted, of course. But during Lent, boiled will do. Personal penance, you know…


Since one of the ways - in fact, the primary way - that Hell could overcome the Church would be to influence its teaching of sound doctrine, Jesus’ words can be seen as a promise that the Church would be protected from formally teaching error in matters of faith and morals.

The Gates of Hell have not and will not prevail against the Church because Jesus built it and the Holy Spirit leads it into “all truth.”

Hope this helps. :tiphat:


The Immaculate Conception, Assumption, and Theotokos (Mary, Mother of God) are central to properly understanding the Incarnation. Denying these central teachings leads to heresy regarding the Person of Jesus.


This is exactly right. One cannot properly understand the Incarnation without understanding Mary’s place in it. And one cannot properly know or understand Christ without understanding the Incarnation.


[SIGN]Bingo![/SIGN]We have a bingo!


We honour Mary and seek her intercession because her primary role in the economy of salvation, according to the Scriptures, is to lead all her children to her divine Son. The Marian prophecy in Genesis 3:15, of the woman and her seed at enmity with the serpent and his seed (original sin), reaches its climax in Revelation 12 where the woman’s seed now includes not just the Son but also all his followers who form the Church. The author of Revelation had already set the groundwork for this profound image of Mary with his Gospel (John 19:25-27) in which our Lord’s beloved disciple (representing all of Jesus’ brethren) is given the Woman as his mother by her Son. In Marian devotion, and in her appearances throughout the world and history, we see the scriptural Mary transpire in the person of the spiritual mother of all believers leading them to salvation. :thumbsup:

Cooperating with her Son in His name, Mary is not the Saviour, and she is not the source of salvation. But she serves her Son by leading us to him and salvation. Scripture makes it clear that God has assigned her this role as our Mediatrix, co-Redemptrix, and Advocatrix. The essential theme of Marian devotion is “going to Jesus through Mary”. The choice we face is not: “Do I submit to God directly, or do I go through Mary to God?” Rather we must ask ourselves: “Do I surrender to God through the agency he has established, or do I submit to God through the agency I have set up for myself by removing Mary from God’s scheme of things?” The choice is: “Do I go to God on his terms or mine?” The choice is not: “Do I want to follow Jesus and Mary?” but “Do I want to follow Jesus by going to him through his and our Mother?” For we are the Lord’s brethren. :yup:

We cannot dismiss the fact that Marian devotion has been an essential part of the historic Christian faith for two thousand years. The ‘Sub Tuum’ prayer, which dates back to 250 A.D., and the Marian frescoes in the Christian catacombs of Rome show that Marian devotion had already existed in the early Church by the time of the great persecutions. Also, Marian devotion has has been directly related to the centrality of the person of Christ in the early centuries at the time our Christological doctrines were being formulated and solemnly defined by the Church Councils. Mary’s place has helped secure and protect sound Christology. Marian devotion derives from the surest sources: the testimony of Sacred Scripture, the inerrant interpretation of Scripture handed down to us by the Apostolic teaching authority of the Councils, the teachings of the Church Fathers and the Creeds, and the universal and ancient practice among the pious of venerating Mary and seeking her succour and protection against the powers of darkness: Sacred Tradition. We would be fools to discard our Marian doctrines and devotion just because Jimmy Swaggart :crying: and Dave Hunt disapprove. :wink:

Three aspects of Marian devotion are vital here: First, the basic objective of Marian devotion is growth in sanctification on our path to salvation. From Mary came Jesus who brought salvation to the world; through Mary came the first of Jesus’ miracles at the wedding feast wrought by her solicitation and bringing faith to his disciples. Now Mary comes to us from Jesus, who gives her to us as our mother. Scripture tells us that her children are those who keep her Son’s commandments: “Do whatever he tells you.” Second, Marian devotion can only be grasped in relation to the Christian belief in the “communion of saints”. The communion of saints is clearly a scriptural teaching that is emphasized in the NT references to the “cloud of witnesses” and the “mystical Body of Christ.” The awareness of Mary’s intercessory and maternal presence was a firm part of Christian religious experience from earliest times, as the frescoes in the catacombs and the chapels and churches of the East indicate. Third, Marian devotion arises from the realization through Scripture and universal religious experience that the Mother of Jesus will be with us everyday of our lives as we do spiritual battle with our adversary ( John 19, Revelation 12). It is much easier to get to Jesus with our Blessed Mother’s help, guidance, and protection than to try on our own, having presumed for ourselves God is satisfied that we ignore his beloved Daughter and the Mother of his only begotten Son.

“And how does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?”
{ Luke 1:43 }

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella :cool:


But why not this:

Since one of the ways - in fact the primary way - that Hell could overcome the Church would be to influence its testimony, Jesus’s words can be seen as a promise that the Church would be protected from destroying its testimony to a watching world.

Now I know that the comeback is the difference between infallability and impeccability. Still, there is no logical reason why one should not interpret Jesus the second way as opposed to the first way. In fact it would seem to me to be woefully inconsistent to interpret Jesus one way without the other.

Of course you can prove the second statement false through reading history while it is much more difficult to prove the first statement false. But the issue really is a logical and consistent reading of the passage at hand without the crutch of history. Or if you use history and negate the second interpretation, you really have a consistency issue if you keep the first one.

Of course in normal English usage “prevail” indicates a final status, and we are not at the end of the church age. So the common sense reading of this passage according to normal English usage would not allow either interpretation.

Now back to your debate on Mary.


So, what are your thoughts on this. Have we adequately answered or do you still have a dilemma. Have you witnessed someone focusing on Mary so much that they lost sight of Jesus, or do you think that these teachings lead all of us Catholics away from Jesus?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit