How does Marian devotion save?

[Fair_Lady]

Fairlady, you act as if they showed up with a book and said “here read”, but anything could be further from the truth… Yes they came armed with the Gosple of Jesus Christ, but not the written Gosple of Jesus Christ, rather they came only with the Oral tradition. This tradition was taught to them by the Apostles (in the case of Paul first by the Christians at Damascus, then the Apostles filled in the gaps).

Paul says so him self in his epistles:

That is, we came to you and preached that is we told you of the Gosple of Jesus Christ and you accepted our oral teaching as the Word of God. So what really happened was

1. Paul converts
2. He is told of the Gosple in Damascus
3. He is largely ignored in acts… Until he comes to Jerusalem and has hands laid on him by the Apostles
4. After this Acts starts recording Paul
5. He goes out Preaching to the Thessalonians by the authority of the Apostles
6. Initially they accept this teaching as the Word of God
7. They fall into heresy
8. Paul finally writes a letter to correct their misguided ways

In his second letter to the Thessaolinas Paul would reenforce this

But did you catch that the Bereans checked with scripture in order to verify if what was being taught them orally was true? Is that a model that you follow? Do you check scripture to see if the tradition you are taught is true?

 

[crazzeto]

But did you catch that the Bereans checked with scripture in order to verify if what was being taught them orally was true? Is that a model that you follow? Do you check scripture to see if the tradition you are taught is true?

Did you catch how they received Pauls teaching at his word? And yes they searched the scriptures, but what scriptures do you think they were double checking against? Which Gospel is it you suppose they read? Or which Epistle, oh wait there weren’t any.

In fact, it would seem to me that you are ascribing an authority to scripture here, greater than the authority of Paul to preach the gospel. But does that really make sense to you? Again, all they had was the old testament, nothing from the new testament. There was no new testament. Thus when they searched the scriptures, to see if it was so, it was to validate that the OT references Paul was making were indeed the authentic OT teaching.

With regard to the authority of the Gosples, that was ascribed to Paul and his oral teaching. This would continue to be true until the Thessalonians would fall into error the first time, promting a letter from Paul.

 

[ron77nyc]

And if the CC told you that the Gospel of Matthew is God’s word and you believe that, then why don’t you believe the CC when she expresses the importance of Marian devotion?

The gospel never changes but the role of Mary changes from time to time. This is what the Church used to teach which explains why some say Catholics worship Mary.

motherofallpeoples.com/articles/marian-apologetics/mary-in-the-early-church.html
And therefore, says Saint Peter Damian, the Blessed Virgin can do whatever she pleases both in heaven and on earth. She is able to raise even those who are in despair to confidence, and he addresses her in these words: **“All power is given to you in heaven and on earth, and nothing is impossible to you, **who can raise those who are in despair to the hope of salvation.” (7) And then he adds that “when the Mother goes to seek a favor for us from Jesus Christ” (whom the Saint calls the golden altar of mercy, at which sinners obtain pardon), “her Son esteems her prayers so greatly, and is so desirous to satisfy her, that when she prays, it seems as if she rather commanded than prayed, and was rather a queen than a handmaid.” (8) Jesus is pleased thus to honor His beloved Mother, who honored Him so much during her life, by immediately granting all that she asks or desires. This is beautifully confirmed by Saint Germanus, who addressing our Blessed Lady says: “You are the Mother of God, and all-powerful to save sinners, and with God you need no other recommendation; for you are the Mother of true life.” (9)
**“At the command of Mary, all obey, even God.” Saint Bernardine fears not to utter this sentence; meaning, indeed, to say that God grants the prayers of Mary as if they were commands. (10) And hence Saint Anselm addressing Mary says: “Our Lord, O most holy Virgin, has exalted you to such a degree, that by His favor all things that are possible to Him should be possible to you.” (11) “For your protection is omnipotent, O Mary,” says Cosmas of Jerusalem. (12) “Yes, Mary is omnipotent,” **repeats Richard of Saint Lawrence; “for the queen by every law enjoys the same privileges as the king. And as,” he adds, “the power of the son and that of the mother is the same, a mother is made omnipotent by an omnipotent son.” (13) “And thus,” says Saint Antoninus, **“God has placed the whole Church, not only under the patronage, but even under the dominion of Mary.” **(14)Since the Mother, then, should have the same power as the Son, rightly has Jesus, who is omnipotent, made Mary also omnipotent;

 

[JonathonofOhio]

‘I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some.’ (1 Corinthians 9:22).

Surely Paul cannot be claiming to be able to save people? Indeed he is!

The answer to this seeming difficulty lies in another of Paul’s statements - “it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me” (Galatians 2:20).

When Christ truly lives in someone as He did and does in both Paul and Mary, their thoughts, words and actions and everything about them become His. Likewise, surely not unsurprisingly, everything about HIM becomes theirs, as the very wounds of His crucifixion became the stigmata of St Francis and St Pio.

Back to the original question, I think this poster made a good point. I’ve heard protestant preachers say things like “I’ve got to save [that person].”, so apparently it’s acceptable to believe that we can save each other through Jesus, but it’s not okay to reason that Mary can do the same? I think the site(s) in question may be using the phrase ‘Mary saves’ in that way, and not implying that Mary takes the place of Jesus.

 

[Tomster]

It’s a moot point. The prophets in the O.T. spoke to Israel and also recorded their prophecies in theopneustos Scriptures. And when the time came that Christ fulfilled those prophecies, He didn’t resurrect those prophets, but He personally took His Apostles through those divinely written records (Scriptures) which predicted His sufferings and His subsequent glory to follow:Luke 24:25-27 "And He said to them, "O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! “Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into His glory?” Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures."God ordained that the faith be rooted in theopneustos Scriptures. It’s the way He’s preserved His word in this world since Moses. It’s why we have the N.T. Scriptures. They reveal the content of a true Christian faith. They reveal Christ and explain what He accomplished for us through His sacrificial death and bodily resurrection. As well as the true church Christ is building and its eternal relationship to Him, through faith. The Scriptures and the faith are inseparable. They’re the content of faith. Faith isn’t a “quality” cleaving to the heart apart from what’s revealed in the Scriptures concerning Christ and one’s salvation. It’s a trust in God’s Word, the promise of God, preserved in Holy Writ.

The English term inspiration comes from St. Jerome’s Vulgate translation of a word in 2 Timothy 3:16: “All Scripture is inspired by God (Vulgate, divinitus inspirata for the Greek, theopneustos - “God-breathed” or “the breath of God”) and is useful for teaching the truth, rebuking error, correcting faults, and giving instruction for right living.”

A criterion is a test or some recognized principle by which we can determine the correctness of a conclusion or judgment. Accordingly, the criterion of inspiration is the test or principle by which we distinguish inspired books from non-inspired books. Such a biblical criterion should have various requisites:

a) it should by its very nature be apt to bear witness to the fact of inspiration
b) it should be universally applicable to only and all the inspired books without exception
c) it should be universally adapted to the capacity of all men, since there is a question of something that must be believed
d) it should be infallibly true

Such a criterion is necessary, because the inspiration of the Bible is a dogma of the Church, and the basis of such a criterion we must make an act of Divine Faith.

cont.

 

[Tomster]

With the advent of Protestantism and its simultaneous rejection of the teaching authority of the Church, various internal insufficient criteria were set up to decide the inspiration of a book. These were based upon the book itself, the reader of the book, the writer of the book, and the Author of the book. But for most Protestants this question is not of great importance, since they explain inspiration as a sort of religious enthusiasm.

Your pietistic or Calvinistic criterion, by which God the Author reveals to the individual Bible reader which books are inspired and their interpretation is insufficient. This inner witness of the Holy Spirit by private revelation might be present in special and rare cases, by since most frequently this witness can be reduced to illusions and hallucinations, certainly based on this criterion is impossible. The bitter controversy among the early Reformers about the extension of the Canon and the inspired content of some books are sufficient refutation of your theory.

The only objective, infallible, and universal criterion of inspiration is Catholic Tradition. The Catholic position is that of formal witness of God to the inspiration of the Sacred Scriptures
was revealed to the Apostles and handed down by them to the whole Church; that it has been preserved from error by the divine ecclesiastical tradition, and is being legitimately proposed by the teaching office of the Church. Briefly, we know what books are inspired and what books are not inspired by the witness of the Catholic Church, which is the same as the testimony of God Himself. That this criteria is sufficient, is proved by its very nature, the doctrine of Fathers, and the practice of the Church.

 

[Tomster]

Did you catch how they received Pauls teaching at his word? And yes they searched the scriptures, but what scriptures do you think they were double checking against? Which Gospel is it you suppose they read? Or which Epistle, oh wait there weren’t any.

In fact, it would seem to me that you are ascribing an authority to scripture here, greater than the authority of Paul to preach the gospel. But does that really make sense to you? Again, all they had was the old testament, nothing from the new testament. There was no new testament. Thus when they searched the scriptures, to see if it was so, it was to validate that the OT references Paul was making were indeed the authentic OT teaching.

With regard to the authority of the Gosples, that was ascribed to Paul and his oral teaching. This would continue to be true until the Thessalonians would fall into error the first time, promting a letter from Paul.

Thank you very much!

 

[Tomster]

Amen. It’s just not the only place you get your Revelation. You get it from Sacred Tradition as well, whether you acknowledge it or not.

Each and every time you cite a Scripture verse it’s only because of Sacred Tradition telling you it’s inspired.

What Scriptures were these, moon? The letter to the Hebrews? Did Jesus carry around the King James version of the Scriptures?

If you’re going to say Jesus Himself took His Apostles th rough the Scriptures–that is, through the OT writings, then you’re saying that we must do what Jesus did and only use the OT.

Thank you very much !

 

[Tomster]

Ok. If you’re going to take this as an indication that all God’s revelation is in what’s written, then, according to this verse, all God’s revelation is*** only in the things John has written.***


That’s what it says, eh?

Thank you very much!

 

[Tomster]

It’s a moot point. The prophets in the O.T. spoke to Israel and also recorded their prophecies in theopneustos Scriptures. And when the time came that Christ fulfilled those prophecies, He didn’t resurrect those prophets, but He personally took His Apostles through those divinely written records (Scriptures) which predicted His sufferings and His subsequent glory to follow:Luke 24:25-27 "And He said to them, "O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! “Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into His glory?” Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures."God ordained that the faith be rooted in theopneustos Scriptures. It’s the way He’s preserved His word in this world since Moses. It’s why we have the N.T. Scriptures. They reveal the content of a true Christian faith. They reveal Christ and explain what He accomplished for us through His sacrificial death and bodily resurrection. As well as the true church Christ is building and its eternal relationship to Him, through faith. The Scriptures and the faith are inseparable. They’re the content of faith. Faith isn’t a “quality” cleaving to the heart apart from what’s revealed in the Scriptures concerning Christ and one’s salvation. It’s a trust in God’s Word, the promise of God, preserved in Holy Writ.

Oh, they reveal the content of a true Christian faith do they? Let me ask you, do they reveal ALL of the content of a true Christian faith?

 

[Tomster]

The English term inspiration comes from St. Jerome’s Vulgate translation of a word in 2 Timothy 3:16: “All Scripture is inspired by God (Vulgate, divinitus inspirata for the Greek, theopneustos - “God-breathed” or “the breath of God”) and is useful for teaching the truth, rebuking error, correcting faults, and giving instruction for right living.”

A criterion is a test or some recognized principle by which we can determine the correctness of a conclusion or judgment. Accordingly, the criterion of inspiration is the test or principle by which we distinguish inspired books from non-inspired books. Such a biblical criterion should have various requisites:

a) it should by its very nature be apt to bear witness to the fact of inspiration
b) it should be universally applicable to only and all the inspired books without exception
c) it should be universally adapted to the capacity of all men, since there is a question of something that must be believed
d) it should be infallibly true

Such a criterion is necessary, because the inspiration of the Bible is a dogma of the Church, and the basis of such a criterion we must make an act of Divine Faith.

cont.

BTW - Do you use St. Jerome’s Vulgate translation or the shortened KJV? Do you know which one came first. Do you know which came second and why?

 

[teak421]

It’s a moot point. The prophets in the O.T. spoke to Israel and also recorded their prophecies in theopneustos Scriptures. And when the time came that Christ fulfilled those prophecies, He didn’t resurrect those prophets, but He personally took His Apostles through those divinely written records (Scriptures) which predicted His sufferings and His subsequent glory to follow:Luke 24:25-27 "And He said to them, "O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! “Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into His glory?” Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures."God ordained that the faith be rooted in theopneustos Scriptures. It’s the way He’s preserved His word in this world since Moses. It’s why we have the N.T. Scriptures. They reveal the content of a true Christian faith. They reveal Christ and explain what He accomplished for us through His sacrificial death and bodily resurrection. As well as the true church Christ is building and its eternal relationship to Him, through faith. The Scriptures and the faith are inseparable. They’re the content of faith. Faith isn’t a “quality” cleaving to the heart apart from what’s revealed in the Scriptures concerning Christ and one’s salvation. It’s a trust in God’s Word, the promise of God, preserved in Holy Writ.

If what you say is true that the Scriptures if the foundation of all truth:

1. Is it reasonable that God would institute a book as a core delivery of his message when for the first 14 centuries there was no printing press.
   1a. Most people could not even read even if they were lucky enough to have a completed hand-written copy of Scripture.
2. Where in actual Scripture does Scripture give itself the kind of authority that you suggest. If you can not find the exact verse you are violating Sola Scriptura.
3. Is it reasonable that God would put the totalaility (sp, sorry!) of the Christian faith in a book for everyone to use personal judgement to determine their own doctrines? For example, just in salvation alone we have: must speak in tongues, must be baptized in Jesus name ONLY, you have no free will, etc. This is the fruit of Sola Scriptura, is this reasonable?
4. What to Scripture itself say about the Word of God. Do you think there is Scripture text that says the Word of God is transmitted both Orally and in written form?
5. According to Scripture, what is the Pillar and Foundation (Bulwark) of Truth?
6. Why are you right in your doctrines and other people are wrong. Are you infallible…are you free from error? If you claim you are not, how do you know that the Calvinist (assuming you are not one) is wrong? By what authority do you have to claim you are right and the Calvinist is wrong?
7. Did Moses use oral tradition to compose some of the books that he wrote?

Take Care!

• Michael

 

[Tomster]

Back to the original question, I think this poster made a good point. I’ve heard protestant preachers say things like “I’ve got to save [that person].”, so apparently it’s acceptable to believe that we can save each other through Jesus, but it’s not okay to reason that Mary can do the same? I think the site(s) in question may be using the phrase ‘Mary saves’ in that way, and not implying that Mary takes the place of Jesus.

Thank you very much!

Protestants get all twisted up in their conception of what they think they Communion of Saints is. Due to the fact that there is no one at all within all of worldwide Protestantism to decide once and for all what the doctrine means they will continue to fumble around with it as with everything else in their divided house.

They have had over five hundred years to figure things out. The absolute best they can do is to continue to divide among themselves.

Imagine that! A Protestant preacher saying he has to save someone.

How would you reply to that preacher Moondweller? (Or were you that preacher? )

 

[Tomster]

Thank you very much!

Protestants get all twisted up in their conception of what they think they Communion of Saints is. Due to the fact that there is no one at all within all of worldwide Protestantism to decide once and for all what the doctrine means they will continue to fumble around with it as with everything else in their divided house.

They have had over five hundred years to figure things out. The absolute best they can do is to continue to divide among themselves.

Imagine that! A Protestant preacher saying he has to save someone.

How would you reply to that preacher Moondweller? (Or were you that preacher? )

Really Moon,

I think we all deserve a reply from you to the above question.

If you overheard a Protestant preacher say that he “has to save someone”, what would be your first thought? How would you interpret would he said?

Would you interpret him literally, figuratively or in some other sense?

 

[Tomster]

Moon,

Being a Sola Scripturist, could you please give us explicit proofs from the Old Testament where it speaks of its own “theopneustos”.

Please avoid using any indirect verses in your presentation. Just give us the verses from the Old Testament which state explicitly that it is the inspired Word of God.

 

[moondweller]

If what you say is true that the Scriptures if the foundation of all truth:

Why put words in my mouth? Did I say Scripture is the foundation of ALL truth? Why go to extremes in your response? If you’re gong to respond then stay within the context of my post.

1. Is it reasonable that God would institute a book as a core delivery of his message when for the first 14 centuries there was no printing press.

There was no printing press during O.T. times and yet the people knew the Scriptures. Jesus Himself challenged them as to what was written in their Scriptures. You don’t need a printing press for God’s Word to be WRITTEN.

1a. Most people could not even read even if they were lucky enough to have a completed hand-written copy of Scripture.

Many people could read.

1. Where in actual Scripture does Scripture give itself the kind of authority that you suggest. If you can not find the exact verse you are violating Sola Scriptura.

2 Tim. 3:16. ALL Scripture is theopneustos (God-breathed). Cf. Matt. 21:42; 22:29; 26:54; 26:56; Mk. 14:49; Lk. 24:27, 45; Acts 17:2, 11; Acts 18:28; Rom. 1:1-2; 1 Cor. 15:3.

1. Is it reasonable that God would put the totalaility (sp, sorry!) of the Christian faith in a book for everyone to use personal judgement to determine their own doctrines? For example, just in salvation alone we have: must speak in tongues, must be baptized in Jesus name ONLY, you have no free will, etc. This is the fruit of Sola Scriptura, is this reasonable?

But Scripture itself nowhere teaches that one must speak in tongues to be saved, baptized in Jesus’ name ONLY, or that men have no free will. In Scripture itself we’re told of false teachers that would rise up within the churches, and those who are believers and teach error will give an account at the judgment seat of Christ. Like Timothy, believers are to be diligent to present themselves approved to God, handling accurately the Word of truth (2 Tim. 2:15), and James warns (IN SCRIPTURE) that not many should become teachers for they incur a stricter judgment (Ja. 3:1). Men are never to form their own doctrines concerning the faith, but doctrines are to be formulated based on what is divinely revealed in Scripture - God’s Word. Nor are they to ADD doctrines to the faith, such as all your extrabiblical Marian doctrines.

1. What to Scripture itself say about the Word of God. Do you think there is Scripture text that says the Word of God is transmitted both Orally and in written form?

Of course. The prophets spoke orally to their generation. The gospel (good news message) of Jesus Christ was always orally preached (even as it is today). But what was preached and taught by the Apostles was subsequently written via the Holy Spirit by them and preserved for subsequent generations in theopneustos Scriptures. As Paul wrote to the Thessalonians: 2 Thess 2:5 “Do you not remember that while I was still with you, I was telling you these things?”

1. According to Scripture, what is the Pillar and Foundation (Bulwark) of Truth?

The church. But the church is not itself the Truth. Scripture, being the Word of God, however is the Truth. And keep in mind you asked me to answer you “according to the Scriptures.” See, even you appeal to their Divine authority. And “church” in that verse does not mean the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic church.

1. Why are you right in your doctrines and other people are wrong.

You may test what I say by the Scriptures. And you have the right to reject what I say. That’s entirely up to you.

Are you infallible…are you free from error?

I am not.

If you claim you are not, how do you know that the Calvinist (assuming you are not one) is wrong?

I am not a Calvinist, I’m a Biblicist.

By what authority do you have to claim you are right and the Calvinist is wrong?

I don’t claim any “authority.” The authority concerning the Christian faith resides in the Scriptures. There will always be false teachers during this church age; and believers who error in their teaching will give an account at the judgment seat of Christ. But that doesn’t leave YOU off the hook. You yourself follow the teachings of men and parrot their doctrines.

1. Did Moses use oral tradition to compose some of the books that he wrote?

We’re not told how Moses composed the Pentateuch, but, nevertheless, they held absolute authority in the Jewish community. Why? Because from the moment they were penned they were the written Word of God. Christ Himself appealed to them as authority.

 

[Tomster]

Why put words in my mouth? Did I say Scripture is the foundation of ALL truth? Why go to extremes in your response? If you’re gong to respond then stay within the context of my post.There was no printing press during O.T. times and yet the people knew the Scriptures. Jesus Himself challenged them as to what was written in their Scriptures. You don’t need a printing press for God’s Word to be WRITTEN.Many people could read.2 Tim. 3:16. ALL Scripture is theopneustos (God-breathed). Cf. Matt. 21:42; 22:29; 26:54; 26:56; Mk. 14:49; Lk. 24:27, 45; Acts 17:2, 11; Acts 18:28; Rom. 1:1-2; 1 Cor. 15:3.But Scripture itself nowhere teaches that one must speak in tongues to be saved, baptized in Jesus’ name ONLY, or that men have no free will. In Scripture itself we’re told of false teachers that would rise up within the churches, and those who are believers and teach error will give an account at the judgment seat of Christ. Like Timothy, believers are to be diligent to present themselves approved to God, handling accurately the Word of truth (2 Tim. 2:15), and James warns (IN SCRIPTURE) that not many should become teachers for they incur a stricter judgment (Ja. 3:1). Men are never to form their own doctrines concerning the faith, but doctrines are to be formulated based on what is divinely revealed in Scripture - God’s Word. Nor are they to ADD doctrines to the faith, such as all your extrabiblical Marian doctrines.Of course. The prophets spoke orally to their generation. The gospel (good news message) of Jesus Christ was always orally preached (even as it is today). But what was preached and taught by the Apostles was subsequently written via the Holy Spirit by them and preserved for subsequent generations in theopneustos Scriptures. As Paul wrote to the Thessalonians: 2 Thess 2:5 "Do you not remember that while I was still with you, I was telling you these things?"The church. But the church is not itself the Truth. Scripture, being the Word of God, however is the Truth. And keep in mind you asked me to answer you “according to the Scriptures.” See, even you appeal to their Divine authority. And “church” in that verse does not mean the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic church.You may test what I say by the Scriptures. And you have the right to reject what I say. That’s entirely up to you.I am not.I am not a Calvinist, I’m a Biblicist.I don’t claim any “authority.” The authority concerning the Christian faith resides in the Scriptures. There will always be false teachers during this church age; and believers who error in their teaching will give an account at the judgment seat of Christ. But that doesn’t leave YOU off the hook. You yourself follow the teachings of men and parrot their doctrines.We’re not told how Moses composed the Pentateuch, but, nevertheless, they held absolute authority in the Jewish community. Why? Because from the moment they were penned they were the written Word of God. Christ Himself appealed to them as authority.

You seem to be going around and around in circles again Moon. You state that you have no authority. That is true. (Thank God). But then you say that there will be false teachers. If you have no authority how can you authoritatively determine who the false teachers are and who are the authoritative teachers?

Puhleeesse!

 

[moondweller]

Moon,

Being a Sola Scripturist, could you please give us explicit proofs from the Old Testament where it speaks of its own “theopneustos”.

Please avoid using any indirect verses in your presentation. Just give us the verses from the Old Testament which state explicitly that it is the inspired Word of God.

You’ve got your answer in 2 Tim. 3:16, Tom, by the use of the word “ALL.” The Greek word “pas,” meaning the WHOLE of Scripture. That would include BOTH Old and New Testaments. You have a right to disbelieve the testimony of Scripture, my friend, but that’s your problem, not mine. The Pharisees also refused to believe the blind man’s testimony concerning Jesus. But that didn’t change anything, did it?

 

[Tomster]

You’ve got your answer in 2 Tim. 3:16, Tom, by the use of the word “ALL.” The Greek word “pas,” meaning the WHOLE of Scripture. That would include BOTH Old and New Testaments. You have a right to disbelieve the testimony of Scripture, my friend, but that’s your problem, not mine. The Pharisees also refused to believe the blind man’s testimony concerning Jesus. But that didn’t change anything, did it?

Try reading the question again. I did not ask you for any verses from the NT.

 

[Tomster]

Moon,

Being a Sola Scripturist, could you please give us explicit proofs from the Old Testament where it speaks of its own “theopneustos”.

Please avoid using any indirect verses in your presentation. Just give us the verses from the Old Testament which state explicitly that it is the inspired Word of God.

For your convenience.