Is there salvation without Mary?

[bbbbbbb]

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.

Thank you for answering my question. Thus, any and every idea that was floating around prior to the late 300's can be embraced as Christian dogma, as long as there is nothing in the Bible to contradict it.

 

[Valletta]

Thank you for answering my question. Thus, any and every idea that was floating around prior to the late 300's can be embraced as Christian dogma, as long as there is nothing in the Bible to contradict it.

As long as the teaching is the Word of God, it does not have to be in the Bible.

 

[Albion]

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.

That would not change anything about this. The concept behind Holy Tradition is that it is really traditional, i.e. that something has been believed in the church universal continuously since its beginning. So if something was believed by some but the church had not formalized it, or it wasn't believed everywhere or not not from the beginning (as in the case of the Assumption), then Holy Tradition would not be applicable since it wasn't a matter of tradition, "holy" or otherwise.

 

[Valletta]

That would not change anything about this. The concept behind Holy Tradition is that it is really traditional, i.e. that something has been believed in the church universal continuously since its beginning. So if something was believed by some but the church had not formalized it, or it wasn't believed everywhere or not not from the beginning (as in the case of the Assumption), then Holy Tradition would not be applicable since it wasn't a matter of tradition, "holy" or otherwise.

Incorrect. As I just explained, the 73 books of the Bible were the Word of God BEFORE the Catholic Church formalized those books by approval of the Councils and popes. “In 2 Thess. St. Paul said "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” Today we separate what St. Paul speaks of as traditions into Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. We can come to a greater understanding of what God gave us, God did not give us an instruction book, not at the beginning either as to how to tend to the Garden of Eden, but God gave us faith and reason. For example, God is Three Persons and One God, whether all Catholics completely realized that from Sacred Tradition, it was so before the first Church Council had a chance to formalize it. Did you expect the first Council to formalize every singly iota of the Word of God? How long do you think such a session would have lasted?

 

[Albion]

“In 2 Thess. St. Paul said "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.”

As has been explained many times, that doesn't refer to the so-called "Holy Tradition" even though the word was borrowed for the purposes of the church creating doctrine that the Bible doesn't mention.

Indeed, the two are not even spelled the same, and it quite obviously is not referring to some allegedly second stream of divine revelation or any particular method for defining doctrine. But that's what "Holy Tradition" is supposed to be.

The verse simply says to keep on with the traditions (customs) that had been observed before by those listeners. No one knows what in particular that was referring to.

 

[mmksparbud]

Holy Tradition came before the Bible.

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

 

[mmksparbud]

As long as the teaching is the Word of God, it does not have to be in the Bible.

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

 

[mmksparbud]

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.

Yes it can---there is no such believe stated anywhere in the bible. Certainly her son never said such a thing.
Act 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

 

[Abaxvahl]

Yes it can---there is no such believe stated anywhere in the bible. Certainly her son never said such a thing.
Act 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

Mary being co-Redemptrix is not in contradiction to this verse. It's a simple truth and even you are called to the title.

 

[mmksparbud]

Mary being co-Redemptrix is not in contradiction to this verse. It's a simple truth and even you are called to the title.[/QUOTE

It totally ignores the verse. I am not saved by Mary, she did not die for free me from my sins. Mary did nothing to take away my sins. And I have no idea what that last sentence means.

1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

 

[Abaxvahl]

The title doesn't mean that, so it doesn't contradict any of those verses.

 

[mmksparbud]

The title doesn't mean that, so it doesn't contradict any of those verses.

According to those who use the term, Co-Redemptrix refers to a subordinate but essential participation by the Blessed Virgin Mary in redemption, notably that she gave free consent to give life to the Redeemer, which meant sharing his life, suffering, and death, which were redemptive for the world.
Co-Redemptrix - Wikipedia

She has no role to play in the redemption of man except for the highly honored position of being the mother of Jesus Christ -- not the mother of God. God has no mother. Jesus Christ was not born as God the Father, but as the Son of God growing into both God and man. she was not the mother of the Father God. To call her the mother of God is a misnomer so is co-Redemptrix---there is no such thing, no such title exists---no matter how many petitions to such a position are filed---there is still no such position and never will be----it is an insult, a slap in the face to the agony Christ endured to save us.

 

[Valletta]

According to those who use the term, Co-Redemptrix refers to a subordinate but essential participation by the Blessed Virgin Mary in redemption, notably that she gave free consent to give life to the Redeemer, which meant sharing his life, suffering, and death, which were redemptive for the world.
Co-Redemptrix - Wikipedia

She has no role to play in the redemption of man except for the highly honored position of being the mother of Jesus Christ -- not the mother of God. God has no mother. Jesus Christ was not born as God the Father, but as the Son of God growing into both God and man. she was not the mother of the Father God. To call her the mother of God is a misnomer so is co-Redemptrix---there is no such thing, no such title exists---no matter how many petitions to such a position are filed---there is still no such position and never will be----it is an insult, a slap in the face to the agony Christ endured to save us.

Wikipedia is not a valid source, anyone can write anything and it can change minute to minute and also be controlled by a group. If there is a subject where no one disagrees, such as showing where a county is in a state, it can be useful.

 

[Valletta]

As has been explained many times, that doesn't refer to the so-called "Holy Tradition" even though the word was borrowed for the purposes of the church creating doctrine that the Bible doesn't mention.

Indeed, the two are not even spelled the same, and it quite obviously is not referring to some allegedly second stream of divine revelation or any particular method for defining doctrine. But that's what "Holy Tradition" is supposed to be.

The verse simply says to keep on with the traditions (customs) that had been observed before by those listeners. No one knows what in particular that was referring to.

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

 

[prodromos]

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

An only child is also a first born.

Numbers 3:40
And the Lord said to Moses, “Number all the first-born males of the people of Israel, from a month old and upward, taking their number by names.​

How many other siblings do you believe a firstborn month old baby can have?

 

[Valletta]

An only child is also a first born.

Numbers 3:40
And the Lord said to Moses, “Number all the first-born males of the people of Israel, from a month old and upward, taking their number by names.​

How many other siblings do you believe a firstborn month old baby can have?

Thank you so much for that example!

 

[bbbbbbb]

An only child is also a first born.

Numbers 3:40
And the Lord said to Moses, “Number all the first-born males of the people of Israel, from a month old and upward, taking their number by names.​

How many other siblings do you believe a firstborn month old baby can have?

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?!?

 

[bbbbbbb]

As long as the teaching is the Word of God, it does not have to be in the Bible.

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

 

[Abaxvahl]

According to those who use the term, Co-Redemptrix refers to a subordinate but essential participation by the Blessed Virgin Mary in redemption, notably that she gave free consent to give life to the Redeemer, which meant sharing his life, suffering, and death, which were redemptive for the world.
Co-Redemptrix - Wikipedia

She has no role to play in the redemption of man except for the highly honored position of being the mother of Jesus Christ -- not the mother of God. God has no mother. Jesus Christ was not born as God the Father, but as the Son of God growing into both God and man. she was not the mother of the Father God. To call her the mother of God is a misnomer so is co-Redemptrix---there is no such thing, no such title exists---no matter how many petitions to such a position are filed---there is still no such position and never will be----it is an insult, a slap in the face to the agony Christ endured to save us.

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.

 

[bbbbbbb]

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.

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.