How does Marian devotion save?

[Gerry_Zipf]

And, the Church IS the Body of Christ in the world…In the Eucharist…through the consecrated hands of His Holy Priesthood, starting with the apostles… Do this in remembrance of me…(remembrance meaning making present) “I will be with you always, until the end of the world.”

The Mass is Eternity present to humanity in Christ…in His Holy Church…He lives and is not confined to the limits of the imagination or the limits of human understanding. He said so and I believe HIM…

Somebody else said “Did he really say???”

 

[anthony022071]

I think I already answered this. NO MAN (save the Son of Man), hence, no council (being made up of men) is infallible. Men and councils can be accurate in their doctrinal assessment, based on what’s revealed in the written Word of God, but infallibility is reserved for God alone.

Jesus made the Church he founded infallible in faith. He keeps the Church teaching the true doctrines through the guidance of his Spirit. Otherwise,the deceptions of Satan would prevail over the true doctrines,and there would be no way for individual believers to speak about doctrine or interpret scripture with any reference to the witness of a higher authority.

 

[ddarko]

I think I already answered this. NO MAN (save the Son of Man), hence, no council (being made up of men) is infallible. Men and councils can be accurate in their doctrinal assessment, based on what’s revealed in the written Word of God, but infallibility is reserved for God alone. :flowers:

You my friend are certainly confused.

According to your logic, why do you believe in Scripture? How do you know it is the word of God? It was constructed by the Catholic church. Maybe its not the word of God? If no council, man is infallible, then you have NO grounds to even make your claim in the first place. You are surely not claiming you are God?

Looks like you are being very illogical here

God Bless

 

[PRmerger]

You my friend are certainly confused.

According to your logic, why do you believe in Scripture? How do you know it is the word of God? It was constructed by the Catholic church. Maybe its not the word of God? If no council, man is infallible, then you have NO grounds to even make your claim in the first place. You are surely not claiming you are God?

Looks like you are being very illogical here

God Bless

Indeed. If the councils of the CC were fallible in determining that the Gospel of Thomas is not inspired and the Gospel of Mark is, then how does moondweller know what’s the “gospel truth”?

Where was the Holy Spirit when it came to inspiring these Catholic bishops to codify the books of the Bible? Was it a fallible Spirit?

 

[moondweller]

You my friend are certainly confused.

According to your logic, why do you believe in Scripture? How do you know it is the word of God?

The same way you or any of us do:2 Tim 3:16-17 “*All Scripture is inspired *(thepneustos: God-breathed) *by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work”*Scripture testifies of Scripture.

It was constructed by the Catholic church. Maybe its not the word of God? If no council, man is infallible, then you have NO grounds to even make your claim in the first place. You are surely not claiming you are God?

Looks like you are being very illogical here

God Bless

No council made the Scriptures (O.T. and N.T.) God’s Word. They were from the moment they were penned. And I am extremely logical here.

 

[moondweller]

Indeed. If the councils of the CC were fallible in determining that the Gospel of Thomas is not inspired and the Gospel of Mark is, then how does moondweller know what’s the “gospel truth”?

Where was the Holy Spirit when it came to inspiring these Catholic bishops to codify the books of the Bible? Was it a fallible Spirit?

As I said, councils can be accurate, but NONE are infallible; since no man (save the Son of Man) is infallible.

 

[PRmerger]

As I said, councils can be accurate, but NONE are infallible; since no man (save the Son of Man) is infallible.

So you’re not certain that the Gospel of Thomas isn’t inspired? You’re not certain that the Gospel of Mark is?

 

[PRmerger]

The same way you or any of us do:2 Tim 3:16-17 “All Scripture is inspired (thepneustos: God-breathed) *by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work”*Scripture testifies of Scripture.

Yep. And the Koran says it’s inspired, too.

There are no verses which say that Scripture testifies of Scripture. That’s another extra-biblical, man-made tradition you adhere to.

The only reason you believe that 2 Tim 3 is inspired is because the Councils of Catholic bishops told you it is.

I mean, really, just cause some man writes that his letter is inspired, does that mean it is?

You know 2 Timothy is inspired because of one reason only:

[SIGN]The CC told you it is inspired. [/SIGN]

 

[LilyM]

Indeed. If the councils of the CC were fallible in determining that the Gospel of Thomas is not inspired and the Gospel of Mark is, then how does moondweller know what’s the “gospel truth”?

Where was the Holy Spirit when it came to inspiring these Catholic bishops to codify the books of the Bible? Was it a fallible Spirit?

More than that - if no man is infallible then even the writers of scripture were fallible and possibly the very words of scripture themselves are erroneous by reason of that fallibility. Maybe Paul was erring when he wrote that verse about ALL scripture being God-breathed and useful, for example - the one moondweller just quoted?

Why would God not prevent Peter from sinning, for example, but prevent that very same fallible man from writing error into his epistles? Doesn’t He allow ALL men to sin and err no matter what the circumstance, as moondweller’s logic holds?

We’re claiming no more or less protection for Peter’s successors than you claim for Peter himself - ie when they teach officially (as Peter did in his epistles) then they ARE Spirit-protected, spirit-guided and INfallible.

 

[ddarko]

As I said, councils can be accurate, but NONE are infallible; since no man (save the Son of Man) is infallible.

How can councils be accurate? Based on what? You can’t say that councils are accurate because they derive from scripture since we do not know what Scripture is without councils. Do you see the problem?

Without infallibility, you don’t know what God said. (Unless he contacted you first hand and gave you the gospels and the rest of the bible) The bible was put together by the councils. If they are not infallible, the Bible itself could be an error as well. So your position is logically incoherent. There can be no Christianity if you deny that pope and the magisterium is infallible. You simply would not know if Jesus existed or what he even said for that matter. You will have to be uncertain of everything.

So please do explain as to how you are still a Christian and hold this view. I am very interested to understand the logic

God bless

 

[magdelaine1173]

Mary intercedes in Heaven for us, by her most favored position as mother of Jesus. This is best expressed Biblically by the Wedding at Cana:

[BIBLEDRB]John 2:3-5[/BIBLEDRB]

Without the gentle love of his Blessed Mother, Jesus may not have taken action here. It is the same when we pray, for instance, the Memorare. We remind Mary of her unfailing help to us here on Earth, and she intercedes on our behalf.

This is what the Communion of Saints is all about, this is intercessory prayer. Each of the saints in heaven has a special perspective on things, and we appeal to the most appropriate person, just as we would among the living.

See also: Mediatrix and Co-Redemptrix.

I agree wholeheartedly, Maryintercedes upon our behalf by asking her son to answer our prayers. This is part of the salvitic nature of Mary. She asks God to help us in our time of need. She is a powerful aid to those who invoke her name!
Peace to you
Magdelaine1173

 

[antonabe]

Infallibility cannot be extended to Councils and other dignitaries and to every thing mentioned by the Church.As I understand it everything even the Pope says too is not infallible.This has been dealth with in othere threads.Infallibility is applicable when the Pope speaks Ex-Cathedra and is restricted to Faith and Morals that is teachings according to scripture.The word of Chrst cannot be changed and that is infallibility.

 

[ddarko]

Infallibility cannot be extended to Councils and other dignitaries and to every thing mentioned by the Church.As I understand it everything even the Pope says too is not infallible.This has been dealth with in othere threads.Infallibility is applicable when the Pope speaks Ex-Cathedra and is restricted to Faith and Morals that is teachings according to scripture.The word of Chrst cannot be changed and that is infallibility.

Infallibility applies to the Pope and the entire magisterium of the Catholic church. Also, the pope does not declare something NEW and out of the BLUE ex cathedra. The pope only makes a declaration when the belief is so implicit in scriptures yet important. Or it has always been part of the Tradition and therefore to help the faithful in understanding this. They are always in consistency with scripture and can never contradict it. In fact, all teachings of the magisterium must be consistent with scripture whether they are declared infallible by ex-cathedra. The teachings are derivations from Scripture. Therefore, they are implicitly infallible. Its kind of ironic how people sometime bring this issue up with encyclicals as not being declared ex-cathedra. They do not need to be if they are talking from scripture. If they are teachings from Scripture, they must be infallible unless explicitly stated. But this is not the debate of this thread so I will stop here about infallibility.

Now at the same time, scripture (as in the bible) cannot be the only source of faith. If it is, then how do we even know if it is the only source of faith? Thus Tradition is also important. Tradition for an example dictates that Scripture is infallible and that scripture is the word of God in the first place. The same Tradition holds truths about Mary. Protestants for some reason want to pick and choose. My point is that either you pick nothing (then you have no Christianity) or pick everything (you have Catholicism). Picking and Choosing selected things makes no logical sense.

God bless

 

[LilyM]

Infallibility cannot be extended to Councils and other dignitaries and to every thing mentioned by the Church.As I understand it everything even the Pope says too is not infallible.This has been dealth with in othere threads.Infallibility is applicable when the Pope speaks Ex-Cathedra and is restricted to Faith and Morals that is teachings according to scripture.The word of Chrst cannot be changed and that is infallibility.

Councils ARE infallible in their teaching capacity too, antonabe. Among other things, it was the First Vatican Council that infallibly proclaimed the dogma of Papal Infallibility itself, which certainty wasn’t decreed by a Pope (what an oddity THAT would be, a Pope unilaterally declaring himself infallible!)

Of course, as with Papal infallibility, there are limits to the powers of Councils too.

 

[antonabe]

Councils ARE infallible in their teaching capacity too, antonabe. Among other things, it was the First Vatican Council that infallibly proclaimed the dogma of Papal Infallibility itself, which certainty wasn’t decreed by a Pope (what an oddity THAT would be, a Pope unilaterally declaring himself infallible!)

Of course, as with Papal infallibility, there are limits to the powers of Councils too.

For infallibility to be accepted does it not mean that Councils and Episcopal bodies and even the Magisterium must have the approval of the Head,the Pope?There is an impression created that Councils and other bodies can be infallible without the Pope playing his part as head of the Church and successor to Peter.

 

[LilyM]

For infallibility to be accepted does it not mean that Councils and Episcopal bodies and even the Magisterium must have the approval of the Head,the Pope?There is an impression created that Councils and other bodies can be infallible without the Pope playing his part as head of the Church and successor to Peter.

The Magisterium must act in union with the Pope, yes, meaning they can’t do anything CONTRARY to the Pope’s dictate. However that doesn’t mean they can never act without the Pope’s express permission or approval or anything.

They must be in union as we all must be in union - meaning we can’t reject dogmatic teaching or definitive Papal guidance, but within these bounds are free to do and think plenty of things without checking with Rome all the time.

Example - Bishops grant imprimaturs for documents, approve or disapprove apparitions, determine the validity of marriages and ordain priests, among other things. They don’t run to Rome to seek the Pope’s permission or advice before doing any of the above. Imagine if EVERY bishop had to refer EVERY annulment case, or EVERY candidate for priestly ordination, to Rome, the workload for those poor Vatican officials would be staggering beyond belief.

And except in extraordinarily rare cases of direct conflict (like where the Pope ordered Archbishop Lefebvre not to proceed with his ordinations), what the Bishops do stands as authoritative even though they didn’t seek advice or approval from Rome prior to doing them.

The very act of a Council being called and the Pope being present is enough to infer that he doesn’t disagree with the outcomes and teachings that are produced by that Council.

Unless and until the Holy Father were to expressly disagree with or disapprove of something a Council does, we can take their teachings as having the Papal seal of approval and thus being binding.

By the way, it’s never happened that a Pope has EVER disagreed with a single word of any official Council document.

 

[antonabe]

LilyM
Example - Bishops grant imprimaturs for documents, approve or disapprove apparitions, determine the validity of marriages and ordain priests, among other things. They don’t run to Rome to seek the Pope’s permission or advice before doing any of the above. Imagine if EVERY bishop had to refer EVERY annulment case, or EVERY candidate for priestly ordination, to Rome, the workload for those poor Vatican officials would be staggering beyond belief.

And except in extraordinarily rare cases of direct conflict (like where the Pope ordered Archbishop Lefebvre not to proceed with his ordinations), what the Bishops do stands as authoritative even though they didn’t seek advice or approval from Rome prior to doing them.
Response;
My point was in relation to infallibility.Certainly where adminitrative work and routine doctrinal matters and the approval of Apparitions etc can be done by the Bishops but I believe Vatican is kept informed of these approvals.

 

[LilyM]

LilyM
Example - Bishops grant imprimaturs for documents, approve or disapprove apparitions, determine the validity of marriages and ordain priests, among other things. They don’t run to Rome to seek the Pope’s permission or advice before doing any of the above. Imagine if EVERY bishop had to refer EVERY annulment case, or EVERY candidate for priestly ordination, to Rome, the workload for those poor Vatican officials would be staggering beyond belief.

And except in extraordinarily rare cases of direct conflict (like where the Pope ordered Archbishop Lefebvre not to proceed with his ordinations), what the Bishops do stands as authoritative even though they didn’t seek advice or approval from Rome prior to doing them.
Response;
My point was in relation to infallibility.Certainly where adminitrative work and routine doctrinal matters and the approval of Apparitions etc can be done by the Bishops but I believe Vatican is kept informed of these approvals.

Well, the Vatican may be informed of what the determination of the local Bishop is, in regard the apparition, but not at all in sense that that decision needs the Pope’s approval in order to become binding.

Popes haven’t authoritatively pronounced one way or another on the apparitions at Medjugorje, for example, but the decision was made by the Bishop of Mostar that they were NOT supernatural, and that decision stands unless and until Rome overrules it. It’s not like the Church position on Medj is somehow unresolved because Rome hasn’t yet pronounced on it or anything. It IS resolved, but Rome is looking at it afresh.

The Bishop’s decision is like a court decision of a lower court, which stands as completely valid and authoritative in its own right, and doesn’t need to be ratified by a superior court to become binding. That lower court decision remains in force unless and until a superior court overrules it. Which hasn’t happened in the case of Medj.

 

[LilyM]

From the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Infallibility:

newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

‘There can be no such thing as an ecumenical council independent of, or in opposition to, the pope. No body can perform a strictly corporate function validly without the consent and co-operation of its head’

Note that it is not specified that the consent and cooperation of the Pope must be FORMAL.

“Finally, papal approbation is required to give ecumenical value and authority to conciliar decrees, and this must be subsequent to conciliar action,*** unless the pope, by his personal presence and conscience, has already given his official ratification***”

Mere personal presence of the Pope at a council, as the above paragraph shows, is enough to ratify the teachings of that Council - and when in recent centuries has there been an Ecumenical Council at which the Pope has NOT been personally present???

 

[poetryforjesus]

When we accept Mary “full of grace” we recognize her “immaculate” nature, which was lost to humanity at the fall. This condition of Mary, like the “virgin birth”, is MIRACULOUS. It is not subject to rational interpretation…though, like LIFE ITSELF we can accept it with reason.

Mother Mary is not an abstract idea or a construct of the Church. She is not simply some woman in history who had this wonderful child, Jesus. She, the mother of Jesus who is fully God and fully man, is unique, MIRACULOUS, unlike and not to be compared to any other woman in all time.

The mystery of Christ’s humanity and the meaning of that humanity seems to be the devil’s argument in this day and age…if not eternally! This is what stands out in all the arguments about the Eucharist and what it is or is not…and the same argument goes for Mary…Satan just will not go along with all this…SPECIAL STATUS for those of us who will be ROYAL children! We will be his children and life is nothing special really anyway.

When I was young and thought myself smart, I had my doubts about Catholicism. A friend said to me that I could know I was a Protestant because I could decide for myself! I thought, what kind of loving God would leave it up to me to figure it out and I have been a staunch Catholic since that beautiful day.

I know I am not like the Virgin Mary, but she is my mother…I trust her and the Church with my life.

Gerry, that’s quite beautiful!