How does Marian devotion save?

[anthony022071]

I never said “the Catholic Church” was the true church (or the “Orthodox”). So how could I ever say it “ceased to be the true Church.” I did say on this thread, however, that the true church which Christ has been building since Pentecost transcends ALL local assemblies (churches).All these extrabiblical doctrines formulated over time and after the Apostolic age.

You can’t deny that the early Church Fathers belonged to the Catholic Church – that is what they called the one,true Church – so when do you think that the Catholic Church of the Fathers cease to be the one,true Church? Since when did all local assemblies become part of the universal Church? The fact that the true Church transcends all local assemblies does not mean that all Christian local assemblies in the world belong to it. The Protestant and independent assemblies only came into existence from the 1500’s onward and they are out of communion with the universal Church. They were born in schism with the original Church. What is fragmented away from the whole cannot belong to the whole. There must be a real communion of faith and discipline,founded by Christ.

All these extrabiblical doctrines formulated over time and after the Apostolic age.

But in the beginning there were many churches (local assemblies, read the Book of Acts) in which elders were appointed.
Acts 14:23 “When they had appointed elders for them in every church, having prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed.”

Titus 1:5 “For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you,”
Notice in Acts 14:23 the elders were commended (given in charge) to the Lord in whom they believed. They were not commended to some distant elders (presbuteros) residing in the city of Rome. You’ll find nothing of the sort in Scripture or in any Apostolic teachings in the Epistles. Elders (presbuteros) and overseers (episkopos) are one and the same (Titus 1:5-9). They were appointed to govern over their own local assemblies. NONE were instructed to report to Rome. You need to read the history of Christendom to understand how it all evolved.

Of course there were local assemblies. There still are in the Roman Catholic Church. They are called parishes. But the early assemblies mentioned in the Bible were all bonded by a communion of faith and discipline and were of apostolic origin.

 

[anthony022071]

All these extrabiblical doctrines formulated over time and after the Apostolic age.

How do you know that they were formulated after the apostolic age? And by “formulated” do you mean “invented” or “defined”? If you mean “invented”,that is the opinion of Luther,who broke away from communion with the Church out of hostility toward the priesthood. It is the opinion of sceptical and atheistic historians who portray Christianity as a product of mere historical processes. We Catholics trust what the Church says of itself,not what the sceptics and atheists and rebels have to say about it.
Divine truth is not limited to scripture. The Word of God is the Son of God himself,and the Church was created by the Son of God. It is the mystical Body of Christ. Christ speaks through the doctrines of the Church as well as the words of scripture.

 

[moondweller]

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?

We have the Scriptures, not spiritual despots.

 

[benedictus2]

Hi. I’ve seen Many sites and prayerbooks say things like “Mary is the salvation of those who invoke her”, or “Pure and immaculate Queen, save me, and deliver me from eternal damnation,” and that wearing the scapular and praying the rosary daily will “save the world.” But what I want to know is, what is the mechanism behind these claims? By what means does devotion to Mary save people? Devotion to and belief in Jesus has obvious means of salvation, but Mary, it’s a little more murky. Anyone know?

Because true devotion to Mary will always bring us closer to Jesus.

 

[moondweller]

Moondweller,

Truth be known, there is no one, NO ONE, in Protestantism who can authoritatively interpret Scripture.

Do you have someone who authoritatively interprets the newspaper for you each morning, Tom?

According to Scripture to the church (not the Roman Catholic Church) is given Apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers for the equipping of the saints, for the work of service, for the building up of the body of Christ (Eph. 4). But nowhere does it say He gives “authorized interpreters” of Scripture. Such an office doesn’t exist.

But let me ask you, has your Magesterium ever published and “official” commentary on all the Books of the Bible? Just how much of the Bible have they actually “officially” interpreted? Truth be told, very little, if any.

 

[moondweller]

You can’t deny that the early Church Fathers belonged to the Catholic Church – that is what they called the one,true Church.

I do deny that they belonged to “the Catholic Church.” If true believers they were baptized by the Holy Holy Spirit into the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13), which is the church (Eph. 1:22-23). It is this church which is called, “catholic.”

– so when do you think that the Catholic Church of the Fathers cease to be the one,true Church?

I already answered this.

Of course there were local assemblies. There still are in the Roman Catholic Church. They are called parishes. But the early assemblies mentioned in the Bible were all bonded by a communion of faith and discipline and were of apostolic origin.

In the beginning there were various independent churches. Each appointed among themselves elders and deacons. They were not “parishes” of the Roman Catholic Church, which did not yet exist.

 

[moondweller]

Because true devotion to Mary will always bring us closer to Jesus.

How does being “closer” to Christ save you? And just how does devotion to someone other than Christ, like Mary, bring someone “closer” to Him? Why not just devote one’s self to Christ. As the Apostle Paul said:Gal 2:20 “I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the {life} which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me.”

Phil 1:21 "For to me, to live is Christ…"Paul, nor any of the Apostles, ever taught devotion to Mary, of themselves or others. If a man wanted to get closer to his wife, shouldn’t he devote himself to her directly rather than, say, his mother-in-law?

 

[Tomster]

Do you have someone who authoritatively interprets the newspaper for you each morning, Tom?

According to Scripture to the church (not the Roman Catholic Church) is given Apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers for the equipping of the saints, for the work of service, for the building up of the body of Christ (Eph. 4). But nowhere does it say He gives “authorized interpreters” of Scripture. Such an office doesn’t exist.

But let me ask you, has your Magesterium ever published and “official” commentary on all the Books of the Bible? Just how much of the Bible have they actually “officially” interpreted? Truth be told, very little, if any.

Moondweller,

Stop deflecting. My local newspaper is not Scripture.

INTERPRET THE VERSES I GAVE YOU - LITERALLY!

BTW - At the daily Holy Sacrifice of the Mass Catholics receive more authoritative commentary on all of the Scriptures than your average Fundamentalist will receive in a lifetime. One reason for that is because no one in the Fundamentalist world can give any commentary which is authoritative and the false doctrine of Sola Scriptura is the reason why.

NOW GET BUSY AND INTEPRET THOSE VERSES - LITERALLY! :hey_bud:

 

[Tomster]

I do deny that they belonged to “the Catholic Church.” If true believers they were baptized by the Holy Holy Spirit into the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13), which is the church (Eph. 1:22-23). It is this church which is called, "catholic."I already answered this.In the beginning there were various independent churches. Each appointed among themselves elders and deacons. They were not “parishes” of the Roman Catholic Church, which did not yet exist.

Have you taken any classes in historical revisionism?

 

[anthony022071]

“He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel.”

In the Hebrew,the noun is neuter,and and may be translated as either He or She.
In the Vulgate it is translated as She.

catholic-legate.com/Apologetics/MaryAndTheSaints/QandA/WhoWillCrushHeadOfSerpent.aspx

If you’ll read the heavenly “sign” carefully in Rev. 12 you’ll see that it’s not the woman who is caught up to heaven but the male child she bore. In the “sign” the woman is never seen in heaven but remains on earth; and when the dragon is thrown down to the earth it then persecutes the woman, and she is taken into the wilderness for a time and times and a half time (three and one half years). The woman is national Israel and the prophetic sign takes place at the end of the age. The “sign” has nothing directly to do with the person of Mary.

The sign is seen in heaven,and the imagery of moon and stars is heavenly. The Church is the new Israel,and it exists both on earth and in heaven.

 

[moondweller]

I’m sorry my answer offended you. But he asked me about MY church, not yours. My answer did not pertain to your church.

 

[exoflare]

This is “mumble jumble.” pure sophistry.

Sorry but that was priceless, coming from you…

 

[moondweller]

Moondweller,

Stop deflecting. My local newspaper is not Scripture.

One would interpret the Scriptures the same way one would interpret a newspaper when reading it. You would interpret it literally, which allows for allegories and figures of speech when the author, himself, intended them. You wouldn’t automatically allegorize a newspaper article, would you, Tom? You don’t need an official interpreter to accurately interpret Scripture any more than you need an official interpreter to accurately interpret your morning newspaper. That’s why there’s no such church “office” or “spiritual gift” as “official interpreter” listed in the Scriptures. I already pointed that out to you.

Actually, it’s possible for an atheist or skeptic to accurately interpret the Scriptures if educated in the original Greek and Hebrew, and familiar with the historical background of the Scriptures. He could be accurate but that doesn’t mean he BELIEVES them. Believing what the Scriptures literally say is what matters after an accurate interpretation.

INTERPRET THE VERSES I GAVE YOU - LITERALLY!

I already answered you .here You need some instruction on hermeneutics.

 

[moondweller]

AGAIN, the question was concerning MY church, not yours.

 

[LilyM]

One would interpret the Scriptures the same way one would interpret a newspaper when reading it. You would interpret it literally, which allows for allegories and figures of speech when the author, himself, intended them.

Yes, but Protestants have been arguing for centuries over which bits of scripture the author intended to be mere figures of speech. A certain percentage take the verse ‘This is My Body’ to be entirely allegorical or figurative, in the manner of ‘I am the vine’ etc. Others, using the very same scripture with just as much study and background behind their interpretation, are convinced on the contrary, that there is no mere allegory or figure but Real Presence.

That’s why there’s no such church “office” or “spiritual gift” as “official interpreter” listed in the Scriptures. I already pointed that out to you.

Oh YES there is! If not, explain the following verse:

“He (Paul) writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.” (2 Peter 3:16). It means private individuals CANNOT be trusted to interpet scripture accurately on their own.

The very fact of the Apostles authoritatively pronouncing on the matter of whether Gentile converts were bound by all of the Mosaic law is in itself an exercise of this office of official interpreter of scripture (in this case the OT Levitical codes). That’s what the Apostles were, among other things, official interpreters of scripture!

And their disseminating their judgement among all the Christian communities shows that those communities, too, accepted that there was ONE official interpretation - that which came from the Apostles. And thus an office of ‘official interpreter’, which office the Apostles held. And also that private individuals could NOT just read scripture independently, glean whatever they wanted from it and be OK. No matter how Spirit-filled those private individuals were.

Actually, it’s possible for an atheist or skeptic to accurately interpret the Scriptures if educated in the original Greek and Hebrew, and familiar with the historical background of the Scriptures. He could be accurate but that doesn’t mean he BELIEVES them. Believing what the Scriptures literally say is what matters after an accurate interpretation.I already answered you here. You need some instruction on hermeneutics.

Well, seeing as you do not seem to be at all familiar with the historical background, a background in which even total non-relations are titled ‘brothers’, and so saying Jesus had ‘brothers’ means no more than Paul calling the communities to which he wrote ‘brethren’, perhaps you’d better think about the point you just raised.

 

[crazzeto]

AGAIN, the question was concerning MY church, not yours.

Well then let me settle this, my Church gave you your scriptures…

 

[moondweller]

Yes, but Protestants have been arguing for centuries over which bits of scripture the author intended to be mere figures of speech.

That’s because men, both Catholic and Protestant, have allegorized and spiritualized the Scriptures to conform them to their own preconceived ideas. This is especially true in eschatology.

A certain percentage take the verse ‘This is My Body’ to be entirely allegorical or figurative, in the manner of ‘I am the vine’ etc. Others, using the very same scripture with just as much study and background behind their interpretation, are convinced on the contrary, that there is no mere allegory or figure but Real Presence.

There’s no study and background behind their interpretation. Here they take it literally when it is quite obvious Jesus was not at all speaking literally. He was right there with them reclined at table - in His body, alive, with blood running through its veins. So the bread, literally, was not His body, nor the cup (wine) His blood. He didn’t say, “this will become My body and this will become My blood,” or, “believe it will become My body and blood and I’ll make it so.” But He clearly spoke symbolically of His substitutionary, sacrificial death for the sins of the world, which was about to take place, and they were to eat and drink in remembrance of it (Him).

Oh YES there is! If not, explain the following verse:

“He (Paul) writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.” (2 Peter 3:16). It means private individuals CANNOT be trusted to interpet scripture accurately on their own.

Peter, by no means, states here that “private” individuals “cannot” be trusted with interpreting Scripture. He states nothing in respect to such a prohibition - nothing! That itself is a distortion, and he does state in that verse who distorts Scripture.

The very fact of the Apostles authoritatively pronouncing on the matter of whether Gentile converts were bound by all of the Mosaic law is in itself an exercise of this office of official interpreter of scripture (in this case the OT Levitical codes). That’s what the Apostles were, among other things, official interpreters of scripture!

And can you tell me where it is “officially” stated that the Apostles were the “official” interpreters of Scripture? Can you produce even ONE commentary written by the Apostles on all the Books of the Bible? Were the Jewish Bereans in a state of rebellion when they themselves searched the Scriptures to test whether or not what Paul was proclaiming of Jesus was true according to the Scriptures (hence interpreting the Scriptures themselves)?

And their disseminating their judgement among all the Christian communities shows that those communities, too, accepted that there was ONE official interpretation - that which came from the Apostles. And thus an office of ‘official interpreter’, which office the Apostles held.

It states NOTHING of an office of “official interpreter.” That interpretation itself is a distortion, and you know who Peter said distorts Scripture.

Well, seeing as you do not seem to be at all familiar with the historical background, a background in which even total non-relations are titled ‘brothers’, and so saying Jesus had ‘brothers’ means no more than Paul calling the communities to which he wrote ‘brethren’, perhaps you’d better think about the point you just raised.

In the N.T. whenever *adelphos *is used of a sibling it’s meant biologically, in a literal sense, not spiritual. Would you argue that Peter and Andrew were not literal brothers, but rather cousins? How about James and John? They were just spiritual brothers? You, in fact, do not even question it. In the same way, one cannot question what is stated here:Mark 6:3 "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?" And they took offense at Him."These are the sons and daughters of Mary. The reason you reject the normal, plain interpretation of this verse is because it doesn’t fit YOUR Mariology.

 

[exoflare]

It states NOTHING of an office of “official interpreter.”

And yet here you are trying to fill the role. Yet one more “plain and obvious interpretation of scripture” to throw on the heap with all the other different ones…

 

[ecohlman]

If a man wanted to get closer to his wife, shouldn’t he devote himself to her directly rather than, say, his mother-in-law?

Actually, if a man is at odds with his mother-in-law, it causes rockiness in his marriage. If a man has a strong bond with his mother-in-law, it does create a closeness with his wife as well. Many divorces occur because of strain with the in-laws.

 

[ecohlman]

In the N.T. whenever *adelphos *is used of a sibling it’s meant biologically, in a literal sense, not spiritual. Would you argue that Peter and Andrew were not literal brothers, but rather cousins? How about James and John? They were just spiritual brothers? You, in fact, do not even question it. In the same way, one cannot question what is stated here:Mark 6:3 "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?" And they took offense at Him."These are the sons and daughters of Mary. The reason you reject the normal, plain interpretation of this verse is because it doesn’t fit YOUR Mariology.

Maybe you should read your bible a bit closer. These same “siblings” are mentioned in the account of the cruxifiction, as sons of Mary, wife of Cleophas. We know that this Mary is not the mother of our Lord because this Mary was watching from a distance, and we know that Mary the mother of Jesus was up close where he could talk to her and give her to the care of his disciple.

Some women were watching from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome. 41In Galilee these women had followed him and cared for his needs. Many other women who had come up with him to Jerusalem were also there. Mark 15:40-41

There is nothing in scripture that suggests that Mary had additional children. In fact if you begin to study types between the old and new testament, you would know that these words:
Then said the LORD unto me; This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the LORD, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut. Ezekiel 44:2
are a foreshadowing of the birth of Christ, and that the gate of his entrance is Mary, that gate was shut.