Is there salvation without Mary?

concretecamper · Sep 7, 2021

Abaxvahl said:
Were not books discarded by people based on their lack of orthodoxy? And yes, the Councils merely recognized what was in fact canon, for God Himself determines that (although not all inspired books are necessarily canon, the area gets fuzzy and the EOs are explaining it to me). They (EOs) also have the Sacred Tradition claim, what makes it necessary to substantiate all of it's contents by historical record? Not only can this not be done but the claim is not that Tradition is just a historical record, but is more accurately a handing down of the life of the Church as a whole, which in a sense is the Holy Spirit. St. Maximus the Confessor says that in receiving this it is elaborated upon necessarily, as the reception is not merely passive. How then would each portion of it in any of the Old Churches by established by simply a historical record? On top of that even in the Commonitorium it is a thing which grows although is still what it was like the body of a man. Certain Christological points weren't explicitly said in history before the era of debating them but it is certain everyone must hold to it, and it's not as if it was made up and added to the Church, it came organically and that life was handed down. I do not see how it is just for show because of that.

I don't think people reject Sacred Tradition based on scholarly review of the subject. The rejection is plainly rooted in the fact protestantism is a relatively new phenomenon. Those who belong to Luther's Church, or Henry VIII's Church, or Ellen White's Church,netcom, etc, etc. must reject Sacred Tradition becasue if they affirmed it, the protestant phenomenon would crumble in an instant. I believe it is a matter of self preservation.

Jaxxi · Sep 7, 2021

Valletta said:
Mary had a choice, and she said "yes" to God. While Eve chose sin, Mary did not. Jesus made Mary our spiritual mother while He was on the cross.

That is true but that does not mean she was without sin because Jesus is the only one who was not a sinner. True she was a virgin, she was a sinner and Christ came off of the cross. Mary was not a saint not did she remain or die a virgin.

Albion · Sep 7, 2021

Abaxvahl said:
Were not books discarded by people based on their lack of orthodoxy? And yes, the Councils merely recognized what was in fact canon, for God Himself determines that (although not all inspired books are necessarily canon, the area gets fuzzy and the EOs are explaining it to me).

I don't see a problem so far. Yours is just a different way of wording it.

They (EOs) also have the Sacred Tradition claim, what makes it necessary to substantiate all of it's contents by historical record?

They do affirm Sacred Tradition as well, that's right. In fact, so do all the "Catholic" churches--RC, EO, Oriental Orthodox, Old Catholics, and a half dozen smaller churches in the "Catholic" grouping. However, no two of them have the same doctrines based on Sacred Tradition, although all of them say that they are following the Apostolic tradition handed down, etc. etc! If there were such a complete record--and it has to be complete in order to be what is claimed for the theory--this would not be the situation!

There is no such record, at least not one sufficient to establish what the Sacred Tradition argument claims to establish.

Not only can this not be done but the claim is not that Tradition is just a historical record, but is more accurately a handing down of the life of the Church as a whole, which in a sense is the Holy Spirit.

That sounds terrific, I agree.

St. Maximus the Confessor says that in receiving this it is elaborated upon necessarily, as the reception is not merely passive. How then would each portion of it in any of the Old Churches by established by simply a historical record? On top of that even in the Commonitorium it is a thing which grows although is still what it was like the body of a man. Certain Christological points weren't explicitly said in history before the era of debating them but it is certain everyone must hold to it, and it's not as if it was made up and added to the Church, it came organically and that life was handed down. I do not see how it is just for show because of that.

Again, IF that were so, it would really be significant, wouldn't it?

Valletta · Sep 7, 2021

Jaxxi said:
That is true but that does not mean she was without sin because Jesus is the only one who was not a sinner. True she was a virgin, she was a sinner and Christ came off of the cross. Mary was not a saint not did she remain or die a virgin.

Little babies never sinned, severely mentally handicapped people never sinned, Mary never sinned. Mary remains a virgin.

prodromos · Sep 7, 2021

Valletta said:
Mary remains a virgin

Something all the ancient churches agree on.

The Liturgist · Sep 7, 2021

Abaxvahl said:
The Church before the Great Schism was the RCC according to us, and was the EOC according the the Orthodox. It's not at all a "fact," no Church worth anything does not claim exclusivity and that they only began to exist when people schismed from them (I am excluding the Monophysites and Nestorians here). On top of that varying canons exist in the RCC still, so I have no idea what you are talking about.

The Oriental Orthodox and the Church of the East are not monophysite and nestorian. Indeed, Pope Benedict XVI, when he was head of the CDF in the 1990s, determined their Christology was compatible with that of the Roman Catholic Church and allowed Catholics unable to attend a Catholic church to approach them for the sacraments, and vice versa, as is also the case with the Eastern Orthodox.

However, of those churches, only the Church of the East will reliably allow Catholics to partake of the Eucharist.

The Liturgist · Sep 7, 2021

Abaxvahl said:
The Wiki is wrong and your Christology is botched. The Second Person of the Trinity is not the First Person of the Trinity, yet He is God, and being born of Mary in time makes her His mother. She is the the Mother of God and a denial of this title for her is a denial of Christ.

Indeed, denying Mary is the Mother of God is actual Nestorianism.

The Liturgist · Sep 7, 2021

mmksparbud said:
And ho can you tell? The bible is the word of God.

Not according to the Bible. Read John 1:1-14.

mmksparbud said:
And that is why your church is in soooo much trouble!! The bible comes before first.

The only trouble the Roman Catholic Church is in is because Pope Benedict XVI, who was wonderful, retired, and his successor his a horrible liberal who is trying to reverse everything accomplished by St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict.

Note I am not Roman Catholic, I am Protestant, and while I reject the canonization of Pius XII, John XXIII, and Paul VI, and regard them as terrible bishops, I think Pius X and John Paul II are saints worthy of veneration by all Christians.

Likewise, I venerate St. Dominic, St. Bruno and St. Bernardus of Clairvaux but am not sure about Francis of Assisi, and I won’t venerate Thomas Aquinas.

robycop3 · Sep 8, 2021

prodromos said:
and their behavior and attitude towards Jesus as recorded in Scripture is consistent with them being older brothers to Jesus, so could not be children of Mary. Of Joseph, yes. Any child of Joseph is legally a brother or sister of Jesus. Jesus is also legally the son of Joseph yet is never described as Joseph's first born.

That's because Joseph neither conceived nor bore Him. There's nothing to indicate the four bros. & at least 2 srs. mentioned in Scripture were not born of Mary, and nothing indicates Joseph had a previous wife. You're simply trying to make an excuse for the false "eternal virginity of Mary" doctrine.

robycop3 · Sep 8, 2021

Valletta said:
Certainly not in the Jewish culture of the Bible. We just went over this subject.

the Bible names 4 of Jesus' siblings. The false "eternal virginity of Mary" simply won't stand up to Scriptural evidence.

Albion · Sep 8, 2021

Valletta said:
Little babies never sinned, severely mentally handicapped people never sinned, Mary never sinned.

You'd better check with your pastor on that one. Use "Original Sin" as your lead-in.

Abaxvahl · Sep 8, 2021

Albion said:
I don't see a problem so far. Yours is just a different way of wording it.

They do affirm Sacred Tradition as well, that's right. In fact, so do all the "Catholic" churches--RC, EO, Oriental Orthodox, Old Catholics, and a half dozen smaller churches in the "Catholic" grouping. However, no two of them have the same doctrines based on Sacred Tradition, although all of them say that they are following the Apostolic tradition handed down, etc. etc! If there were such a complete record--and it has to be complete in order to be what is claimed for the theory--this would not be the situation!

There is no such record, at least not one sufficient to establish what the Sacred Tradition argument claims to establish.

That sounds terrific, I agree.

Again, IF that were so, it would really be significant, wouldn't it?

I have no idea what you mean by complete record, and multiple people claiming something based on the same thing doesn't invalidate the idea they are basing their take on. People do the same thing with the Scriptures daily on this site butchering them into God knows what new opinion, yet Scripture remains sufficient for truth, inerrant, inspired, profitable for all good works, etc.

Abaxvahl · Sep 8, 2021

The Liturgist said:
The Oriental Orthodox and the Church of the East are not monophysite and nestorian. Indeed, Pope Benedict XVI, when he was head of the CDF in the 1990s, determined their Christology was compatible with that of the Roman Catholic Church and allowed Catholics unable to attend a Catholic church to approach them for the sacraments, and vice versa, as is also the case with the Eastern Orthodox.

However, of those churches, only the Church of the East will reliably allow Catholics to partake of the Eucharist.

Never knew of this, I'll study it more, thank you!

Albion · Sep 8, 2021

Abaxvahl said:
I have no idea what you mean by complete record...

For tradition to define anything--not just in the case of so-called Sacred Tradition or Holy Tradition--it has to be traditional! It has to have the track record that establishes its "bona fides." If one Early Church Father said X and another said Y, nothing is established by tradition. That also applies to some legend or folk belief held in one part of the Christian world but not in others.

You could always say that one Church Father is unimpeachable or more important or something like that, or that one was closer to the start of the church, but not that tradition has proved anything.

What you are dealing with here is a claim that isn't verified by history, although it's said by the church to have done so whenever it chooses to create a new dogma. And as I said before, the fact that each of the Catholic churches have their own set of doctrines, but all of them say those doctrines are the product of tradition, should tell any of us that there is no clear and consistent Apostolic record handed down etc. etc. We may believe that the Apostles taught their successors, and so on, but what exactly they taught and whether it was something NOT found in Scripture is something else.

And that's to say nothing about whether any church is entitled to use something other than the word of God in Scripture when imposing a belief obligation upon the membership.

Lukaris · Sep 8, 2021

I posted earlier that the early church sifted out the outright heretical, gnostic writings. The only writings they considered scripture for the New Testament were those determined to have been written by the apostles. There were other writings that were considered worthy for certain truths like the shepherd of Hermas, the Protoevangalion of James etc. These were not deemed as scripture though because they were not written by the the apostles. These situations developed at the same time. Many Protestants today do not believe St. Paul wrote the letter to the Hebrews (Orthodox believe Paul wrote it, hopefully Catholics too). Should not Hebrews be cut from Protestant Bibles?

Valletta · Sep 8, 2021

Albion said:
You'd better check with your pastor on that one. Use "Original Sin" as your lead-in.

Original Sin does not mean that that particular individual sinned. Who misinformed you?

Valletta · Sep 8, 2021

Albion said:
For tradition to define anything--not just in the case of so-called Sacred Tradition or Holy Tradition--it has to be traditional! It has to have the track record that establishes its "bona fides." If one Early Church Father said X and another said Y, nothing is established by tradition. That also applies to some legend or folk belief held in one part of the Christian world but not in others.

You could always say that one Church Father is unimpeachable or more important or something like that, or that one was closer to the start of the church, but not that tradition has proved anything.

What you are dealing with here is a claim that isn't verified by history, although it's said by the church to have done so whenever it chooses to create a new dogma. And as I said before, the fact that each of the Catholic churches have their own set of doctrines, but all of them say those doctrines are the product of tradition, should tell any of us that there is no clear and consistent Apostolic record handed down etc. etc. We may believe that the Apostles taught their successors, and so on, but what exactly they taught and whether it was something NOT found in Scripture is something else.

And that's to say nothing about whether any church is entitled to use something other than the word of God in Scripture when imposing a belief obligation upon the membership.

You are making up your own definitions. The Catholic Catechism is available online, if you disagree with a teaching first make sure it is a real Catholic teaching.

Valletta · Sep 8, 2021

robycop3 said:
the Bible names 4 of Jesus' siblings. The false "eternal virginity of Mary" simply won't stand up to Scriptural evidence.

Our Blessed Mother's virginity was established before one word of the NT was written. There is nothing in Holy Scripture to contradict that fact. Indeed, when the Catholic Church chose the 73 books of the Bible any text that was not 100% in compliance with Catholic teaching was rejected.

mmksparbud · Sep 8, 2021

Valletta said:
Our Blessed Mother's virginity was established before one word of the NT was written. There is nothing in Holy Scripture to contradict that fact. Indeed, when the Catholic Church chose the 73 books of the Bible any text that was not 100% in compliance with Catholic teaching was rejected.

There is nothing to verify it. Nothing that the disciples paid her anything more than the highest respect for being the mother to Jesus Christ. Nothing to hang a tradition on of her being ever virgin----not one word.

Abaxvahl · Sep 8, 2021

mmksparbud said:
There is nothing to verify it. Nothing that the disciples paid her anything more than the highest respect for being the mother to Jesus Christ. Nothing to hang a tradition on of her being ever virgin----not one word.

Then you should at least consider it a matter which nothing was said on, nothing about her not being an eternal virgin and nothing about her being one. It is not unusual for many positions to be consistent with the text but inconsistent with one another.

Is there salvation without Mary?

Member of His Church

Half-ready for Anything.....

Facilitator

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Newbie

Newbie

Facilitator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Facilitator

Orthodox Christian

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads