How does Marian devotion save?

[moondweller]

So ultimately the ones who start the controversy have the power to correct the controversy?

No. It was a Jewish vs. Gentile issue which came out of the Jerusalem church of which James, the Lord’s brother, was an overseer. James, Paul and Peter were all involved in settling the matter, and the final decision was based on the Scriptures (Acts 15:15-18). The Gentiles were to come into the church as Gentiles, based on grace through faith alone. And James concluded:Acts 15:19-21 "Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood. For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath."His judgment was correct in that salvation has nothing to do with the principle of law/works, but strictly by grace through faith in Christ alone. A major theme in Pauline theology as revealed throughout his Epistles. Salvation based on works still remains a major obstacle over which men continue to stumble to this very day. Even though the Scriptures are very clear on the issue and the matter settled way back in the first century.

 

[moondweller]

No man is infallible, save the Son of Man. But men can accurately interpret the Scriptures. An accurate interpretation doesn’t require infallibility. Merely claiming infallibility doesn’t make it so - for anyone.

 

[moondweller]

Not according to the Scriptures.

The idea she was not is a relatively modern novelty and it’s noticeable none of the more ancient Churches whether Catholic or Orthodox have ever susbcribed to it.

The Scripture are not a modern novelty.

 

[Ryan_Herft]

QUOTE=(name removed by moderator);6788520]A totally seperate issue but Christ had no brothers as the theotokos was ever Virgin. The idea she was not is a relatively modern novelty and it’s noticeable none of the more ancient Churches whether Catholic or Orthodox have ever susbcribed to it./

A bit off topic, but Amen brother! You are absolutely right. Mary, by the special graces given her by the Father was a virgin before, during and after the birth of Jesus - perputual virginity - Catholic and Orthodox believers have no problem in acknowledging Mary as ever Virgin. Also, Jesus lived at a time and in a culture where one’s cousins were called brothers and sisters.

God Bless

 

[Pitcharan]

Very concise and very accurate!

Well said!

That is exactly right. Mary leads us to Jesus, Who is our Salvation, and thus she saves. One might imagine someone running to a fireman when his house is on fire, and the fireman comes and saves everyone in the house. Both the person who ran for help and the fireman are necessary. Marian devotion saves because it leads us to Jesus.

Doesn’t every saint lead devotees to Jesus?
But the fact remains that while some saints are considered tall (Elijah, Moses, John, Peter, Paul, Mary) some have great following in terms of devotees (Mary, Anthony of Padua, Jude).

We also have other popular devotions like “Sacred Heart of Jesus”, “Infant Jesus” and “Divine Mercy”

No one can explain these things. The Church in her wisdom permits and even encourages such things based on merit after ensuring that it is no heresy.

They can be explained as typical social behaviour patterns and are there in all religions including Judaism of OT times. They always faced opposition, criticism and attack from fundamentalists.

I think that the catholic church is cent percent right in understanding human behaviour and permitting what is good and prohibiting heresy. There was a time when such tendencies had to be discouraged; but it was done in beautiful Hebrew tradition by the theologians during OT times who carefully ensured that even the tallest saint was not worshipped or misunderstood as God by simple uneducated faithful. That is why we come across unexpected things like Moses being told by God that he will not see the promised land but die before that, for having broken faith. There was also a problem during Jesus’ time of people misunderstanding John the Baptist to be the Messiah. This problem is dealt again in beautiful Hebrew tradition in the gospels (John 1:30 & 3:22-36. Matt 3:11).

We cannot condemn simple people for such things while we have a duty to ensure that there is no going astray. This is precisely what the catholic church does.

 

[Odell]

No. It was a Jewish vs. Gentile issue which came out of the Jerusalem church of which James, the Lord’s brother, was an overseer. James, Paul and Peter were all involved in settling the matter, and the final decision was based on the Scriptures (Acts 15:15-18). The Gentiles were to come into the church as Gentiles, based on grace through faith alone. And James concluded:Acts 15:19-21 "Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood. For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath."His judgment was correct in that salvation has nothing to do with the principle of law/works, but strictly by grace through faith in Christ alone. A major theme in Pauline theology as revealed throughout his Epistles. Salvation based on works still remains a major obstacle over which men continue to stumble to this very day. Even though the Scriptures are very clear on the issue and the matter settled way back in the first century.

so ultimately each individual church has there own authority?

 

[Tomster]

My eschatological position is “accurate” based on a literal interpretation of the prophetic Scriptures. However, no man (save the Son of Man) is infallible. Haven’t we been through this already? Tom, I’d like to see you do some personal study on your own. Read some original sources. Get a real grasp of what’s actually being taught. It’s not good when somebody else does the thinking for you.

I am glad you said that. It proves, by your own admission, that you have had to refer to other Fundamentalist authors to help you interpret the Scritpures. It shows that you were never illumined by the Holy Spirit to do it on your own as you claim you can do. It also shows that you fully accept Fundamentalist tradition. Your sect is steeped in it.

Let me give you an example of the trouble you are in in this regard.

Years ago there was a very popular television show called Columbo. In one episode Lt. Columbo was stymied by a homicidal magician. Columbo enlisted the aid of a youngster whose hobby was magic. The youngster told Columbo: “What you have to remember is, it’s a trick.” Fundamentalism repudiates the infallibility of the Vicar of Christ, the Pope, while it puts forth its own false dogmas clothed in infallibility. The replacement of Revelation with the interpreter of that Revelation, and then the appropriation of the divine authority of Revelation by its interpreter, is absolutely necessary for the Fundamentalist.

Let us see how legitimate authority is made to disappear, and self appointed authority conjured up and put in its place. Like all tricks, this one depends for its success on patter and distraction. At the same time the dogmatic pronouncement of some Fundamentalist is being recited, the speaker points away from himself to the Bible. The switch is concealed behind a rebuke to those who might quarrel with this revised Revelation. As the speaker says, “It is true. God cannot lie.” The conjurer is not himself conscious of any deceit; he is merely repeating a trick which deceives others just as it deceived him. Witnessing, preaching, Bible study - it is all the same. The Fundamentalist simply announces the opinions they have received through Fundamentalist tradition and quote a few texts from here anf there, while holding up a Bible. This conjures up the requisite air of authority. This conceals the truth from souls locked in error.

Eternal salvation, and even order and peace of mind in this life, depend on the right understanding of God’s Revelation to mankind. No one has the right to play tricks with it, and no one can afford to be tricked out of it.

cont.

 

[Tomster]

My eschatological position is “accurate” based on a literal interpretation of the prophetic Scriptures. However, no man (save the Son of Man) is infallible. Haven’t we been through this already? Tom, I’d like to see you do some personal study on your own. Read some original sources. Get a real grasp of what’s actually being taught. It’s not good when somebody else does the thinking for you.

Literal interpretation of Scriptures?

Lets examine this if you would.

The term Fundamentalist, widely speaking, refers to all those who profess the literal interpretation of the Bible. A Fundamentalist preaches that the Bible is literally true, word for word. An examination of this claim exposes a myth. A few examples will suffice to prove the point.

From the Old Testament Fundamentalists deny or ignore the literal meaning of the words in:

Exodus 25:18-20
Job 5:1
2 Machabees 12:46

From the New Testament they deny or ignore the literal meaning in:

Matthew 12:36
Matthew 16:18-19
Matthew 18:18
Matthew 26:26-28
Mark 10:7-12
Mark 16:16
Luke 1:28/42
Those in the 6th chapter of St. John, where Christ promises the gift of Himself in the Blessed Sacrament.
John 20:21-23
John 20:30
John 21:25
Romans 10:14/17
1 Corinthians 7:1/7-8
1 Corinthians 7:10-11
1 Corinthians 7:32-34
1 Corinthians 10:16
1 Corinthians 11:23-29
2 Theesalonians 2:14
Hebrews 5:1
2 Peter 1:10:11
Apocalypse 8:3-4

It is obvious from your posts, that any text which threatens Fundamentalist dogma will be either ignored or repudiated, when not overlooked altogether.

 

[Tomster]

so ultimately each individual church has there own authority?

I think what Moondweller is trying to do, generally speaking, is to prove that he has been illumined by the Holy Spirit to give us Catholics the correct interpretation of Scriptures while conceding that he needs help from other Fundamentalist writers (translated: Fundamentalist oral tradition) to give us the interpretations.

He is locked in a vicious cycle of the blind leading the blind. None of them will ever come out and claim that their interpretation of any Scripture verse is infallible. They use the old bait and switch tactic that I outlined two posts up.

 

[Tomster]

My eschatological position is “accurate” based on a literal interpretation of the prophetic Scriptures. However, no man (save the Son of Man) is infallible. Haven’t we been through this already? Tom, I’d like to see you do some personal study on your own. Read some original sources. Get a real grasp of what’s actually being taught. It’s not good when somebody else does the thinking for you.

The burden is on you to get a grasp of what is being passed off as truth in the many diverse sects of Fundamentalsim. Again, the “pre-trib”/“post-trib” dispute and the many different “explanations” of the Tribulation, etc. have never been settled authoritatively within Fundamentalism. The confusion within Fundamenatlism continues.

Why is that?

 

[crazzeto]

The burden is on you to get a grasp of what is being passed off as truth in the many diverse sects of Fundamentalsim. Again, the “pre-trib”/“post-trib” dispute and the many different “explanations” of the Tribulation, etc. have never been settled authoritatively within Fundamentalism. The confusion within Fundamenatlism continues.

Why is that?

The sad fact is, moondweller likely hasn’t even considered the issue. Protestants are so wrapped up in their own inidividual Church, that they seem to forget that there are literally thousands of other Christian Churches out there, and fail to grasp how different the theology is going even to the Church next door. There seems to be this belief that their currently selected Church is the one that “has it right”, and I suspect that when such issues come up, most probably just make the (invalid) assumption that “well that one Church got it wrong, but I’m sure every other Christian Church believes the same thing mine does”.

 

[Tomster]

The sad fact is, moondweller likely hasn’t even considered the issue. Protestants are so wrapped up in their own inidividual Church, that they seem to forget that there are literally thousands of other Christian Churches out there, and fail to grasp how different the theology is going even to the Church next door. There seems to be this belief that their currently selected Church is the one that “has it right”, and I suspect that when such issues come up, most probably just make the (invalid) assumption that “well that one Church got it wrong, but I’m sure every other Christian Church believes the same thing mine does”.

Amen to that, craz.

 

[Tomster]

Literal interpretation of Scriptures?

Lets examine this if you would.

The term Fundamentalist, widely speaking, refers to all those who profess the literal interpretation of the Bible. A Fundamentalist preaches that the Bible is literally true, word for word. An examination of this claim exposes a myth. A few examples will suffice to prove the point.

From the Old Testament Fundamentalists deny or ignore the literal meaning of the words in:

Exodus 25:18-20
Job 5:1
2 Machabees 12:46

From the New Testament they deny or ignore the literal meaning in:

Matthew 12:36
Matthew 16:18-19
Matthew 18:18
Matthew 26:26-28
Mark 10:7-12
Mark 16:16
Luke 1:28/42
Those in the 6th chapter of St. John, where Christ promises the gift of Himself in the Blessed Sacrament.
John 20:21-23
John 20:30
John 21:25
Romans 10:14/17
1 Corinthians 7:1/7-8
1 Corinthians 7:10-11
1 Corinthians 7:32-34
1 Corinthians 10:16
1 Corinthians 11:23-29
2 Theesalonians 2:14
Hebrews 5:1
2 Peter 1:10:11
Apocalypse 8:3-4

It is obvious from your posts, that any text which threatens Fundamentalist dogma will be either ignored or repudiated, when not overlooked altogether.

Moondweller,

The time has come for you to interpret the above listed verses LITERALLY!

Since you have already admitted that you use outside sources (translated: extra-biblical) to help you to interpret Scripture, please list the sources you use to intepret them.

Or, if you “FEEL” the Holy Spirit has illumined you sufficiently, please feel free to to interpret them on your own.

Either way, please inform us which method you are using. :hey_bud:

 

[moondweller]

so ultimately each individual church has there own authority?

You’re reading into it that which is not there. You’re trying to justify the claimed sovereignty of your church’s hierarchy over all Christendom. The issue at hand was whether not Gentiles had to convert to Judaism (become Jewish). The answer was no and it was recorded and preserved in theopneustos Scripture for all future generations after the Apostolic age. It’s just that simple, Odell. All men, whether Jew or Gentile enter into a saved state on the principle of grace through faith alone - apart from works and the Law.

 

[moondweller]

Moondweller,

The time has come for you to interpret the above listed verses LITERALLY!

You’re showing your ignorance, Tom. A “literal” interpretation doesn’t mean everything in Scripture applies to everyone for all time. What was instructed by God to be done by the Jews under the Law does not apply to the believer today who is not under law (the principle of), but under grace (the principle of). A *literal *interpretation recognizes historical contexts, and takes into consideration figures of speech and allegories, which themselves have a literal meaning. What it does not do is randomly allegorize (spiritualize) the Scriptures to fit one’s preconceived ideas. For instance, Jew means Jew, Gentile means Gentile, church means church and Israel means Israel. The reader allows Scripture to communicate its own inherent, inerrant, truth.

Since you have already admitted that you use outside sources (translated: extra-biblical) to help you to interpret Scripture, please list the sources you use to intepret them.

Such things as concordances, Greek/Hebrew dictionaries, Greek-English Interlinears, various theological works and commentaries, etc. Have you not read in the theopneustos Scriptures that:Eph 4:11-15 '…He gave some {as} apostles, and some {as} prophets, and some {as} evangelists, and some {as} pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ. As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all {aspects} into Him who is the head, {even} Christ,"God raises up teachers in the body of Christ. But nowhere does it say He raises up infallible men to govern over all the churches of Christendom. But we’re warned by Peter that false teachers will rise up among us, so all teachings of men must be tested by the Scriptures.

Either way, please inform us which method you are using. :hey_bud:

I already told you. I use the literal, historical, grammatical method of interpretation. It’s called the “normal” method of interpretation.

 

[moondweller]

But yet the theopneustos Scriptures emphatically do.

As for the term theotokos, it’s original intent and emphasis was on the Child, not the mother. Theotokos (literally, God-bearer) states nothing about Mary, but rather the Child she bore.

 

[crazzeto]

We catholics share the same tradition (notice the capitolization) that you mention here. That Joseph was previously married, as a result of this tradition one of the images we use to represent him is a budding stuff as it comes from the same text as this tradition.

That when Mary was presented to the temple, she entered the tabernacle (but survived). Needless to say this caused quite a panic/stir, they called the cheif priest and it was decided she needed a husband. So they called for every unmarried man to come to the temple including the widowed Joseph (who had other childeren). They took the staff of each man to the alter, and when they brought them all back it was Joseph’s staff which was budding (ah la Aaron), thus it was decided he should marry her.

In neither tradition (as far as I know) is this considered anywhere near donctrinal, it’s just one of many traditions which many hold. Ironically, I read this text on an evangelical Christian website!

Back before my wife converted from evangelical, she had never read

Joh 19:26 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!
Joh 19:27 Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.

In fact she first heard this when she took it upon her self to pray the rosary with me and we were doing the sorrowful mysteries. It was a real eye opener for her.

 

[Odell]

You’re reading into it that which is not there. You’re trying to justify the claimed sovereignty of your church’s hierarchy over all Christendom. The issue at hand was whether not Gentiles had to convert to Judaism (become Jewish). The answer was no and it was recorded and preserved in theopneustos Scripture for all future generations after the Apostolic age. It’s just that simple, Odell. All men, whether Jew or Gentile enter into a saved state on the principle of grace through faith alone - apart from works and the Law.

I understand the issue of the passage. But you miss the point that someone has Authority that someone has authority over you and me. And moon you have no authority over me. One question if an issue arises in the protestant Church who gets to decide what is right in wrong since according to YOUR interpritation some one does where ever the issue arises. Who is your and Protestants authority to submit to?

 

[Tomster]

You’re reading into it that which is not there. You’re trying to justify the claimed sovereignty of your church’s hierarchy over all Christendom. The issue at hand was whether not Gentiles had to convert to Judaism (become Jewish). The answer was no and it was recorded and preserved in theopneustos Scripture for all future generations after the Apostolic age. It’s just that simple, Odell. All men, whether Jew or Gentile enter into a saved state on the principle of grace through faith alone - apart from works and the Law.

Moondweller,

Truth be known, there is no one, NO ONE, in Protestantism who can authoritatively interpret Scripture. If you knew any history at all you would know that Martin Luther told the masses they had the power to interpret Scriptures all by themselves. Consequently, 30,000+ denominations all claiming to be right.

Now, how about that list of Scripture verses I gave you to interpret LITERALLY?
Are you up to it or what? Your credibility is at stake.

btw - Explain in detail what you mean by the “saved state”. Are you referring to OSAS, another, non-biblical, Protestant invention?

 

[crazzeto]

Moondweller,

Truth be known, there is no one, NO ONE, in Protestantism who can authoritatively interpret Scripture. If you knew any history at all you would know that Martin Luther told the masses they had the power to interpret Scriptures all by themselves. Consequently, 30,000+ denominations all claiming to be right.

Now, how about that list of Scripture verses I gave you to interpret LITERALLY?
Are you up to it or what? Your credibility is at stake.

btw - Explain in detail what you mean by the “saved state”. Are you referring to OSAS, another, non-biblical, Protestant invention?

And of course by that he meant everyone was free to accept his own teaching or burn in hell… Reading the letters and publications of the reformers is eye opening… I believe there is one CAF member who went from devout protestant at a protestant seminary to devout catholic after they actually read what the reformers had to say.s