Is there salvation without Mary?

[prodromos]

Strangely, my sister was the first-born child in our family. I was the second-born child and my brother was the third-born child. Is that miraculous or what?!?

And she was still the firstborn before you and your brother were even a twinkle in your parents' eyes.

 

[bbbbbbb]

And she was still the firstborn before you and your brother were even a twinkle in your parents' eyes.

Simply because she was born first didn't mean that she did not have other siblings. To say something or someone is first implies that there is, at the least, a second. For example, when there is a first-place winner (e.g. gold medal in the Olympics) there is, perforce, a second-place winner (e.g. silver) and others, quite possibly.

The fact is that Jesus Christ was the first child born to Mary and Joseph, but certainly not the last.

 

[mmksparbud]

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.

An acceptance of Mary as co-Redemptrix is a denial of Christ.

 

[prodromos]

To say something or someone is first implies that there is, at the least, a second.

That is a common, though erroneous argument.

 

[Valletta]

If Wikipedia is in error then I suggest you correct it. Anyone and everyone can enter information on Wikipedia as long as there are secondary sources cited to verify its accuracy. In my professional experience I created some Wikipedia entries, enhanced others, and generally have found the information to be surprisingly accurate.

Wikipedia is quite biased, people band together to preserve misinformation.

 

[mmksparbud]

That is a common, though erroneous argument.

Glad to hear it's common. It is not erroneous. There is no such thing as co-redemptrix---no such title. It is blasphemy. Biblical meaning of blasphemy is

Mar_2:7 Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?
Joh_10:33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

It was not blasphemy for Jesus to make Himself God---He is God, and as such, He can forgive sins. Mary can do neither.

 

[mmksparbud]

Wikipedia is quite biased, people band together to preserve misinformation.

Some churches do the same thing.

 

[Valletta]

And how does one determine what is "the Word of God"? Are Nestorian dogmas the Word of God? If not, why not?

Are we going around in circles or what? I just finished explaining about the Catholic Church choosing the 73 books of the Bible. The process, guided by the Holy Spirit, spanned centuries. The readings at masses differed from area to area. and the Church set out to determine what was God-breathed and what was not. Historically the lists got closer and closer to the final canon by Saint Athanasius in the 300s. So the Catholic Church, Christ's Church, decides what is the Word of God and what is not. The Church too has been responsible for preaching and preserving the Word of God over all of these centuries, translating Biblical text into so many common languages. Of interest is the fact that a poor Irish Catholic woman was murdered at the Salem witch trials because she recited the Word of God (the Our Father) without the portion that Protestants falsely claimed was the Word of God (For thine is the kingdom . . .)

 

[Valletta]

Simply because she was born first didn't mean that she did not have other siblings. To say something or someone is first implies that there is, at the least, a second. For example, when there is a first-place winner (e.g. gold medal in the Olympics) there is, perforce, a second-place winner (e.g. silver) and others, quite possibly.

The fact is that Jesus Christ was the first child born to Mary and Joseph, but certainly not the last.

Incorrect. You are confusing your personal spin of English with the precedent shown in the Bible. It seems to have gone right by you that the Jewish culture used the term first born even when there obviously were no other children.. I suggest you go back and read the post again. They didn't wait around for thirty years to make sure there were no other children.

 

[Abaxvahl]

An acceptance of Mary as co-Redemptrix is a denial of Christ.

You don't even know what it means, if you did you wouldn't say that. But you have taken your false understanding and ran with it.

 

[Albion]

Yes it can---there is no such believe stated anywhere in the bible. Certainly her son never said such a thing.

You're talking about the credibility of that belief itself. In the post you are referring to, I was talking about it having a lot of support among Catholics.

 

[Albion]

I believe it does reference a second stream of divine revelation--the texts of the Bible.

Fine. You are allowed to believe anything you want. But your description of the meaning of Holy Tradition and the claim that it has Biblical backing are both in error. However, if you choose to believe what you wrote, such for instance because of a desire to be loyal to your church, that's not unusual.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Wikipedia is quite biased, people band together to preserve misinformation.

I have not found that to be the case, although that might be true for certain entries. My experience has been primarily on a professional level where there does not seem to be any compelling reason for pushing an agenda. In fact, Wikipedia strictly prohibits entries which market goods or services.

Wikipedia does require verified secondary sources for anything that is posted, which limits the ability to simply insert unsubstantiated claims. Were that not the case then there would probably be some truly mind-boggling entries for various conspiracy theories. For example, you might want to read the entry regarding COVID-19.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Incorrect. You are confusing your personal spin of English with the precedent shown in the Bible. It seems to have gone right by you that the Jewish culture used the term first born even when there obviously were no other children.. I suggest you go back and read the post again. They didn't wait around for thirty years to make sure there were no other children.

Although I am no expert on first-century Jewish culture, which apparently you see to be, I cannot refute your assertion. My mother was an only child. She was never referred to as the first born, although she obviously was. My grandparents did not need to wait thirty years to discover that she was their one and only child and would always be.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Are we going around in circles or what? I just finished explaining about the Catholic Church choosing the 73 books of the Bible. The process, guided by the Holy Spirit, spanned centuries. The readings at masses differed from area to area. and the Church set out to determine what was God-breathed and what was not. Historically the lists got closer and closer to the final canon by Saint Athanasius in the 300s. So the Catholic Church, Christ's Church, decides what is the Word of God and what is not. The Church too has been responsible for preaching and preserving the Word of God over all of these centuries, translating Biblical text into so many common languages. Of interest is the fact that a poor Irish Catholic woman was murdered at the Salem witch trials because she recited the Word of God (the Our Father) without the portion that Protestants falsely claimed was the Word of God (For thine is the kingdom . . .)

Actually, given the fact that the RCC did not exist as a stand-alone denomination until after the Great Schism, it is absurd to imagine that it and it alone determined the canon of scripture. In actual fact, the RCC did not finalize its canon until the Council of Trent. One might conclude that prior to the Council Trent in the sixteenth century Sacred Tradition, which included various liturgical readings from various sources, was the basis of divine truth and not merely 73 books.

The reality today is that the RCC considers its form of Sacred Tradition to be the source of truth and not merely the 73 books of its canon of scripture. As a result, it has no difficulty in amplifying and adding to anything and everything within the 73 books.

 

[Albion]

Actually, given the fact that the RCC did not exist as a stand-alone denomination until after the Great Schism, it is absurd to imagine that it and it alone determined the canon of scripture. In actual fact, the RCC did not finalize its canon until the Council of Trent.

That's all true.

 

[Abaxvahl]

Actually, given the fact that the RCC did not exist as a stand-alone denomination until after the Great Schism, it is absurd to imagine that it and it alone determined the canon of scripture. In actual fact, the RCC did not finalize its canon until the Council of Trent. One might conclude that prior to the Council Trent in the sixteenth century Sacred Tradition, which included various liturgical readings from various sources, was the basis of divine truth and not merely 73 books.

The reality today is that the RCC considers its form of Sacred Tradition to be the source of truth and not merely the 73 books of its canon of scripture. As a result, it has no difficulty in amplifying and adding to anything and everything within the 73 books.

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.

 

[Albion]

The Church before the Great Schism was the RCC according to us....

and the Church before the Great Schism was the Eastern Orthodox according to them. And, they have the better argument.

It's not at all a "fact," no Church worth anything does not claim exclusivity....

That's patently untrue. Most Protestant denominations--and some others--specifically and publicly claim to be only one among a number of denominations that constitute Christ's church.

 

[Abaxvahl]

and the Church before the Great Schism was the Eastern Orthodox churches according to them. And, they have the better argument.


That's patently untrue. Most Protestant denominations--and some others--specifically and publicly claim to be only one among a number of denominations that constitute Christ's church.

They may very well have it, I am currently discerning between the RCC and the EOC. Currently in my studies it seems it could go either way or even favor the RCC though.

The RCC doesn't consider Protestant communities to be Churches in the proper sense, neither do I. See the Fifth Response in this document from the CDF.

 

[Albion]

They may very well have it, I am currently discerning between the RCC and the EOC. Currently in my studies it seems it could go either way or even favor the RCC though.

But however you resolve that dilemma, you recognize that both communions claim to be the one true church.

The RCC doesn't consider Protestant communities to be Churches in the proper sense, neither do I.

Well, that's the RCC's problem, isn't it, not of any of today's church bodies which recognize that Christ didn't give exclusive standing to any particular denomination that developed only years after he founded his church. Not the RCC, EO, or any other.