Is there salvation without Mary?

[WanderedHome]

A little education for people who are unaware of where this centuries-old debate started and the issues surrounding it:

"As a title for the Virgin Mary, Theotokos was recognized by the Orthodox Church at Third Ecumenical Council held at Ephesus in 431. It had already been in use for some time in the devotional and liturgical life of the Church. The theological significance of the title is to emphasize that Mary's son, Jesus, is fully God, as well as fully human, and that Jesus' two natures (divine and human) were united in a single Person of the Trinity. The competing view at that council was that Mary should be called Christotokos instead, meaning "Birth-giver to Christ." This was the view advocated by Nestorius, then Patriarch of Constantinople. The intent behind calling her Christotokos was to restrict her role to be only the mother of "Christ's humanity" and not his divine nature.

Nestorius' view was anathematized by the Council as heresy, (see Nestorianism), since it was considered to be dividing Jesus into two distinct persons, one who was Son of Mary, and another, the divine nature, who was not. It was defined that although Jesus has two natures, human and divine, these are eternally united in one personhood. Because Mary is the mother of God the Son, she is therefore duly entitled Theotokos.
Calling Mary the Theotokos or the Mother of God (Μητηρ Θεου) was never meant to suggest that Mary was coeternal with God, or that she existed before Jesus Christ or God existed.
The Church acknowledges the mystery in the words of this ancient hymn: "He whom the entire universe could not contain was contained within your womb, O Theotokos."

-From Orthodoxwiki

So the reason it is so important how we view Mary, is because getting it wrong attacks the very nature of Christ. It sounds like what a lot of Protestants are arguing for today is Nestorianism, though not being aware, or even caring, that it is a heresy. Like Nestorius, they may be well-intentioned, but good intention does not make right.

 

[com7fy8]

A little education

What about Abraham's part in Jesus coming as our Savior?

"'In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice.'" (Genesis 22:18)

Ones understand this "seed" means Jesus, and here God says "because" of Abraham's obedience "all the nations of the earth shall be blessed" in Jesus . . . I understand, anyway

So, to me this would mean God has used Abraham; and what Abraham did is essential for us to be saved, if we are now blessed "because" Abraham obeyed God's voice.

Plus, our Apostle Paul says we who are "of faith" are "sons of Abraham", in Galatians 3:7.

So, I see how our Father considers certain people very important . . . even essential . . . to our salvation. But this is because He is sharing with people how He and what He does is essential. It is not because of us, really, then, but because of God including us.

If we obey . . . He uses us in essential ways.

So, I see how Mary has been included . . . after Abraham. She obeyed God; so He used her for what was essential.

And yet, I notice how some number of people never say a word about Abraham and his obedience, but they do talk a lot about Mary; or others like to talk a lot about our Apostle Paul. And ones make a project of putting down Mary. But all three have obeyed God; so He is not putting them down, in any case.

But there can be ones who are competing for attention, by mainly promoting only Mary or only or mainly Paul. And what ever has happened to Abraham, in all this???? Because he obeyed the LORD, "all the nations of the earth shall be blessed" . . . "in your seed" . . . which ones understand means Christ, I consider from Galatians 3:16.

Sibling rivals can compete for who is the greatest . . . or pick out some one Bible person and claim to be with that one who they treat with the greatest attention . . . may be attempting to be important by association with the one they claim is so great.

But Abraham and Mary and Paul are humble, I would say; and they want us to follow their example They are great because of being with Jesus, and obeying.

 

[hedrick]

Frankly, I'm skeptical that the issue here is Christological. If it were, mother of Christ would be fine. That would refer to the single person. "Mother of God" would be understood by anyone not having specialized theological training as referring specifically to the divinity, and would be obviously absurd if not blasphemous. This is so obvious that I think it's clear that the intent here was to glorify Mary, not just to clarify the Incarnation. The issue is not as clear with theotokos, which of course is the original, though I’m skeptical even of that.

 

[concretecamper]

This topic highlights how without the Magisterium, people will naturally move away from truth. The leaders of the protestant reformation would be considered heretics and too concerned about the "Mother of God" by today's protestants

 

[hedrick]

This topic highlights how without the Magisterium, people will naturally move away from truth. The leaders of the protestant reformation would be considered heretics and too concerned about the "Mother of God" by today's protestants

Or towards it.

 

[concretecamper]

Or towards it.

I doubt anyone could reasonably believe that.

 

[hedrick]

I doubt anyone could reasonably believe that.

Reasonable people can believe lots of things. In this case the historical evidence suggests that the Magisterium allowed popular piety to leak into theology. This is not an unusual occurrence, nor is it limited to this situation or even Catholics.

 

[concretecamper]

Reasonable people can believe lots of things. In this case the historical evidence suggests that the Magisterium allowed popular piety to leak into theology. This is not an unusual occurrence, nor is it limited to this situation or even Catholics.

how does this pertains to the topic at hand?

YOU supplied us with evidence from the early Church that Mary was highly exalted, no different from His Church today.

It is also evident that the protestant phenomenon has steadily moved away from exalting Mary.

You surmise the protestants are moving towards truth. The evidence is clear that the opposite is true

 

[hedrick]

how does this pertains to the topic at hand?

YOU supplied us with evidence from the early Church that Mary was highly exalted, no different from His Church today.

It is also evident that the protestant phenomenon has steadily moved away from exalting Mary.

You surmise the protestants are moving towards truth. The evidence is clear that the opposite is true

Actually I didn't. But veneration of Mary is fairly old, going back to the 3rd Cent. The problem is that it isn't Apostolic. Here's a brief history: History of Catholic Mariology - Wikipedia

The Reformers thought they were moving from late medieval misunderstandings back to the Fathers. To a certain extent they were probably right. But they moved back roughly to Augustine. Plenty of development had already occurred by that time.

Development is not necessarily a bad thing. New practical questions come up that are not answered in Jesus' teachings or even Apostolic writings. The Apologists of the 2nd and 3rd Cent had to explain Christian ideas to a Roman culture that was very different from the 1st Cent Jewish culture in which the NT was written. (Of course that kind of interpretation is open to reconsideration in different situations -- something that Catholics have only started realizing). But while the Church can make judgements and clarify teachings, it can't invent facts. Things like the assumption of the virgin aren't the kind of thing the Church can legitimately create.

 

[concretecamper]

Actually I didn't. But veneration of Mary is fairly old, going back to the 3rd Cent. The problem is that it isn't Apostolic. Here's a brief history: History of Catholic Mariology - Wikipedia

wikipedia? Come on

The Reformers thought they were moving from late medieval misunderstandings back to the Fathers

they weren't moving at all. They believed they were retaining what was true.

Development is not necessarily a bad thing. New practical questions come up that are not answered in Jesus' teachings or even Apostolic writings.

really? Like what.

But while the Church can make judgements and clarify teachings, it can't invent

agreed

Things like the assumption of the virgin aren't the kind of thing the Church can legitimately create.

if you try, you'll find this belief in the early Church

 

[hedrick]

wikipedia? Come on
they weren't moving at all. They believed they were retaining what was true.
really? Like what.
agreed
if you try, you'll find this belief in the early Church

The usual citations are fifth cent, though I’ve seen some earlier. Not Apostolic though, and the oldest are probably not even orthodox. These are early legends that ended up being accepted.

 

[concretecamper]

The usual citations are fifth cent, though I’ve seen some earlier.

Not too clear here, are we.

Not Apostolic though, and the oldest are probably not even orthodox

probably?

Vague is the order of the day I guess.

 

[hedrick]

Not too clear here, are we.
probably?

Vague is the order of the day I guess.

We don’t know the details of how the legends started.

 

[concretecamper]

We don’t know the details

amongst other things.

 

[b4jesustoday]

All graces come thru Mary!

 

[WebersHome]

.

But again, she has nothing to do with OUR salvation,

Well; I don't know who those "OUR" folks are for whom you presume to speak but speaking for myself, Jesus' mom had a very important role in my own rescue from the sum of all fears; and in point of fact, without Jesus' mom there would be no Xmas story to tell every December.

● Gal 4:4 . . But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth His son, made of a woman

You know, Neal Armstrong didn't get to the Moon all by himself. It was a concerted effort by hundreds of people in a variety of trades, disciplines, and professions.

Well; the same can be said of Christ. He went to the cross alone, but he didn't get there all by himself. Hundreds of people, beginning with Adam and culminating with the Romans, had important roles in his journey, without whom the crucifixion would never have been possible. It was a huge, complicated project requiring many years to accomplish; with God doing his part, and humanity doing its part.
_

 

[James A]

Is there salvation without Mary?

is she the mother of our salvation?

our hope?

While I do believe St. Mary is the Ark of New Covenant and the spiritual mother of all believers, I don't think she plays any role in our Salvation in the manner Jesus does.

The punishment endured by Jesus is applicable to all humans, no matter how many billions are there or the time they lived ( OT versus NT) , because Jesus is infinite God and He transcends space and time. I don't see Mary, a created being, fits here.

I do believe the intercession of St. Mary is necessary to complete our faith and she is called, rightfully, as the the gate to heaven, answer to the OP is no.

 

[b4jesustoday]

Esther had nothing to with saving her people either!

 

[xxkingskidlmxx]

so no one can be "of Paul" or "of Cephas" or "of Apollos" ... not speak to you as to spiritual people but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ.

 

[Francis Drake]

How come none of the New testament letters expound anything like the Catholic dogmas about Mary?