Devotion To Our Lady Is Necessary For Salvation

[nilofc]

Your conclusion is false. First of all, I am not denying Mary. What I deny is that Mary is the mediatrix of all grace so that we must go through Mary to get to Christ. It is purely false. This is not the doctrine of the early church. It is an idea of the last few centuries. Secondly, to deny that Mary was immaculately concieved is not the same thing as denying that she espoused the divine will regarding salvation.

Not the doctrine of the early church? Ever heard of Protoevangelium? The first good news proclaimed in Genesis?

To your second point, what are you denying then?

 

[planter654]

Well why don’t you post some magisterial documents and not private writings of saints or popes. Not everything written by a Pope is magisterial, the Pope has to be writing according the teaching authority of the papal office.

God will be the judge of that, don’t you think?
God bless

 

[nilofc]

Well why don’t you post some magisterial documents and not private writings of saints or popes. Not everything written by a Pope is magisterial, the Pope has to be writing according the teaching authority of the papal office.

You missed my point,

It is I, who is asking you to post magisterial documents (or even quotes from saints) that deny Mary’s role in salvation.

 

[Formosus]

The Protoevangelium doesn’t talk about Mary as mediatrix of graces or co-redemptrix…

 

[Formosus]

You missed my point,

It is I, who is asking you to post magisterial documents (or even quotes from saints) that deny Mary’s role in salvation.

You are the one making the claim that she is, therefore the burden of proof is on you. Likewise the Chruch doesn’t make a document for every position that it doesn’t hold. If the Church truly holds the view you are suggesting, then it will be far far easier for you to find a document that supports your position. But just to be fair I will start looking through denzinnger’s right now, so long as you attempt to find a magisterial document to back your position.

 

[nilofc]

The Protoevangelium doesn’t talk about Mary as mediatrix of graces or co-redemptrix…

True. Neither does it says the male son of the woman is also the source of all graces.

 

[CreosMary]

As a Christian travels on the rocky road to attempt holiness, which we are all aiming for, the role of our Lady becomes clearer. For some, devotion to our Lady is necessary, as she keeps one on track to an ever closer union with Christ. (“do what ever he tells you”)
Those that claim no devotion to her, I feel, have not fully grasped the Gospel message and that we are “family” with a Divine Father, a Heavenly Mother and God-man as our brother, with all the saints as kin.
As has been posted, devotion to our Lady is not necessary to salvation, but those that earnestly seek salvation will not be able to miss the recognition and veneration our Lady deserves!
Mary prays for us and watches over us whether we acknowledge her or not, to me it is only fitting to venerate her for this.
Imagine you walk into a kings house and ignore his Mother that greets you at the door…How do you think the King would react to your rudeness to his Mother?
Our Lady is known as the fiercest enemy of hell and I need her prayers constantly. Ave Maria gratia plena !

 

[nilofc]

You are the one making the claim that she is, therefore the burden of proof is on you. Likewise the Chruch doesn’t make a document for every position that it doesn’t hold. If the Church truly holds the view you are suggesting, then it will be far far easier for you to find a document that supports your position. But just to be fair I will start looking through denzinnger’s right now, so long as you attempt to find a magisterial document to back your position.

Right. But by your logic, if the Church does not have a document on a certain position, then we shouldn’t believe it. That completely destroys the concept of Church Tradition.

 

[jimmy]

Mary does not lessen the dignity of Christ. In fact to honor Mary is to honor the perfect work of God. “My soul magnifies the Lord” as our Mother said… the more you honor and venerate Mary, the more you magnify the Lord.

With this same logic we could probably defend the worshiping of the golden calf in the desert. ‘They were only honoring Gods perfect creation. It is the most beautiful of the metals of Gods creation. So therefore their worship of the golden calf was only a worshiping of God.’

Not the doctrine of the early church? Ever heard of Protoevangelium? The first good news proclaimed in Genesis?

To your second point, what are you denying then?

The protoevangelion has nothing to do with the mediatrix of all graces or co-redemptrix. It is a complete distortion to say it does. The protoevangelion is the profecy that God will send the Christ and the Christ will stomp the head of the serpent.

It is I, who is asking you to post magisterial documents (or even quotes from saints) that deny Mary’s role in salvation.

It is not our job to prove that Mary was not the mediatrix of all graces and co-redemptrix. It is your job to prove that it is true.

 

[Formosus]

I looked in Denzinngers, and out of the entire history of the Church you have two references . Both of them are encyclicals from the last 200 years. So they are only part of the Ordinary magisterium therefore not infallible teachings of the Church.

 

[bear06]

I don’t see these things in the way you see them. I don’t see the sacraments as a log that God throws us. The sacraments are our very relationship with the Church and with God. As St. Ephrem says baptism brings us into the new paradise. The Eucharist is the tree of life. Mary and the saints are not just some lifeline that God has thrown us. They are the Church in heaven. The creed says we believe in One Church and the apostles creed says we believe in the communion of the saints.

It would seem that you can’t see the forest through the trees. The Sacraments, Mary, the Saints are our path to sanctity. And you are right, they are our very relationship with the Church. They are all needed for our salvation, again, because God wills it to be so. Can God save us by extraordinary means? Absolutely but these are the means that he has given us!

 

[jimmy]

Right. But by your logic, if the Church does not have a document on a certain position, then we shouldn’t believe it. That completely destroys the concept of Church Tradition.

And your logic is that if the Church doesn’t have a document that denies a doctrine then we should believe it. With your logic the Mormons could probably defend their idea that Christ came to America because the Church never said that Christ did NOT come to America therefore He must have.

 

[nilofc]

With this same logic we could probably defend the worshiping of the golden calf in the desert. ‘They were only honoring Gods perfect creation. It is the most beautiful of the metals of Gods creation. So therefore their worship of the golden calf was only a worshiping of God.’

How can it be the same logic?
The Church didn’t say that the golden calf deserves Hyperdulia.
I base my arguments on what the Church teaches.

The protoevangelion has nothing to do with the mediatrix of all graces or co-redemptrix. It is a complete distortion to say it does. The protoevangelion is the profecy that God will send the Christ and the Christ will stomp the head of the serpent.

The protoevangelium also talked of a woman who will bring the Christ for the salvation of many. There are two characters identified in the protoevangelium. Salvation is a grace. It is only through grace that we are saved. So when we talk about the protoevangelium, we talk about the grace of salvation coming into the world. “Mediatrix” and “Co-Redemptrix” has a lot to do with it.

It is not our job to prove that Mary was not the mediatrix of all graces and co-redemptrix. It is your job to prove that it is true.

It is the faith of all Christian to explain the hope that is in them (1 Peter 3:15). The hope that Mary gave to this world by her fiat. It is through her that God conduits our salvation through.

 

[jimmy]

It would seem that you can’t see the forest through the trees. The Sacraments, Mary, the Saints are our path to sanctity. And you are right, they are our very relationship with the Church. They are all needed for our salvation, again, because God wills it to be so. Can God save us by extraordinary means? Absolutely but these are the means that he has given us!

If you were to remove the word ‘needed’ I could agree but I can not say that the saints and Mary are necessary. The Sacraments are necessary in every sense of the word but Mary and the saints are not the same. Their aid and prayers are very powerful and it is advisable to seek their aid but I can not say they are necessary. The only way I can say they are necessary is in the sense that we are part of the same body of Christ as they are. But I will not say that it is necessary for us to pray through them to get to Christ. There is one body of Christ and therefore we are all united and we must be united. It is necessary for us to be a part of the Church - the body of Christ -but there is no necessity for anyone to ever say a Hail Mary or a Novena to St. Therese or any other prayer to a saint. God never willed it that we had to go through Mary or any of the saints but He willed that there would be one body of Christ.

 

[nilofc]

And your logic is that if the Church doesn’t have a document that denies a doctrine then we should believe it. With your logic the Mormons could probably defend their idea that Christ came to America because the Church never said that Christ did NOT come to America therefore He must have.

I can never recall any Church Tradition that duly approved of the Mormon faith. Can you?

 

[nilofc]

If you were to remove the word ‘needed’ I could agree but I can not say that the saints and Mary are necessary. .

Then you deny the communion of saints.

"Jesus! Only you! I don’t need your mother or your saints! It’s not that I don’t honor them…all I am saying is that…I don’t need them!"

See how twisted this sounds. Jesus will be offended with this statement, denying these people whom He has perfected. It’s like denying the works of Christ.

 

[jimmy]

How can it be the same logic?
The Church didn’t say that the golden calf deserves Hyperdulia.
I base my arguments on what the Church teaches.

And the Church doesn’t teach mediatrix or all graces or coredemptrix.

The protoevangelium also talked of a woman who will bring the Christ for the salvation of many. There are two characters identified in the protoevangelium. Salvation is a grace. It is only through grace that we are saved. So when we talk about the protoevangelium, we talk about the grace of salvation coming into the world. “Mediatrix” and “Co-Redemptrix” has a lot to do with it.

Yes, a woman is mentioned but it is only to say her seed will stomp the head of the serpent. This is the protoevangelion

15 And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring a] and hers;
he will crush **(“http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis3&version=31#fen-NIV-71b”)] your head,
and you will strike his heel."

No where does it mention the doctrines of coredemptrix or mediatrix. What it speaks of is the good news that God will send a savior and that savior will be the seed of the woman and He will crush the head of the serpent.

 

[nilofc]

And the Church doesn’t teach mediatrix or all graces or coredemptrix.

Not true. Church Tradition does. The popes and the saints does.

Only when a controversy arises that the Church defines a dogma.

Yes, a woman is mentioned but it is only to say her seed will stomp the head of the serpent. This is the protoevangelion

15 And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring a] and hers;
he will crush **(“http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis3&version=31#fen-NIV-71b”)] your head,
and you will strike his heel."

No where does it mention the doctrines of coredemptrix or mediatrix. What it speaks of is the good news that God will send a savior and that savior will be the seed of the woman and He will crush the head of the serpent.

It is through the woman that the savior came into the world. Salvation is a grace. Co-Redemptrix and Mediatrix of Graces has everything to do with it.

 

[jimmy]

I can never recall any Church Tradition that duly approved of the Mormon faith. Can you?

You said above that a document is not necessary to say that it is true.

nilofc:

Right. But by your logic, if the Church does not have a document on a certain position, then we shouldn’t believe it. That completely destroys the concept of Church Tradition.

Which is it? Either coredemptrix/mediatrix must be proved through church documents or it doesn’t matter whether there are church documents which prove it.

 

[jimmy]

Not true. Church Tradition does. The popes and the saints does.

Only when a controversy arises that the Church defines a dogma.

No they don’t. Tradition is not established by a couple centuries of popes who have speculated on the issue. It is not a teaching of the Church.

It is through the woman that the savior came into the world. Salvation is a grace. Co-Redemptrix and Mediatrix of Graces has everything to do with it.

If all that was meant by it was that through the woman came the savior that would be fine but what is being said is that our prayers must be through Mary and nothing goes to Christ except through Mary. The order has been reversed. Christ came to us through Mary and somehow you assume the reverse must be true.

Then you deny the communion of saints.

"Jesus! Only you! I don’t need your mother or your saints! It’s not that I don’t honor them…all I am saying is that…I don’t need them!"

See how twisted this sounds. Jesus will be offended with this statement, denying these people whom He has perfected. It’s like denying the works of Christ.

First of all, I don’t say what you are saying, I only deny your understanding of the communion of saints. Second of all, I find it twisted to put another mediator between Christ and man and say we must go through that other mediator to get to Christ. It is not scriptural and you can’t find it in the fathers.