Marian dogmas, crucial for salvation?

[De_Maria]

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.

On the contrary, it’s right there in Scripture. 2 Thess 2:15; 1 Thess 2:13

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

St. Paul is speaking of the Apostles. Those who walked with Jesus Christ whom Jesus Christ called, “brethren”. If you studied Scripture, you would recognize a “Hebrewism”. Hebrews speak in redundancies. So, when he says, “the apostles”, he follows it up with “the brethren” of the Lord and Cephas. This repeats the same thing as the apostles in different words. We know that Cephas or St. Peter, was the Chief Apostle. Thus, he is singled out.

Christ recognizes the Apostles as His brethren. Just as when He spoke to Mary
Magdalen, He said to her:

Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren , and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. (John 20:17)

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

Sure, the other Mary. She is frequently described in Scripture.

Luke 24:10 It was Mary Magdalene and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles.

There, it says, the mother of James. And then, in another place, Joses is also mentioned.

Matthew 27:56 Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedees children.

See a complete explanation, here.

"… 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

So, you’re saying that He denied having any mother or brothers. How does that prove
your allegations?

All of these passages are divinely placed within your reach if you can accept the word of God above your tradition.

It is you who need to drop your traditions of men and begin to accept the Traditions of God which are provided for you by word and by scripture.

 

[De_Maria]

Scripture itself makes the claim to be infallible.

But not Scripture alone. Scripture itself tells you that Tradition is the Word of God. (2 Thess 2:15; 1 Thess 2:13; Heb 13:7).

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.

True. But that doesn’t say that Scripture alone is inspired. You would dispute with us that the words of holy men are inspired. But that is precisely what Scripture says:

2 Peter 1:21For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

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.

On the contrary, he said “the word of God which you HEARD of us”.

1 Thessalonians 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

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

The WORD OF GOD is infallible whether it is in Sacred Tradition or Scripture. Because it is the infallible Catholic Church which passes it on (1 Tim 3:15; Eph 3:10).

 

[tgGodsway]

Your argument is utter non-sense stpuri. You’re banking on a lot here. The phrase “open the womb” is a distinctly different Hebrew word from the compound word for “firstborn,” yet the connotation is the same only in one sense. It is the one who comes out first whether it be male or female. But the word firstborn on the other hand has significance in the fact that the child is male.
Your example found in women #3 is made up. I cannot find your point here. In other words the scenario you offered gives no specific details about a women who only had one male child. You imposed this into the argument without backing it up with text.

Neither does Matthew 1:25 impose the idea that Mary had only one child, thus the word “firstborn” was used, instead of opened the womb. To the contrary. She did not know her husband sexually TILL she had brought fourth her firstborn son. The implication is that once she brought fourth her first born child, she then knew her husband intimately. Those clues only expand from Matthew’s perspective when he gets to chapter 12 and makes another distinction between his mother and brothers from his disciples. The evidence goes on, but I will quit here.

 

[stpurl]

I guess you had better quit, because frankly, you aren’t making any sense here. You aren’t arguing (or discussing) what I said, but trying to muddy the waters by claiming that your personal interpretation of a word is what the word means. You aren’t in any way proving that your definition was used by Christians prior to approximately AD 1530 or so, still less that it was used by "the first Christians’. Please cite me some authentic documents, especially primary sources, which state that your interpretation of "firstborn’ and "until’ were the actual factual definitions as understood throughout Christian history.

 

[tgGodsway]

I’m still curious why, if Jesus had other biological siblings, why did Jesus refer Mary to John and vice versa and not just assume that Mary would be taken care of by her “other” children?

It’s a great question. But here’s one thing we should not do: and that is to assume upon the text a scenario that fits our beliefs while yet the scripture is silent over.

It is possible her children were killed, It is possible they moved out of the region. It is possible they were incarcerated by the Roman government. Along the same lines, we know almost nothing about many of the 12 disciples. People like Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew. The holy Spirit chose not to write the script on these people yet they are mentioned, briefly, Acts. 1:13.

But in all of this we still get hints such at Acts 1:14,

“All these with one accord were devoting themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus and HIS BROTHERS.”

These distinctions between Christ Apostolic circle and his brothers is difficult to explain away the way the CC does.

 

[Justin_Mary]

or should we trust the voices of tradition who addressed this matter from a position outside of the inner circle of apostolic faith centuries later in Rome?

Is it possible these sources of tradition were also inspired by the Holy Spirit?

& it wasn’t just in Rome. The same tradition was held in Alexandria, Constantinople, Antioch, & Jerusalem.

 

[TMC]

It is an interesting question. Some scholars have speculated that John was very young and without other family, so that Jesus was basically saying that they should take care of each other. There is some anecdotal support for the idea that John was very young at the time of the crucifixion - for example, it may explain why he was at the cross at all (with the women) instead of with the other men.

It is also possible that Christ’s statement is continuing with the theme in the Gospels that Jesus’ true family consists of his followers, and not his biological family.

Regardless, I certainly agree that Jesus dying request that Mary and John consider themselves to be family is not strong support for the position that Jesus was an only child.

 

[Mintaka]

The Hebrew expression is not actually “firstborn.” It is “womb-opener.” A woman who only has one child still has a womb-opener.

 

[tgGodsway]

I would agree as long as the traditions around the world do not directly contradict the doctrinal purity of the inspired eye witnesses to Christ. In many cases they re-write those doctrines.

 

[tgGodsway]

We know that Cephas or St. Peter, was the Chief Apostle. Thus, he is singled out.

Christ recognizes the Apostles as His brethren. Just as when He spoke to Mary
Magdalen, He said to her:

Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren , and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. (John 20:17)

No… we don’t know Peter was a chief Apostle. This is taught by no one in the apostolic circle, De_Maria.

This, again, is your imposed theological idea. But to the rest of your argument here, context matters. I agree with the context of the passage you quoted above, A brother in the Lord is not the same as a brother in the flesh. Got it!

This is why information found in the immediate context makes the decision for us. For example: in Acts 1:13 and 14 we have 4 distinct groups of people mentioned all together in one place. In verse 13 we have the actual names of the “brothers” or disciples of Christ entering the upper room to pray. Yet verse 14 says, “All these (brothers) with one accord were devoting themselves to prayer, together with (2) the women and (3) Mary the mother of Jesus, and (4) his brothers.” This is not a passage to build a doctrine on, however, it is one of many strong hints, that this group of brothers mentioned last is distinct from the first group mentioned in verse 13.

The same distinction is made in the Matthew 12 passage when Christ mother and brothers came to speak with Him. If you follow the story you will find the same distinction. “who is my mother and who are my brothers? v49 and he stretched out His hand toward His DISCIPLES and said, Here are my mother and My brothers.”

We can conclude that it wasn’t just His flesh and blood mother and brothers who could be counted as family, but as He stated in verse 50 those who does the will of His Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother. The point is clear that Mary and Jesus’ brothers were a distinct group who walked up on Jesus and his disciples. Again, this is another hint to show the fact that Mary lived a normal married life with Joseph and had relations with him as any Jewish wife would do.

One last example De_Maria, John 2:12 We find the immediate context making the same distinctions as those mentioned above:

“And this he went down to Capernaum, He, his mother, his brothers, and his disciples, and they did not stay there many days.” We know that his disciples were his brothers in the Lord. But his flesh and blood mother along with his other brothers were listed here distinct from the spiritual brothers.

 

[stpurl]

Brethren, in the context of the use of the original languages of Scripture is not limited to “uterine brethren” but extends to cousins, step brothers, foster brothers, adopted brothers . . .also sisters in all the above. . .as well.

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

We know that Cephas or St. Peter, was the Chief Apostle. Thus, he is singled out.

Christ recognizes the Apostles as His brethren. Just as when He spoke to Mary
Magdalen, He said to her:

Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren , and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. (John 20:17)

No… we don’t know Peter was a chief Apostle. This is taught by no one in the apostolic circle, De_Maria.

It’s taught by Jesus Christ (Matt 16:18-19; Matt 17:27; John 21:17; etc.)

This, again, is your imposed theological idea. But to the rest of your argument here, context matters. I agree with the context of the passage you quoted above, A brother in the Lord is not the same as a brother in the flesh. Got it! …

Uh, that’s not my point. A brother in the Lord can and frequently is, also, a brother in the flesh.

In verse 13 we have the actual names of the “brothers” or disciples of Christ entering the upper room to pray. Yet verse 14 says, “All these (brothers) with one accord were devoting themselves to prayer, together with (2) the women and (3) Mary the mother of Jesus, and (4) his brothers.” …

That’s easily explained by Hebraisms. Even though St. Luke was a gentile, he was amongst Jews and used many Hebraisms in his writings. The Hebraism he used in this verse is “redundancy”. In other words, there was no need to repeat the fact that the Apostles were there. But he did so in two different expressions. He listed their names and then mentioned them again under the term “His brethren”.

This is not a passage to build a doctrine on, however, it is one of many strong hints, that this group of brothers mentioned last is distinct from the first group mentioned in verse 13.

No, it isn’t. And yet, that’s what you’re attempting to do. But you’re hampered by the fact that you adhere to Scripture alone and do not use the wealth of information that is contained in Sacred Tradition.

continued

 

[De_Maria]

continued with @tgGodsway

The same distinction is made in the Matthew 12 passage when Christ mother and brothers came to speak with Him. If you follow the story you will find the same distinction. “who is my mother and who are my brothers? v49 and he stretched out His hand toward His DISCIPLES and said, Here are my mother and My brothers.”

You just shot your point in the foot. Are you really making the point that He is denying that His physical mother is also His spiritual mother?

In other words, you’re contradicting Scripture. Scripture says that Mary is blessed amongst women because of her faith and obedience (Luke 1:28-55). Now you’re claiming that Jesus is disowning her.

We can conclude that it wasn’t just His flesh and blood mother and brothers who could be counted as family, but as He stated in verse 50 those who does the will of His Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.

Ask yourself, “Did Mary, His mother, do the will of the Father?” Hint: Luke 1:45

The point is clear that Mary and Jesus’ brothers were a distinct group who walked up on Jesus and his disciples.

Are you literally claiming that His mother did not do the will of God? If so, you are contradicting Scripture and thus nullifying your argument in the eyes of all Catholics.

Again, this is another hint to show the fact that Mary lived a normal married life with Joseph and had relations with him as any Jewish wife would do.

All you are proving is that you read Scripture with Protestant presuppositions and do not take into account the Jewish roots of the Christian faith.

One last example De_Maria, John 2:12 We find the immediate context making the same distinctions as those mentioned above:

“And this he went down to Capernaum, He, his mother, his brothers, and his disciples, and they did not stay there many days.” We know that his disciples were his brothers in the Lord. But his flesh and blood mother along with his other brothers were listed here distinct from the spiritual brothers.

This is what it means. He went down to Capernaum, He, His mother, His Apostles and His disciples.

 

[De_Maria]

ACTS14:10 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.
11 This is the stone which was set at naught of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.
12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

As far as I am concerned, the answer is clear and not open for debate.

How do you correlate that Scripture to these?

Jude 1:23And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.

1 Timothy 4:16 Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

1 Timothy 4:16 Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.

The doctrine that “Jesus Christ is the only name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved”, will save me.

That is the Catholic Doctrine. But these show that we are empowered to save others
as well. Thus, we are God’s fellow workers.

1 Corinthians 3:9 For we are labourers together with God: ye are God’s husbandry, ye are God’s building.

So, how do you think that you are contradicting Catholic Doctrine? Or what is it that you think we are debating which you have answered with that verse?

 

[De_Maria]

we can lead men to the truth, but only Jesus can save them.

Scripture says that we can save them in so doing. I posted the verses. Are you saying that the verses are in error? Here they are again. Show me where either of those deny that we can also save others:

Jude 1:23 And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.

1 Timothy 4:16 Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.

1COR 3:7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.

So, we contribute to their salvation by planting and watering. But that does not deny nor in any way contradict the idea that we also save our fellow man.

Actually I think that the catholic church is contradicting the very word of God by suggesting that Mary had any role in the salvation of men other than the fact that she was the virgin vessel in which God came to earth.

And that’s not enough?

I believe that all of the other catholic teachings about Mary are heretical.

You have a right to your opinion. But the Catholic Church is the vessel by which God Teaches His Word infallibly. And she revealed in her Scriptures that God is the source
of those Teachings. Let me show you. Here, Scripture tells us that God exhalts Mary above all other human beings.

Luke 1:26 And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary.28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

Let’s break this down:

ANGEL GABRIEL

1. an angel is a messenger of God. That is what the word, angel, means.
2. this angel, Gabriel, is one of the four angels that stands before the throne of God.

WAS SENT FROM GOD

1. God sent this angel to Mary.
2. Since this angel is a messenger of God’s, God sent Him to deliver a message.
3. Therefore, the angel was not speaking on his own, but was communicating God’s message to Mary.
4. If we skip down to verse 28, we see that this was a message of praise (i.e. blessed art thou).
5. Therefore God praised Mary above all human beings and He did it through His Angel.

Do you deny any of this?

 

[tgGodsway]

That’s easily explained by Hebraisms

naaa… I doubt it. It’s not a convincing argument at all. If redundancy were employed here, you would spot it as some kind of aimless talk. But the specific context is clear. These were Jesus’ brothers, specifically, just as the “women” who came were not just any women, … and the Mary who came was not just any Mary who came into the upper room. The brothers, all of the sudden, were brothers in general?.. naaaaa…

Maybe you’re just scrambling for any other answer than the obvious one. Jesus had brothers and Mary had relations with her husband as any normal Jewish couple would have.

 

[Tommy999]

My understanding is that Catholics believe that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant (Jesus) so that for her to have marital relations would be a sacrilege, or so I understand it. Perhaps a Catholic can correct or expound on that concept in case I misunderstood.

 

[humbleseeker]

The CC Tradition teaches that Mary is a virgin, but this view came centuries later and far removed from the N.T. eye witnesses,

Mary’s perpetual virginity, as with many doctrines in the first few hundred years of the church, tended not to be explicitly defined until heretics arose forcing the church to define doctrine.

This is why history is scarce on people speaking of this doctrine until the Antidicomarites show up in the mid to late 300s.

With that said, here’s the records we have:

• ~100 AD: Ignatius of Antioch(disciple of John the Apostle)
• ~150 AD: Polycarp (disciple of John the Apostle)
• ~160 AD: Justin Martyr
• ~200 AD: Irenaeus

In the year AD 383, Jerome writes that Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus all “held these same views” of Mary’s perpetual virginity and “wrote volumes replete with wisdom” (in his The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary: Against Helvidius, section 19). No writings from these 4 men survived that unambiguously identifies their belief in this doctrine, but we assume Jerome had access to some of their many works that did not survive until the modern day.
(Don’t let that until confuse you. Just because it’s the modern day, their works haven’t reappeared)

• 248 AD: Origen

“Mary, as those declare who with sound mind extol her, had no other son but Jesus” [Origen’s Commentary on the Gospel of John(Book I), Section 6]

For perspective, the books of the Bible were not officially canonized until the late 3rd, early 4th century.

 

[mythbuster1]

The Marian dogmas are each implied by other doctrines. For example, the Real Presence implies the Immaculate Conception, because otherwise the Blessed Virgin Mary could not tolerate having the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ within her.