Is there salvation without Mary?

[Albion]

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

Actually, no one. Not about Original Sin.

However, you misled us all if you meant to say something other than what you wrote. That was the following--

Little babies never sinned, severely mentally handicapped people never sinned, Mary never sinned.

So you see, you were saying that unless a person is capable of committing what is called "Actual Sin," he is sinless--as though Original Sin, as taught by your own church, doesn't exist.

 

[Albion]

You are making up your own definitions.

Once again, it's what your own church teaches.

 

[Abaxvahl]

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.

Whatever you are describing has nothing to do with the concept of Sacred Tradition that I know of.

 

[Albion]

Whatever you are describing has nothing to do with the concept of Sacred Tradition that I know of.

Then maybe you were introduced to the reality of this matter just in time.

It's no surprise that the two churches you are interested in have simply related their POV and told you that it's true and verifiable. A Protestant church would do the same thing when stating the basis for its beliefs.

Why would any of them say something different to an inquirer? Their representatives are not going to tell you what their churches teach and then add "but on the other hand, here are the weaknesses in this theory...."

 

[Abaxvahl]

Then maybe you were introduced to the reality of this matter just in time.

It's no surprise that the two churches you are interested in have simply related their POV and told you that it's true and verifiable. Why would they say anything else to an inquirer? Their representatives are not going to tell you what their churches teach and then add "but on the other hand, here are the weaknesses in this theory...."

If what you are saying is supposedly the reality of the matter then I'd like your sources, for I am currently reading through the Fathers and works on them and the idea of Sacred Tradition and it's active reception along with Apostolic Succession all seems absolutely solid to me, and they haven't missed once (I'm up to Chalcedon in studies). Books for the list mainly.

 

[Albion]

If what you are saying is supposedly the reality of the matter then I'd like your sources, for I am currently reading through the Fathers and works on them and the idea of Sacred Tradition and it's active reception along with Apostolic Succession all seems absolutely solid to me, and they haven't missed once (I'm up to Chalcedon in studies). Books for the list mainly.

Nope. I'm not going to compile a list of books for you in view of you not having already done your homework and looked into the rest of the story. And I'm not trying to lead you into membership in any particular denomination, anyway. Or away from any, for that matter.

This has been simply a "word to the wise" offered to you because the subject appeared on our forum and you raised questions.

 

[concretecamper]

However, you misled us all

who is all? I know what was meant.

 

[mmksparbud]

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




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.

How does John Contradict that the bible is the word of God?

 

[Albion]

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.

Well, that's clearly untrue. Yes, the legend of Mary having given birth but not in the normal way (!) is very old, but it certainly does not predate the first word written in what became the NT, nor does the fact that Holy Scripture doesn't say anything at all about her supposed ever-virginity mean that it's true!

 

[Valletta]

Well, that's clearly untrue. Yes, the legend of Mary having given birth but not in the normal way (!) is very old, but it certainly does not predate the first word written in what became the NT, nor does the fact that Holy Scripture doesn't say anything at all about her supposed ever-virginity mean that it's true!

There is nothing in Holy Scripture that contradicts the fact the Mary is a perpetual version. God is not a "legend."

 

[The Liturgist]

How does John Contradict that the bible is the word of God?

Because it says the Word of God is Jesus Christ. The phrase “Word of God” (Logos) is not used in the original Greek New Testament to refer to Scriptures, but rather the Greek word Graphe, meaning Scriptures, is used instead.

 

[Fidelibus]

who is all? I know what was meant.

As did I.

 

[mmksparbud]

Because it says the Word of God is Jesus Christ. The phrase “Word of God” (Logos) is not used in the original Greek New Testament to refer to Scriptures, but rather the Greek word Graphe, meaning Scriptures, is used instead.

Well, of course----the entire bible is Jesus. From creation on---all Jesus. It is His-story. It is Him in writing---no contradiction at all.

 

[Valletta]

Because it says the Word of God is Jesus Christ. The phrase “Word of God” (Logos) is not used in the original Greek New Testament to refer to Scriptures, but rather the Greek word Graphe, meaning Scriptures, is used instead.

To continue your discussion about the origin of words, the Greek "New Testament" that you speak of originally did not refer to a set of books. Mark 14:24 says: And he said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. RSVCE
This new "covenant," or new "testament" referred to the blood of Jesus, HIS blood, Jesus Himself. It was not until the Catholic Church was choosing new books of the Bible that those books began to be referred to as "books of the New Testament."

 

[robycop3]

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.

She was a virgin when Jesus was conceived & born, but after that, her virginity went "POOF!" when Jesus' first sibling was conceived.

 

[prodromos]

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.

Except for the fact that the behavior and attitude of Jesus' brothers towards Him is consistent with them being older. You haven't addressed this at all.

You're simply trying to make an excuse for the false "eternal virginity of Mary" doctrine.

You simply have no argument at all if you have to pretend to know my motives.

 

[robycop3]

Except for the fact that the behavior and attitude of Jesus' brothers towards Him is consistent with them being older. You haven't addressed this at all.

You simply have no argument at all if you have to pretend to know my motives.

Well, actually, they sorta treated Jesus like an outsider because He lived differently from the rest of them.

Definitely, mary was a virgin til after Jesus was born, and there's no hint that Joseph had a prior wife. The men of Nazareth who were quoted when they named His bros. gave no hint that those bros. or srs.were older. And there's nothing in Scripture at all suggesting Jesus had any older half-siblings.

 

[Abaxvahl]

Well, actually, they sorta treated Jesus like an outsider because He lived differently from the rest of them.

Definitely, mary was a virgin til after Jesus was born, and there's no hint that Joseph had a prior wife. The men of Nazareth who were quoted when they named His bros. gave no hint that those bros. or srs.were older.

"Brother" and "sister" have many possible meanings. All Christians agree Jesus had brothers, not all agree on what it means precisely.

 

[prodromos]

Well, actually, they sorta treated Jesus like an outsider because He lived differently from the rest of them.

According to you, Jesus was the eldest and so would have had tremendous influence on His younger siblings. He would have been the perfect eldest brother and they could not have done other than look up to Him. Scripture doesn't bear that out though. They try to control Him and direct His activities, which is consistent with older brothers of their younger celebrity brother while in complete contrast with the position of authority the eldest would have over His younger siblings, especially since their father Joseph is no longer around.

 

[robycop3]

"Brother" and "sister" have many possible meanings. All Christians agree Jesus had brothers, not all agree on what it means precisely.

The context of Matt. 13 indicates those men believed Jesus was just an ordinary man.
Matt. 13:54 When He had come to His own country, He taught them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished and said, “Where did this Man get this wisdom and these mighty works? 55 Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas? 56 And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this Man get all these things?” 57 So they were offended at Him. Not one hint that those siblings were anything but Mary's children.