How does Marian devotion save?

[panevino]

Posted by moondweller
…Neither Paul or Mary can “save” anyone in the manner you speak since both of them no longer operate on this earth…

I
obviously though they continue to by the example / record left by them.
Marys words “all generations shall call me blessed” id say in part points to this enduring
example. When she said “do as he says” and in luke1: 38 And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her."
are the example she provides.
Of course Paul has his epistles.

 

[moondweller]

Posted by moondweller
…Neither Paul or Mary can “save” anyone in the manner you speak since both of them no longer operate on this earth…

I
obviously though they continue to by the example / record left by them.
Marys words “all generations shall call me blessed” id say in part points to this enduring
example. When she said “do as he says” and in luke1: 38 And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her."
are the example she provides.
Of course Paul has his epistles.

Well, then we’re right back to the Scriptures, aren’t we?

 

[panevino]

Well, then we’re right back to the Scriptures, aren’t we?

correct.

 

[Odell]

Please, do quote the CCC that shows where the Catholic Church teaches that salvation comes from someone or something other than God. I look forward to it!

you misunderstood me yet again. I said I could show you in the CCC temperal salvation and temperal penalty. I did try looking it up and can not find it. I know the church teaches the difference in temperal and eternal salvation If you would like I can when I get some time find something on it.

When you understand that Catholic salvation is articulated different than Protestant salvation you will understand one who says Mary saves or Paul. You might even understand penance and indulgences. Many Protestants feel like this was invented to earn eternal salvation but it has nothing to do with eternal but temperal consequences.

 

[moondweller]

When you understand that Catholic salvation is articulated different than Protestant salvation you will understand one who says Mary saves or Paul. You might even understand penance and indulgences. Many Protestants feel like this was invented to earn eternal salvation but it has nothing to do with eternal but temperal consequences.

Catholic salvation is “articulated” differently than Biblical salvation. The Bible says nothing about “penance,” “indulgences,” or “temporal consequences (punishment).” Here the Biblical teaching on sin and forgiveness through personal faith in Christ:Acts 10:43 “Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.”

Acts 13:38 “Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through Him forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you,”

Acts 26:18 to open their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the dominion of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who have been sanctified by faith in Me.’"

Col 1:14 “…in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.”

Rom 4:5-7 “But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works: "Blessed are those whose lawless deeds have been forgiven, and whose sins have been covered. Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will not take into account.”

1 John 2:12 "I am writing to you, little children, because your sins have been forgiven you for His name’s sake."It’s not a Catholic vs. Protestant issue, but Catholic vs. Biblical.

 

[Odell]

Catholic salvation is “articulated” differently than Biblical salvation. The Bible says nothing about “penance,” “indulgences,” or “temporal consequences (punishment).” Here the Biblical teaching on sin and forgiveness through personal faith in Christ:Acts 10:43 “Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.”

Acts 13:38 “Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through Him forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you,”

Acts 26:18 to open their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the dominion of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who have been sanctified by faith in Me.’"

Col 1:14 “…in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.”

Rom 4:5-7 “But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works: "Blessed are those whose lawless deeds have been forgiven, and whose sins have been covered. Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will not take into account.”

1 John 2:12 "I am writing to you, little children, because your sins have been forgiven you for His name’s sake."It’s not a Catholic vs. Protestant issue, but Catholic vs. Biblical.

Moon I started another thred and plan on addressing this you are welcome to reply

 

[anthony022071]

Paul explicitly states that all Scripture is theopneustos (God-breathed). This is NEVER said of man’s traditions or man’s extra-biblical doctrines.

The doctrines of the Church are also God-breathed. The Spirit guides the Church to all divine truth. The doctrines of the Church are not man-made traditions,they are revealed by the Spirit,just as the doctrines contained in scripture are. We don’t need for scripture to tell us

Prior to any councils, men knew which writings were N.T. Scripture. The early writers quoted from them profusely. It’s been said that one could put together almost the whole N.T. simply by the quotes found in those writings alone.

You miss the point that the early Church Fathers were members of the Catholic Church. They were not just independent theologians or preachers. Most of them were bishops and monks. If they knew what was sacred scripture and what was not,it was because they belonged to the Church.

It wasn’t the councils that made them Scripture, my friend; they were Scripture the moment they were penned. The councils merely ratified what was already recognized. But you’re sadly mistaken if you think this was a unilateral decision by your church.

I did not say that the councils made them scripture,I said that it was the Church that determined what was sacred scripture. And it was members of the Church that penned them in the first place. The Church recognizes what is its own.

 

[anthony022071]

At the time of Paul (and Christ) there was no “official” canon based on some previous Jewish council. But the Jews very well knew which writings were Scripture (Matt. 21:42; 22:29; 26:54, 56; Lk. 24:27, 32, 45; Jn. 5:39).

It was the Jewish priesthood that determined what was sacred scripture. It was not as if the Jewish people or independent preachers could determine for themselves what was sacred scripture.

Please read 2 Tim. 3:16 again. It states there that ALL (that includes all of them, and excludes none) SCRIPTURE is theopneustos. That means both Old and New Testaments are God-breathed.

It’s true that all sacred scripture is God-breathed,but Paul was referring to the Hebrew scriptures. The four Gospels may not have been written or widely known at the time that he was writing.

Unless you’re trying to argue that the N.T. Books are not Scripture. Are you? Otherwise your response is nonsensical.

I know that the New Testament books are sacred scripture because the Catholic Church has determined them to be sacred scripture. And you know that they are sacred scripture for the same reason. Whatever true doctrines that the Protestant and independent churches uphold were inherited from the original Catholic Church that Christ founded

.

Or are you perhaps postulating the eccentric idea that the Holy Spirit didn’t know that when He inspired 2 Tim. 3:16 to be written by Paul that He Himself didn’t know 2 Tim. 3:16 was His own inspired writing? Are you suggesting that the Holy Spirit had to find this out later? That He Himself had to be informed that the N.T. was also Scripture?

Those are your eccentric ideas. I didn’t say anything about the Holy Spirit not knowing.
I was talking about the fact that the Catholic Church determined what was to be considered sacred scripture. The Church is guided in its doctrines by the Spirit.

 

[anthony022071]

No “church” wrote Scripture. They were all written by individual men to and for the churches. Take for example Paul’s letter to the “churches” in Galatia. Galatia was a region with several churches. Like today, not all within those local assemblies (churches) were true believers, and therefore not a part of “the body of Christ,” which is “the church” (Eph. 1:22-23) “The church” Christ is building is always singular, never plural (that’s why it will be taken up as a single body). It is the true church which transcends the local churches (assemblies) which are made up of both believers and unbelievers (to whom many of the warnings in the N.T. are directed). In some instances, no believers at all. At the end of this church age the true church (the body/bride of Christ) will be taken up as a single unit (2 Tim. 2:19). First the dead in Christ will rise, then we who are alive (1 Thess. 4:15-18). What’s left behind on this present earth are apostate “churches” all occupied by apostates.

The N.T. Scriptures are always addressed to true believers within the churches (local assemblies), either to exhort them, warn them, or to inform them. For instance Paul wrote Romans “to all who are beloved in Rome, called as saints,”

Would have I not read in the N. T. that "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness

 

[anthony022071]

No “church” wrote Scripture. They were all written by individual men to and for the churches.

The NT scriptures were written by God-inspired men who belonged to the Catholic Church,which is itself God-inspired in its doctrines. The writers were not independent evangelists teachings doctrines things that were not already being taught in the Church. They and their doctrines were of the Church that Christ founded upon Peter. The doctrines were taught by word of mouth before and whether or not they were written down.

 

[moondweller]

The NT scriptures were written by God-inspired men who belonged to the Catholic Church,which is itself God-inspired in its doctrines. The writers were not independent evangelists teachings doctrines things that were not already being taught in the Church. They and their doctrines were of the Church that Christ founded upon Peter. The doctrines were taught by word of mouth before and whether or not they were written down.

You’ve got this backwards, my friend. It’s the Apostles who taught the churches. The churches didn’t teach the Apostles. Paul himself writes:Rom 1:15 "So, for my part, I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome."And to the churches in the region of Galatia he wrote:Gal 1:11-12 "For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but {I received it} through a revelation of Jesus Christ."Of course the Apostles are part of the “catholic” (in its true sense meaning “universal”) church (all the saved are), but it was to the churches (local assemblies) they ministered with their doctrines pertaining to Christ and the gospel of salvation. It’s upon them (their teachings) that the true church, pictured in Scripture as “a” temple in the Lord, is built and being fitted together - Christ its corner stone (Eph. 2:20-22).

The true church, being the Bride of Christ, to whom she is presently betrothed (2 Cor. 11:2), and whom Christ will take up to be with Him (rapture, 1 Thess. 4:10-15; Jn. 14:3; 17:24), will be revealed in all her glory at the return of Christ to this earth at the end of the age when she returns with Him.

 

[diggerdomer]

Go read over your posts digger. Perhaps you are not as clever as you think.

I don’t think I’m clever. I reread my posts but still don’t know what you’re getting at. Sorry.

 

[diggerdomer]

You said, “Jesus did not create Mary. God did.” Now how is one to translate that?

Literally. Jesus IS God, according to Christian faith. God is not a creation of humans. Mary is human. Does that help?

 

[diggerdomer]

And I am not saying Mary is the source of salvation either! You just as Protestants would tether take me and others out of context when we are using the same language as the bible! You obviously did not bother reading my post Mary does not nor Paul bring others salvation as christ does. But both of them do save in a different manner. Why can you understand this when in scripture but not when a church father says the same of the blessed mother?

I did not mean to take what you posted out of context. If I did, I am sorry, and I would simply ask you to clarify, and correct my misinterpretation.

I don’t think I’ve ever denied anything said in Scripture. Have I?

The fact is, salvation comes from God alone. How God accomplishes such is of course up to God. Right?

 

[diggerdomer]

you misunderstood me yet again. I said I could show you in the CCC temperal salvation and temperal penalty. I did try looking it up and can not find it. I know the church teaches the difference in temperal and eternal salvation If you would like I can when I get some time find something on it.

When you understand that Catholic salvation is articulated different than Protestant salvation you will understand one who says Mary saves or Paul. You might even understand penance and indulgences. Many Protestants feel like this was invented to earn eternal salvation but it has nothing to do with eternal but temperal consequences.

Well, if you can find it later, please share. Thanks. You’re the one who brought up the CCC, I simply asked for a reference.

There are many different articulations of how to understand Christian salvation, no need to hypothesize some presumably dichotomous Protestant/Catholic one. Many ways of theologically understanding and articulating salvation in the Christian tradition are acceptable. God wills ALL to be saved.

 

[Odell]

I did not mean to take what you posted out of context. If I did, I am sorry, and I would simply ask you to clarify, and correct my misinterpretation.

I don’t think I’ve ever denied anything said in Scripture. Have I?

The fact is, salvation comes from God alone. How God accomplishes such is of course up to God. Right?

Yes we are on the same page. i was just trying to stress that he alows others to participate in bringing that salvation. And I believe that is all people mean when they are being miss quoted by protestants.

its hard to express feelings over internet but no hard feelings here

 

[anthony022071]

You’ve got this backwards, my friend. It’s the Apostles who taught the churches. The churches didn’t teach the Apostles.

There’s no dichotomy between the “teachings of the Church” and the “teachings of the apostles”. The apostles were the priests and bishops of the Church. Christ founded the Church upon the them. The word Church does not just refer to the laity.

Rom 1:15 “So, for my part, I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome.”
And to the churches in the region of Galatia he wrote:
Gal 1:11-12 “For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but {I received it} through a revelation of Jesus Christ.”

The Church of Rome had been founded by Peter and that of Galatia by Paul. All of the local churches were founded by one of the apostles or by someone that had been made a priest by the apostles. The fact that Pual received the gospel from a revelation of Jesus Christ does not make him anindependent preacher. He was belonged to the same whole Chuch that Peter did,and he went to see Peter in order to get information about Jesus and to make sure that his teachings were in line with those of Peter,who was the Head and Rock (Cephas) of the Church.

Of course the Apostles are part of the “catholic” (in its true sense meaning “universal”) church (all the saved are), but it was to the churches (local assemblies) they ministered with their doctrines pertaining to Christ and the gospel of salvation. It’s upon them (their teachings) that the true church, pictured in Scripture as “a” temple in the Lord, is built and being fitted together - Christ its corner stone (Eph. 2:20-22).

I don’t see what difference this makes. There was no way that the apostles could minister to the whole Church at once. They could only minister locally. The Church was largely an “underground”,persecuted institution until the 4th century.

 

[diggerdomer]

Yes we are on the same page. i was just trying to stress that he alows others to participate in bringing that salvation. And I believe that is all people mean when they are being miss quoted by protestants.

its hard to express feelings over internet but no hard feelings here

Agreed. Thanks!

 

[crazzeto]

You’ve got this backwards, my friend. It’s the Apostles who taught the churches. The churches didn’t teach the Apostles. Paul himself writes:Rom 1:15 "So, for my part, I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome."And to the churches in the region of Galatia he wrote:Gal 1:11-12 "For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but {I received it} through a revelation of Jesus Christ."Of course the Apostles are part of the “catholic” (in its true sense meaning “universal”) church (all the saved are), but it was to the churches (local assemblies) they ministered with their doctrines pertaining to Christ and the gospel of salvation. It’s upon them (their teachings) that the true church, pictured in Scripture as “a” temple in the Lord, is built and being fitted together - Christ its corner stone (Eph. 2:20-22).

The true church, being the Bride of Christ, to whom she is presently betrothed (2 Cor. 11:2), and whom Christ will take up to be with Him (rapture, 1 Thess. 4:10-15; Jn. 14:3; 17:24), will be revealed in all her glory at the return of Christ to this earth at the end of the age when she returns with Him.

No, he actually had it right in his statement, you just completely misread what he said. In fact, your scriptures bare up his statements exactly:

The NT scriptures were written by God-inspired men who belonged to the Catholic Church

That is, they were written by St. Paul, St. Peter, St. John, St. Matthew, St. Mark (Peter’s Son, who’s Gosple most closely reflects the teachings of Peter him self) et. al. These people were the very first leadership of the Catholic Church which was born out of the peirced side of Christ hanging on the Blessed Cross. And as you said

Rom 1:15 “So, for my part, I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome.”

*Gal 1:11-12 “For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but {I received it} through a revelation of Jesus Christ.”
*

The writers were not independent evangelists teachings doctrines things that were not already being taught in the Church.

Yes exactly, you can see this in 1 Tim 3:15 most directly:

*1Ti 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. *

They and their doctrines were of the Church that Christ founded upon Peter. The doctrines were taught by word of mouth before and whether or not they were written down.

It’s that last part I would first like to address, this particular quote comes out of a letter written by St. Polycarp who was a direct student of St. John him self (whos head lay on our Lord and Saviours breast, who wrote the Apocolypse, many Espistles and the 4th Gosple)

For I trust that ye are well versed in the Sacred Scriptures, and that nothing is hid from you; **but to me this privilege is not yet granted.**17 It is declared then in these Scriptures, “Be ye angry, and sin not,” (Psa_4:5) and, “Let not the sun go down upon your wrath.” (Eph_4:26) Happy is he who remembers18 this, which I believe to be the case with you.

Polycarp would then go on to quote the Psalms, how is it then that he is not “well versed in the Sacred Scriptures”? Probably because he doesn’t have a copy of them, how then does he know them, and how was it he was able to obtaine salvation, which there is no doubt he obtained as not only was he eaten by lions for the faith, but he would write “do not stop the lions, for it is through their jaws gnawing upon my flest that I will see the Lord” (or similar, I don’t have the exact quote right now).

Of course Peter is the earthly rock upon which the rest of the Church is built, this comes directly from the Gosples:

Mat 16:16 Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.
Mat 16:17 And Jesus answering said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.
Mat 16:18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

God bless,

 

[moondweller]

No, he actually had it right in his statement, you just completely misread what he said. In fact, your scriptures bare up his statements exactly:

No, I didn’t misread what he wrote. I corrected what he wrote - according to the Scriptures.