Marian dogmas, crucial for salvation?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jmgi1957
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
God will judge a person based on their conscience. There is a chance everyone could go to hell. If a person has a good reason God will consider it. You don’t know if someone will be punished if they deny a certain dogma.
 
awesomecatholic said:
God will judge a person based on their conscience.
Click to expand...
And it’s our duty to make sure it’s well-formed in accordance with the Truth – Catholic teaching.
awesomecatholic said:
If a person has a good reason God will consider it. You don’t know if someone will be punished if they deny a certain dogma.
Click to expand...
So what good reason could there possibly be for a Catholic to reject anything the Church teaches as to be held as truth by all the faithful?
 
Some people are not well informed, I was not. Again God judges based on their conscience/belief in Christ. All I am saying is that you do not know if a person will be punished if they don’t accept a certain dogma.
 
awesomecatholic said:
All I am saying is that you do not know if a person will be punished if they don’t accept a certain dogma.
Click to expand...
You don’t get to pick and choose what you believe in. Lies are not worth the same as truth, no matter how much another person may believe in those lies. Some people may never hear of Jesus or His Church, but what we do know is that His Church is the Catholic Church, and was given the authority by Him to teach.
 
Last edited:
That is true. Again God judges on a conscience. You DO NOT know whether or not a person will go to hell.
 
awesomecatholic said:
Again God judges on a conscience.
Click to expand...
And again it is our duty to make sure it is well-formed.
awesomecatholic said:
You DO NOT know whether or not a person will go to hell.
Click to expand...
But that does not mean I cannot look at their actions and say they are not correct. Morality is not dependent upon one’s conscience nor opinions. It is objective. Culpability may be, but morality isn’t, and just sitting back and saying it’s okay for people to believe something completely wrong is uncharitable.
 
I agree with you,it is uncharitable to say it’s ok for people to believe something wrong. Many people are not informed or do not understand the Marian dogma’s. God considers each individual person!
 
Tis_Bearself said:
By that reasoning, we could reject Christ being God, or Christ being our Savior, or all kinds of other crucial things, and still get saved. Doesn’t make much sense to me.
Click to expand...
Nonetheless, that is the teaching of the Church. It’s has to do with culpability.
 
When the Angel Gabriel greeted her in Luke 1, in the Greek, his words were (from the Knox Bible - New Advent Website):

http://www.newadvent.org/bible/luk001.htm

28 Into her presence the angel came, and said, Hail, thou who art full of grace ; the Lord is with thee …

28 καὶ εἰσελθὼν πρὸς αὐτὴν εἶπεν: χαῖρε, κεχαριτωμένη , ὁ κύριος μετὰ σοῦ .

" Chaire Kecharitomene " ( χαῖρε, κεχαριτωμένη ) is given as a new name - like a title reflecting who she is.

The Meaning of Kecharitomene: Full of Grace (Luke 1:28)

http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/a116.htm

“chaire kecharitomene”

http://www.ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage.asp?number=288189

One so full of grace would be highly in tune with & wholly disposed to the will of God, thereby living a sinless life, making her a fitting vessel for God the Son to make His dwelling in her. The Holy Spirit overshadowing her is termed similarly to the occurrence of the Holy Spirit abiding with /overshadowing the Ark of the Covenant in the OT. Although earthly the Ark was made to God’s exact specifications as it would be His throne/dwelling place among His people & was so holy that anyone unauthorized to look at it or touched it died. It was so holy that it was kept in the Holy of Holies.

If the original Ark of the Covenant was so holy & so revered, think how much moreso the BVM - the Ark of the New Covenant - to have given her womb - herself completely - as the dwelling place of the Word made flesh, Our Great High Priest in the order of Melchizedek, Our Living Bread from heaven.


 
Last edited:
jmgi1957 said:
40.png
De_Maria:
This is subtly revealed by Scripture by the fact that St. Joseph was informed by an Angel that Jesus was God’s Son. Thus, being a righteous and God fearing man, St. Joseph would not have ever touched Mary in that way. Knowing that she is the Spouse of the Holy Spirit. Yes, that is another title of Our Lady.
Click to expand...
I’m with you on this, but again, its human reasoning telling us that Joseph would not have “touched her.”
Click to expand...
It’s faith and reason.
 
jmgi1957 said:
40.png
De_Maria:
What they didn’t know, she or Jesus would have revealed.
Click to expand...
Mary would have told someone that she had an impure thought?
Click to expand...
  1. Really?
  2. You’re reading the twentieth century reality show
    mindset into first century Jewish culture.
  3. You agreed that Mary was full of grace. Thus,
    she had no impure thoughts.
 
tgGodsway said:
You argue the point from the silence of scripture but ignore the many hints from that same scripture, such as the fact that Jesus is called the"first born" Son.
Click to expand...
And you reject the many explicit Teachings from the Word of God in Sacred Tradition. Which, by the way, the Scripture tells you to accept.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings[a] we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.
 
tgGodsway said:
You argue the point from the silence of scripture but ignore the many hints from that same scripture, such as the fact that Jesus is called the"first born" Son.
Click to expand...
Moot point until you actually establish that Scripture alone is infallible and that your interpretation of Scripture is also free from error.
 
Last edited:
The “word of God in sacred tradition” as you call it, is a theological concept found outside the apostolic circle and was never taught as a truth at any time in the first two centuries of Christianity.

But your answer was a predictable dodge, my friend. He is called the “first born” son for a reason. (Mt. 1:25; Lu.2:7) Even the Apostle Paul recognized Christ’ brothers when he said, "Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? 1st. Cor. 9:5 You know the story of Mary, along with her 4 sons, approached Jesus with an interesting dialog, wanting to speak to Him. His response was directly pointed to the messenger

"… who is my mother and who are my brothers?.. And He stretched out His hand toward His DISCIPLES (making a distinction) and said, 'here are my mother and my brothers. Mt. 12:46

All of these passages are divinely placed within your reach if you can accept the word of God above your tradition.
 
Scripture itself makes the claim to be infallible. We can dispute how the N.T. books were compiled and whether or not those efforts was also inspired by God, but you know as well as I do, that neither of us would disagree when Paul said, "all scripture is inspired by God. " 2 Tim. 3:16.

But this is a diversion from the issue. How does tradition make the claim that it is inspired?.. When Paul said, follow after my traditions, he was clear… not just anyone’s traditions, or all traditions, but HIS alone. But even in that statement he does not teach, nor does any other Apostle teach that the traditions themselves were infallible or without subject to error. Jesus taught the contrary in his attitudes about traditions. Mk. 7:9
 
Last edited:
No one is suggesting the insufficiency of Scripture and we both agree it is inspired by God. I don’t reject the Bible. I reject the logically circular doctrine of Sola Scriptura. It is you’re responsibility to establish the sufficiency of that doctrine before you can begin to assess tradition by scripture “alone”. You haven’t done that at all.
In other words I reject your premise.
 
Last edited:
kainosktisis said:
Chaire Kecharitomene " ( χαῖρε, κεχαριτωμένη ) is given as a new name - like a title reflecting who she is.

The Meaning of Kecharitomene: Full of Grace (Luke 1:28)

One so full of grace would be highly in tune with; wholly disposed to the will of God, thereby living a sinless life,
Click to expand...
Catholic Answers itself says that the meaning of the Greek “Kecharitomene” can either mean “Full of Grace” OR “Highly Favored”. The Catholic Church has always preferred “Full of Grace” understandably because they can then say that Mary was so full of grace that she was SINLESS in her life. However, if “Highly Favored” is used instead, which the majority of other non-Catholics prefer, which is also a technically correct translation, then you cannot draw the same conclusion about Mary’s sinlessness from that statement, because it would only be stating that Mary was “Highly Favored” by God, which she was. In fact, my own Bible, the New American Bible, also says “favored one” at Luke 1:28. The only Bible that I could find that uses the phrase “hail full of grace” was the Douay-Rheims Bible, and all the others say either “highly favored” or “favored one.”

My question is this, if the Catholic Church leans on the rare translation of the Greek, “Full of Grace” to help “prove” Mary was sinless her whole life, then what happens when when the other acceptable translation of “Highly Favored” is plugged in instead, like it is with so many Bible translations? That changes the interpretation doesn’t it?
 
It doesn’t change at all. The problem here is that in translation we are confined to choosing one meaning where two meanings are available. The fact is you can not explicitly define the term one way this is the nature of the language.

At best we can agree it means both at once. So Mary is highly favored AND full of grace. I can get on board with that all day. What I reject is someone trying to suggest that it can only be one way. That is where the error is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top