Is there salvation without Mary?

[Abaxvahl]

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


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

Yes and yes.

 

[Valletta]

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 Catholic Church has never been a denomination, "Catholic" means universal. The process of the Catholic Church choosing the 73 books of the Bible spanned centuries. St. Athanasius is credited with the first Biblical canon (NT) containing the same books in the same order we use today. The list was approved by Pope Damasus and formally approved of by Councils at Hippo and Carthage in the late 300s. Pope Innocent I wrote a letter to the Bishop of Toulouse in 405 A.D. which was re-affirmed at Carthage in 419 A.D., by the Council of Florence 1442 A.D., and by the Council of Trent in 1546 A.D.

 

[Valletta]

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.

The Bible is backed up by Sacred Tradition.

 

[robycop3]

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?

Big difference in "first" & "only".

 

[robycop3]

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?

None at the time, but later, however many more babies the mother has. Scripture names 4 of Jesus' siblings, while indicating he had at least 6 altogether.

 

[Valletta]

None at the time, but later, however many more babies the mother has. Scripture names 4 of Jesus' siblings, while indicating he had at least 6 altogether.

My brother in Christ, Jesus had no siblings.

 

[Valletta]

Big difference in "first" & "only".

Yes, I was just correcting the faulty assumption that if someone was first born that that person must have at least one sibling..

 

[Albion]

The Catholic Church has never been a denomination, "Catholic" means universal.

The word refers to the universality of the beliefs. It has nothing to do with the reach of the institution.

 

[Albion]

The Bible is backed up by Sacred Tradition.

If that's what you want to believe...and you insist that we must know that you believe it, consider it done.

 

[robycop3]

My brother in Christ, Jesus had no siblings.

Either He did, or this Scripture is wrong.

Matt. 13:55
‘Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?

 

[robycop3]

Yes, I was just correcting the faulty assumption that if someone was first born that that person must have at least one sibling..

The word "firstborn" assumes siblings.

 

[prodromos]

None at the time, but later, however many more babies the mother has. Scripture names 4 of Jesus' siblings, while indicating he had at least 6 altogether.

and their behavior and attitude towards Jesus as recorded in Scripture is consistent with them being older brothers to Jesus, so could not be children of Mary. Of Joseph, yes. Any child of Joseph is legally a brother or sister of Jesus. Jesus is also legally the son of Joseph yet is never described as Joseph's first born.

 

[Valletta]

The word "firstborn" assumes siblings.

Certainly not in the Jewish culture of the Bible. We just went over this subject.

 

[Valletta]

If that's what you want to believe...and you insist that we must know that you believe it, consider it done.

The Bible didn't just appear one day, readings at mass differed from area to area and the Catholic Church set out to make sure only God-breathed readings were used at mass. Certainly the Catholic Church was guided by the Holy Spirit in the process. But Sacred Scripture had to be one hundred percent in keeping with Catholic Sacred Tradition as passed down from Jesus through the Apostles.

 

[mmksparbud]

but Jesus and the disciples said this:

Mat_15:6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.
Mar_7:8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
Mar_7:9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
Mar_7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
Col_2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

 

[Albion]

But Sacred Scripture had to be one hundred percent in keeping with Catholic Sacred Tradition as passed down from Jesus through the Apostles.

Wouldn't that have been wonderful if it were actually true?

 

[Abaxvahl]

Wouldn't that have been wonderful if it were actually true?

What makes it false? Where is there a contradiction?

 

[Albion]

What makes it false? Where is there a contradiction?

Hi. Here's the comment in question:

Certainly the Catholic Church was guided by the Holy Spirit in the process. But Sacred Scripture had to be one hundred percent in keeping with Catholic Sacred Tradition as passed down from Jesus through the Apostles.

There is more than a little "gilding of the lily" in that passage. For one, there is no "Sacred Scripture had to be on hundred percent in keeping with Catholic Sacred Tradition..." That's just something a person who's proud of his denomination would like to claim as true.

When the Bible was canonized, that was not the determiner of whether or not the councils included each of the books they did. Almost all of the books that made it into the Bible were already accepted by the churches of the Christian world as being inspired and only a handful were questioned. That was before either of the two councils which canonized the Bible had met.

Also, the claim that "as passed down from Jesus through the Apostles" is just for show. None of the dogmas that have been declared by the RCC by "Sacred Tradition" can be substantiated by reference to the historical record. Some of them don't even come close. But of course the allegation is made in order to have some apparent basis for these innovations.

AND Sacred Tradition is a term that needs to be understood. It does not refer to traditions in the church but, rather, to a theory that has no Biblical basis--i.e. that God set up a second stream of divine revelation to mankind in addition to Scripture, and that by an unbroken line of belief among the people of the church everywhere established doctrine(s), even thought the Bible books did not.

 

[Abaxvahl]

Hi. Here's the comment in question:


There is more than a little "gilding of the lily" in that passage. For one, there is no "Sacred Scripture had to be on hundred percent in keeping with Catholic Sacred Tradition..." That's just something a person who's proud of his denomination would like to claim as true.

When the Bible was canonized, that was not the determiner of whether the council included each book it finally did...or not. Almost all of the books that made it into the Bible were already accepted by the churches of the Christian world as being inspired and only a handful were questioned. That was before either of the two councils which canonized the Bible had met.

Also, the claim that "as passed down from Jesus through the Apostles" is just for show. None of the dogmas that have been declared by the RCC can be substantiated by reference to the historical record. Some of them don't even come close. But of course the allegation is made in order to have some apparent basis for these innovations.
AND Sacred Tradition is a term that does not refer to traditions in the church but, rather, to a theory that has no Biblical basis--i.e. that God set up a second stream of divine revelation to mankind, in addition to Scripture, by which an unbroken line of unofficial belief among the people of the church everywhere established doctrine, even if the Bible books did not.

Were not books discarded by people based on their lack of orthodoxy? And yes, the Councils merely recognized what was in fact canon, for God Himself determines that (although not all inspired books are necessarily canon, the area gets fuzzy and the EOs are explaining it to me). They (EOs) also have the Sacred Tradition claim, what makes it necessary to substantiate all of it's contents by historical record? Not only can this not be done but the claim is not that Tradition is just a historical record, but is more accurately a handing down of the life of the Church as a whole, which in a sense is the Holy Spirit. St. Maximus the Confessor says that in receiving this it is elaborated upon necessarily, as the reception is not merely passive. How then would each portion of it in any of the Old Churches by established by simply a historical record? On top of that even in the Commonitorium it is a thing which grows although is still what it was like the body of a man. Certain Christological points weren't explicitly said in history before the era of debating them but it is certain everyone must hold to it, and it's not as if it was made up and added to the Church, it came organically and that life was handed down. I do not see how it is just for show because of that.

 

[concretecamper]

But Sacred Scripture had to be one hundred percent in keeping with Catholic Sacred Tradition as passed down from Jesus through the Apostles

precisely.

But you do need to recognize that those who reject Christ and His Magisterium are left with nothing but Scripture. This leads to the unbiblical theory of Sola Scriptura. Notice that they need to add to scripture to claim that Scripture is the final authority and scripture contains all truths for those who calls themselves Christian. Ironic? Yes it is, but sadly it is true.