The Virgin Mary

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ginger2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ginger2 said:
Guonophore,

You say that “The Sacred Tradition and the Apostolic Authority.” is essential for salvation. Can you please be specific.

What doctrine from Tradition that is not found in the Bible, , will keep me or anyonme else out of heaven if we do not hear about it?
Click to expand...
Nothing that you DON’T hear - God doesn’t expect the impossible, ie that you will assent to doctrines you’ve never heard of. By the way, that means, as even Paul acknowledged, that those who’ve never heard the name of Jesus itself can possibly be saved.

You’ve heard, though, and you choose not to believe. Big difference. You’ve heard the doctrine of Mother of God and how it is essentially about having a right understanding of the nature of Jesus as being true God and true Man both contained inseparably in the one person of whom Mary was the mother.

By denying the title Mother of God you’re denying the essential nature of Christ. Saying the one person borne by Mary wasn’t true God and true Man hypostatically united.

I should think it’s possible for a person to be damned for THAT if they’ve heard the truth.
 
The Pharisees who
followed Jesus around trying to refute everything he said
(and later did the same things to the apostles)
probably didn’t believe that THEY were resisting God either.
But they were.
 
Quote Guanophore, “By denying the title Mother of God you’re denying the essential nature of Christ. Saying the one person borne by Mary wasn’t true God and true Man hypostatically united.”

I said no such thing. I said that Jesus is fully God, fully human.
 
LilyM;2744187]They sure didn’t understand that this one phrase and the bare-bones beliefs contained in it, were alone totally sufficient in every way for their salvation.
Click to expand...
Why do you say this?
Nor indeed did they claim this for the one letter that verse is in, nor any amount of other letters.
Click to expand...
They didn’t toss out his other writings, or the Gospels or OT, or ignore Paul himself or his helpers when they visited and say ‘hey, we’ve got enough already thanks, don’t need any more’.
Click to expand...
Is not Paul making the distinct point of what the gospel is and how we are saved by it?
 
LilyM said:
Nothing that you DON’T hear - God doesn’t expect the impossible, ie that you will assent to doctrines you’ve never heard of. By the way, that means, as even Paul acknowledged, that those who’ve never heard the name of Jesus itself can possibly be saved.

You’ve heard, though, and you choose not to believe. Big difference. You’ve heard the doctrine of Mother of God and how it is essentially about having a right understanding of the nature of Jesus as being true God and true Man both contained inseparably in the one person of whom Mary was the mother.

By denying the title Mother of God you’re denying the essential nature of Christ. Saying the one person borne by Mary wasn’t true God and true Man hypostatically united.

I should think it’s possible for a person to be damned for THAT if they’ve heard the truth.
Click to expand...
Is a person condemned if he rejects that Mary was assumed into heaven, queen of heaven, and all other aspects of the marian doctrines?
 
Ginger2 said:
Quote Guanophore, “By denying the title Mother of God you’re denying the essential nature of Christ. Saying the one person borne by Mary wasn’t true God and true Man hypostatically united.”

I said no such thing. I said that Jesus is fully God, fully human.

The Apostles testify that Mary was the mother of our Lord, Jesus. Show me one place where they say she is the mother of God.

As a matter-of- fact, show me one place where Jesus calls Mary his “mother”.
Click to expand...
Nobody in that culture called their mother ‘Mother’ in public - it was inappropriate. He used the respectful term ‘woman’, which was a perfectly respectful form of public address, and not dismissive or putting her down in the slightest.

Are you now trying to deny that Mary WAS Jesus’ mother? Of course she was, and all acknowledged her as such from the angel Gabriel to Elizabeth and Joseph to the woman in the crowd who called her blessed (as she was) for having borne Him.

And the Apostles didnt even understand that Christ really WAS God until his resurrection, and even then didnt fully grasp it until Pentecost. Once they did, and once we do, the truth of who Mary is logically follows on from the truth of who Christ is. And to deny who she is means you don’t fully understand who HE is.

HE is the Almighty who sanctifies every place where He dwells, including the body of the Blessed Virgin.

And HIS humanity, taken entirely from Mary and her alone, since He had no human father, is likewise supremely sanctified in and of itself because of His union of it with Divinity. Just as the ground around the Burning Bush was holy. Not in and of itself, but because God’s presence there made it so.
 
justasking4 said:
Is the interpretation you give about Matthew 25 above your own interpretation or the offical-infallible interpretation of the catholic church? If it is the offical interpretation of the catholic church can you point me to that source?
Click to expand...
The parable itself is absolutely plain. The “goats” (the ones who preached and taught in Jesus’ name, but never did the works of mercy) go to “everlasting punishment.” “Everlasting punishment” is not “a lesser reward in Heaven,” no matter how many ways you slice it and dice it.
 
justasking4 said:
Why do you say this?
Is not Paul making the distinct point of what the gospel is and how we are saved by it?
Click to expand...
And he makes equally valid points about what is required for our salvation by continuing to write and teach after writing these lines. If they were the be-all and end-all no more would be necessary. But more IS necessary, hence the rest of the NT and all the teaching of the past 2,000 years.
 
justasking4 said:
Is a person condemned if he rejects that Mary was assumed into heaven, queen of heaven, and all other aspects of the marian doctrines?
Click to expand...
No one can say absolutely who is going to be in Hell - that said, I wouldn’t like to trade places with such a person.
 
Where is your historical proof that no one called their mother, “mother” - that it would have been disrespectful to do so. Or is that a new doctrine that has just now been discovered?
 
Ginger2 said:
Where is your historical proof that no one called their mother, “mother” - that it would have been disrespectful to do so. Or is that a new doctrine that has just now been discovered?
Click to expand...
Show me in the Bible where anyone DOES call their own mother ‘mother’ - I don’t think you’ll even find an instance of it happening in private, let alone in public!

That in itself should be proof enough that it wasn’t the done thing, and the lack of it in private shows that it REALLY wasn’t even considered appropriate for private situations.

I’m not saying it would be disrespectful particularly. Just that it would be akin to a grown man nowadays using the word ‘Mummy’ - kinda wrong and seriously cringeworthy. Anyone who remembers Prince Charles a few years ago calling the Queen ‘Mummy’ knows that.
 
justasking4 said:
If your church is teaching this, then its not the gospel that the apostle taught. Since the apostles were totally ignorant of these marian doctrines, they never taught these doctrines nor were they ever necessary for salvation.
Click to expand...
They knew Mary in person - of course they knew about her. She was in the care of the Apostle John, meaning that he most likely took her with him where ever he went. She attended the Council in Jerusalem with them; she was also there at Pentecost.

We are taught that the very first Marian Novena was when Mary prayed with the Apostles for nine days, from the day when Jesus ascended into Heaven until Pentecost Sunday, for the coming of the Holy Spirit to the Church. 🙂
 
Lily,
By that logic, how do you explain when others refer to a grown man’s mother as “mother”?

Are they being disrespectful because it it like saying mommy to a grown man?
 
apophasis said:
Go back and read my post again. You’ll find nothing “Nestorian” in it.
Click to expand...
You are stating that the person in Mary’s womb, who came forth from her body, was not the Divine Person of Jesus Christ, but only his human form (as though the person and his human form could somehow be divided from one another).

This is what the heretic Nestorius also taught.
 
Lily,

What is the correct translation here:

Mar 10:7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;

OR

Mar 10:7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mommy, and cleave to his wife;
 
Ginger2 said:
Guanophore, First I meant to ask if “You can’t prove that” was your favorite phrase. Now the post probably makes more sense.

Second, this was my original question,

Catholics teach that Mary, mother of Jesus, was born without original sin.

What does the Catholic church say about whether or not The Virgin Mary ever sinned during her lifetime?

which, after being answered, was followed by “what difference does it make?”

Quote, “Mary is the model of what we are all to become” And all this time I thought Christ Jesus was our model:

1Pe 2:21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:
Click to expand...
Yes, both things are true. Mary always leads us to Christ. But Christ is divine, and Mary is not. She showed that we can live a life without sin, even though we are human. We do that by following the example of Christ, and following in His steps, just as she has done. Do you not think she is a good role model?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top