Is there salvation without Mary?

[Albion]

I don't know how you would purport to know such a thing

From many years of being a Roman Catholic myself and having taught religion in a Roman Catholic college, from the wording of prayers that are used in the church, and from the stated opinions of church members.

Only God knows what are in the hearts of his children.

That's correct. However, "what's in the hearts" of those praying to Mary and other saints is not the issue. This is a matter of the rightness or wrongness of what is done.

Catholics believe that those in Heaven are alive, that we may ask of them as we do in one of our oldest prayers, Psalm 103: "Bless the LORD, all you angels, mighty in strength and attentive, obedient to every command. Bless the LORD, all you hosts, ministers who do God's will. Bless the LORD, all creatures, everywhere in God's domain. Bless the LORD, my soul!"
That we pray for one another is in the Bible, you and even Catholics don't have to accept the apparitions of our Blessed Mother, from that appearance to the Apostle James, to Our Lady of Walsingham, Our Lady of Guadalupe to Lourdes and Fatima, but you might be wise to do so.

Very little of that has to do with the content of my several posts on this matter. Perhaps if you read those posts, you could refine your opposition to my views.

 

[Valletta]

From many years of being a Roman Catholic myself and having taught religion in a Roman Catholic college, from the wording of prayers that are used in the church, and from the stated opinions of church members.


That's correct. However, "what's in the hearts" of those praying to Mary and other saints is not the issue. This is a matter of the rightness or wrongness of what is done.


Very little of that has to do with the content of my several posts on this matter. Perhaps if you read those posts, you could refine your opposition to my views.

Well, I gave you Psalm 103, one of our oldest prayers, if you believe communication with those in Heaven is somehow wrong, such as in the Psalm, there isn't much more to say. Catholics believe the Bible is God-breathed--the Word of God.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Is there salvation without Mary? is she the mother of our salvation?

Where in the Bible does it say that?

The short answer, of course, is that it is never stated in the Bible. The long answer includes the fact that the Bible is not the final, or only, document used in the RCC in the development of its Holy Tradition, which defines what its members ought to believe.

 

[Abaxvahl]

Is there salvation without Mary?

is she the mother of our salvation?

our hope?

Due to her being the Mother of God, the answer to these questions is "no, yes, yes." For there is no salvation without Jesus who took His human nature from Mary and was born of her, she is intimately connected to Him. Jesus is our salvation and she is His mother. Jesus is our only hope, the hope promised to Adam and Eve by God for their salvation, and she is His mother. Therefore "no, yes, yes."

 

[bbbbbbb]

Due to her being the Mother of God, the answer to these questions is "no, yes, yes." For there is no salvation without Jesus who took His human nature from Mary and was born of her, she is intimately connected to Him. Jesus is our salvation and she is His mother. Jesus is our only hope, the hope promised to Adam and Eve by God for their salvation, and she is His mother. Therefore "no, yes, yes."

Using the same logic, Adam was essential for our salvation. Without Adam, as well as Eve, none of us would be here, would we? Thus, we can say with absolute certainty that Adam is the Father of our salvation and our hope.

 

[concretecamper]

Thus, we can say with absolute certainty that Adam is the Father of our salvation and our hope.

I am sure that the typical protestant on this forum couldnt agree to this.

 

[Abaxvahl]

Using the same logic, Adam was essential for our salvation. Without Adam, as well as Eve, none of us would be here, would we? Thus, we can say with absolute certainty that Adam is the Father of our salvation and our hope.

Yes. They were explicitly promised this and the ancestors of the Lord (be they righteous as Adam became who was saved) are all honored for it. Here is an article about it.

 

[Valletta]

Using the same logic, Adam was essential for our salvation. Without Adam, as well as Eve, none of us would be here, would we? Thus, we can say with absolute certainty that Adam is the Father of our salvation and our hope.

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.

 

[mmksparbud]

Over a million of them, as a matter of fact, including both laity and clergy, who petitioned the Vatican to make Mary as co-redemptrix be an infallible dogma of their church.

So, salvation ---is now decided by the vote of the people???!! Being God, and the one that actually died for our sins has nothing to do with it??? It's how many votes can be obtained?!!

 

[Jaxxi]

If Mary died on the Cross then give her credit for : John 3:16

Mary did not die on the cross and she was not a Savior, she was not without sin, and she did not die a virgin.

 

[Albion]

So, salvation ---is now decided by the vote of the people???!!

No. Nor is that what I wrote.

The point was that the idea of Mary being a co-redemptrix is not a far-out belief that can be brushed off as purely eccentric and rare among Catholics.

 

[robycop3]

There is a 2nd century writing called the Protevangalion of James which attests to the ever Virgin Mary & the Lord’s “siblings” from an earlier marriage of the widower Joseph. It is generally considered a valid recount of holy tradition but not scripture because it is not directly written by one of the Apostles.


Infancy Gospel of James

Jesus was called Mary's "firstborn", not "sole child".

 

[Lukaris]

Jesus was called Mary's "firstborn", not "sole child".

The Lord honored the law & His mother in being her first born according to the law( Exodus 13:2). The Lord as firstborn was far beyond anything ordinary of course as St. Paul testifies ( Colossians 1:15-18).

 

[Valletta]

Mary did not die on the cross and she was not a Savior, she was not without sin, and she did not die a virgin.

The truth is she was ever a virgin. Please don't spread gossip.

 

[Valletta]

Jesus was called Mary's "firstborn", not "sole child".

The first born male has a very special role among the Jews. You are first born from the moment of birth, whether or not your parents ever have other children. Who teaches you otherwise?

 

[Valletta]

The short answer, of course, is that it is never stated in the Bible. The long answer includes the fact that the Bible is not the final, or only, document used in the RCC in the development of its Holy Tradition, which defines what its members ought to believe.

Holy Tradition came before the Bible.

 

[Albion]

Holy Tradition came before the Bible.

Only in theory. And only if we interpret "before the Bible" to mean "before the last book of the Bible was formally approved by the Church."

Much of what is credited to "Holy Tradition" in the Catholic churches wasn't formally accepted until long after the founding of the church and the codification of the Bible.

The Assumption of Mary and Papal Infallibility, for example, were proclaimed only in modern times and added to the list of Roman Catholic dogmas, even though these were credited to Holy Tradition by the church.

 

[Valletta]

Only in theory. And only if we interpret "before the Bible" to mean "before the last book of the Bible was formally approved by the Church."

Much of what is credited to "Holy Tradition" in the Catholic churches wasn't formally accepted until long after the founding of the church and the codification of the Bible.

The Assumption of Mary and Papal Infallibility, for example, were proclaimed only in modern times and added to the list of Roman Catholic dogmas, even though these were credited to Holy Tradition by the church.

As I've said before, a lot of the announced formal positions of the Catholic Church come about as a result of various heresies arising. There needed to be clarity on the Trinity, there were accusations that the Church did not worship one God. But there are situations, such as with the Bible, that clearly were not defined by Jesus and His Apostles. There was no New Testament in the early Church, the texts were all written, say, by 125 A.D., but upon the finishing of the last text there were differences in what was used for readings at the mass. These differences were not resolved until the late 300s, the first known example of the final list was not until Saint Athanasius in I believe 367 A.D. While these texts had to comply with the teachings of Jesus as passed down through the Apostles, Sacred Tradition, it is true that neither Jesus nor the Apostles gave us a list of the books of the Bible.

 

[bbbbbbb]

As I've said before, a lot of the announced formal positions of the Catholic Church come about as a result of various heresies arising. There needed to be clarity on the Trinity, there were accusations that the Church did not worship one God. But there are situations, such as with the Bible, that clearly were not defined by Jesus and His Apostles. There was no New Testament in the early Church, the texts were all written, say, by 125 A.D., but upon the finishing of the last text there were differences in what was used for readings at the mass. These differences were not resolved until the late 300s, the first known example of the final list was not until Saint Athanasius in I believe 367 A.D. While these texts had to comply with the teachings of Jesus as passed down through the Apostles, Sacred Tradition, it is true that neither Jesus nor the Apostles gave us a list of the books of the Bible.

Does that give us liberty to pick and choose among the vast amount of writing which has come down to us from that period so that we are free to add extrabiblical doctrines to our Sacred Tradition?

 

[Valletta]

Does that give us liberty to pick and choose among the vast amount of writing which has come down to us from that period so that we are free to add extrabiblical doctrines to our Sacred Tradition?

Whether something is extra-Biblical is irrelevant, again, there was no New Testament, and no Bible, until the late 300s when the Catholic Church formally gave the world the Bible. It then became a formal Catholic teaching, now the books of the Bible were God-breathed when those books were written, but the Catholic Church did not make a formal declaration until centuries later. Of course, the Word of God cannot contradict the Word of God, so the teachings would not contradict previous teachings, and thus not contradict the 73 books of the Bible.