Salvation Through Mary?

keypurr

Well-known member
Nope.

John was writing in the first century and he was writing about the 1st century pagan Roman empire.

No, it wasn't controlled by the State in the fourth century. It was allowed to exist without persecution (tolerated) early in the century and then underwent persecution again in the later part of the century. (It depended on the emperor at the time).

Peace.
Pagan traditions were brought into the church from the first century. By the fourth century, Consintine told the church what to think. I assume your short on history books that disagree with the RCC.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using TheologyOnline mobile app
 

Bard_the_Bowman

New member
Pagan traditions were brought into the church from the first century.

Like what, for example, from the first century?

By the fourth century, Consintine told the church what to think. I assume your short on history books that disagree with the RCC.

I would be careful about using the Pagan Influence fallacy to try to discredit the Catholic Church for it can be used just as easily to try to discredit all of Christianity.

And it is just a fallacy, after all.

Peace.
 

keypurr

Well-known member
Like what, for example, from the first century?



I would be careful about using the Pagan Influence fallacy to try to discredit the Catholic Church for it can be used just as easily to try to discredit all of Christianity.

And it is just a fallacy, after all.

Peace.
It is not I that has discredited the RCC, the church has done that all on it's own. Sadly the churches that broke way did not come all the way out of her.

Sent from my A622GL using TheologyOnline mobile app
 

Sonnet

New member
Hi Sonnet,

Yes the Trinity is a mystery and John 20 is explicit.

But the fact remains that for us to believe that God is a Trinity has to be inferred from Scripture because it is nowhere explicitly stated.

I don't agree that Mary's role is minor. She gave Birth to the second Person of the Trinity and was His mother. She gave birth to Jesus. She brought God into our world. That is not a minor role.
Holy smokes that is the Incarnation! That is probably the most major role! God came to Earth!

And she wasn't forced to do that. She wasn't "used" by God against her will. She agreed to do that.

Does any mother play a minor role in the life of their child? I don't think so. That might be why so many football players get on the screen and say "Hi Mom!".:)

I don't think we can determine major versus minor roles by the amount of ink used on a particular person.

Joseph, for example. We hear very little about him. But he was willing to care for Mary and her child (whom he did not help create), provide for them, protect them, help raise Jesus as His foster-father.

Very "silent" life when it comes to what Scripture recorded. But minor? No way. Admirably humble, holy, and praiseworthy.

But going into a discussion about Mary will take us in a lot of different directions.

I was merely trying to point out in that post that just because Mary was born without sin doesn't mean that her mom, and her mom's mom, etc. all had to be born without sin as well. That just isn't the case.

Peace to you.

Suggesting that Mary was born without sin is another unwarranted inference.

And one doesn't even have to even speak of 'the trinity'...
 

Crucible

BANNED
Banned
The devil will emerge from the papacy, but it's not going to be Pope Francis.

Francis, in the few years he's been the Pope, has made a lot of unorthodox claims and it has gotten the attention of a considerable amount of clergy. He has more potential of being deemed an antipope than throwing the Spirit out of the church.

Most protestants, unfortunately, don't understand how the Catholic Church works, or how the Reformers came to the conclusions they did regarding the Idolatress of Babylon.

In order for the Pope to resemble anything of the sort, the Catholic Church has to first become desolate. The papacy is not an autocracy, and is not an allowance with no bounds.
 

Bard_the_Bowman

New member
It is not I that has discredited the RCC, the church has done that all on it's own. Sadly the churches that broke way did not come all the way out of her.

Sent from my A622GL using TheologyOnline mobile app

That's what I figured.

You claim that "pagan traditions were brought into the Church from the first century."

But when asked to name one....you can't.

Might be worth considering if you can specify something.

Otherwise, it looks like fallacy to me.

Peace.
 

Bard_the_Bowman

New member
Suggesting that Mary was born without sin is another unwarranted inference.

And one doesn't even have to even speak of 'the trinity'...

Well, it is an inference with quite a bit of biblical support both in the Old and New Testaments.

As far as being unwarranted...well, that's just your fallible opinion, really.

There are quite a few who disagree with you including: St. Ephraim, St. Hippolytus, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, St. Theodotus, Martin Luther...at any rate...

Christ left His Church, with His authority, with the command to teach all nations, He said He would be with it for all ages, that He would send the Holy Spirit to be with it, and that the gates of hell would not prevail against it.

His Church has the authority to teach because He set it up that way.

I'm ok with that.

Peace.
 

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
That's what I figured.

You claim that "pagan traditions were brought into the Church from the first century."

But when asked to name one....you can't.

Here is what John Henry Cardinal Newman wrote:

"The use of temples, and these dedicated to particular saints, and ornamented on occasions with branches of trees; incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness; holy water; asylums; holydays and seasons, use of calendars, processions, blessings on the fields; sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning to the East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant, and the Kyrie Eleison , are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by their adoption into the Church" (Newman, Newman Reader).​
 

Sonnet

New member
Well, it is an inference with quite a bit of biblical support both in the Old and New Testaments.

As far as being unwarranted...well, that's just your fallible opinion, really.

There are quite a few who disagree with you including: St. Ephraim, St. Hippolytus, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, St. Theodotus, Martin Luther...at any rate...

Christ left His Church, with His authority, with the command to teach all nations, He said He would be with it for all ages, that He would send the Holy Spirit to be with it, and that the gates of hell would not prevail against it.

His Church has the authority to teach because He set it up that way.

I'm ok with that.

Peace.

And this, too, is fallible opinion. There is no need to speculate about Mary because she is not a focus of the scriptures - such is given to Jesus and no other.
 

jsanford108

New member
Hello. I am new to this site, as well as to this post. Judging from your posts, as well as the original subject and title, you seem to be of a anti-catholic sentiment. Not saying that you hate them or wish them dead, but that you disagree with their teachings an doctrines.

I say that to extrapolate your most recent comment. If there is no need to focus on anything or anyone outiside of Jesus, then why have the NT letters? Why have the OT? Why have the Revalation of John? Are these all not focusing on aspects that are not Christ?

If focusing on disproving Catholic doctrines and dogmas not focusing on something other than Christ? (Granted, at this point I am veering off subject; but I wish to point out the redundancy of the aforementioned statement).

If a sermon such as Marian Devotion is losing a focus on Christ, then attention to Paul is just as unfocused.

To bring the subject back to its origin: attention given to Mary, Peter, Paul, John, etc., is giving attention to Christ. Through them, we grow in our knowledge of Christ. And Mary specifically points to the deity and humanity of Christ. To quote Tim Staples, "if you miss it on Mary, you miss it on Christ." And this is true. That is how Gnosticism and Mormanism develop. They deny various aspects of Scripture, and attributes of Mary, devolving into the sects that they belong to. To close this point, I leave a last comparison. Is attention to the Ark not a valid area of study and adoration? After all, King David did this. Mary is the new Ark. (If you want a list of comparisons and parallels, I can easily provide them). Therefore, attention and adoration to Mary is warranted and wholesome.

In Christ,

J
 

jsanford108

New member
I apologize for spelling and grammatical errors. I was composing this on my phone. I reread it after posting, and te errors were quite glaring. My fault.
 

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
Hello. I am new to this site, as well as to this post. Judging from your posts, as well as the original subject and title, you seem to be of a anti-catholic sentiment. Not saying that you hate them or wish them dead, but that you disagree with their teachings an doctrines.

Welcome, jstanford. You are right, I wish no one dead but I strongly disagree with the teaching which comes from the church at Rome.

If there is no need to focus on anything or anyone outiside of Jesus, then why have the NT letters? Why have the OT? Why have the Revalation of John? Are these all not focusing on aspects that are not Christ?

Sure, we focus our attention on other things besides the Lord Jesus in our studies. But our focus is on what the Scriptures actually say.

On the other hand, there is very little said about Mary in the Scriptures but Rome takes that scant information about her and turns a molehill into a mountain. And very little of what Rome teaches about her is supported by the Scriptures.

Did you read my Opening Post on this thread? I believe that what is said in that post proves that the Scriptures contradict what Rome teaches about Mary. Do you have anything that you might want to share with us about what I said there?

If you do then be my guest.

Thanks!
 

jsanford108

New member
First, of all the threads, yours was by far the most interesting to me. Your quotes from the saints are accurate and well placed in your argumentative points. The deductions are where I disagree. Second, if I misrepresent any of your views, feel free to correct me. And I welcome criticisms of my own points.

To the issues with your opening thread. The deductions are simply flawed extrapolations and a misunderstanding of the quotes. What is said in Scripture is undoubtedly true. Yet it aligns with the sermon quote. Christ comes from the "stem of David." Does that mean that David is our salvation? Of course not. Likewise, Christ comes from Mary. Mary is not our salvation, rather salvation comes "through" her. As it comes "through" David.

Now, please guide me into the direction you want my arguments to originate. Are you seeking a defense of Marian Doctrine, or the means by which the doctrines are founded? This knowledge will help enable me to form more helpful and direct responses.
Thank you.
 

keypurr

Well-known member
That's what I figured.

You claim that "pagan traditions were brought into the Church from the first century."

But when asked to name one....you can't.

Might be worth considering if you can specify something.

Otherwise, it looks like fallacy to me.

Peace.

2Th 2:5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
2Th 2:6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
2Th 2:7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
2Th 2:8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
2Th 2:9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
2Th 2:10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
 

keypurr

Well-known member
I apologize for spelling and grammatical errors. I was composing this on my phone. I reread it after posting, and te errors were quite glaring. My fault.

My posts are full of spelling errors. Welcome to TOL friend.

It is hard not to get personal with theology, the scriptures are not as clear cut as they could be. That's why there are so many churches. Most of them hold on to the traditions of the RCC for they are the church hat was in power in the early Christian era. It is picked on the most for it is considered the most corrupt by many people. I do not agree with their doctrines. And that is OK, they do not agree with mine also.
 

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
Now, please guide me into the direction you want my arguments to originate. Are you seeking a defense of Marian Doctrine, or the means by which the doctrines are founded? This knowledge will help enable me to form more helpful and direct responses.
Thank you.

Greetings jsanford,

Let us look again at what Rome teaches here and then please address my remarks about what Rome teaches:

"Since faith is the foundation, the source, of the gifts of God by which man is raised above the order of nature and is endowed with the dispositions requisite for life eternal, we are in justice bound to recognize the hidden influence of Mary in obtaining the gift of faith and its salutary cultivation - of Mary who brought the "author of faith" into this world and who, because of her own great faith, was called 'blessed.' 'O Virgin most holy, none abounds in the knowledge of God except through thee; none, O Mother of God, attains salvation except through thee; none receives a gift from the throne of mercy except through thee" (ADIUTRICEM (On the Rosary), Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII, promulgated on September 5, 1895).​

Here we see that Rome teaches that no one can have the knowledge of God EXCEPT THROUGH HER.

Since it is by "faith" that a person comes to the knowledge of God then Rome is teaching that no one can have faith except through Mary and hence no one can be saved except through her. That is why we read:

"None, O Mother of God, attains salvation except through thee."

That idea is directly contradicted by what Peter said here:

"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. This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved"
(Acts 4:10-12).​

Please tell me why I should believe that no one can be saved except through Mary since Peter said that there is salvation in no one else but the Lord Jesus Christ.

Thanks!
 
Last edited:

Bard_the_Bowman

New member
Here is what John Henry Cardinal Newman wrote:

"The use of temples, and these dedicated to particular saints, and ornamented on occasions with branches of trees; incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness; holy water; asylums; holydays and seasons, use of calendars, processions, blessings on the fields; sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning to the East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant, and the Kyrie Eleison , are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by their adoption into the Church" (Newman, Newman Reader).​

Hey Jerry,

Cool.

And what was Newman’s point?

That Christ’s Church has been muddied, corrupted and polluted with paganism?

Nope.

The exact opposite.

He even says it right there at the end of the passage you quoted:

those things are “…sanctified by their adoption into the Church.”

Take wedding rings, for example. Are Christians who wear wedding rings engaging in paganism?

Are they polluting their worship of God by doing that?

Is God offended?

Nah.

What a great read, though. Thanks for bringing that up.

When we read the passages surrounding the part you quoted we find out that when Newman acknowledges similarities between Christianity and paganism, he doesn’t conclude (as some do) that Christianity has been polluted. He concludes that things are made acceptable to God:

“Such is the general nature of the fact before us; Mr. Milman argues from it,—'These things are in heathenism, therefore they are not Christian:' we, on the contrary, prefer to say, 'these things are in Christianity, therefore they are not heathen.'” (http://www.newmanreader.org/works/development/chapter8.html#grace)

“There is in truth a certain virtue or grace in the Gospel which changes the quality of doctrines, opinions, usages, actions, and personal characters when incorporated with it, and makes them right and acceptable to its Divine Author, whereas before they were either infected with evil, or at best but shadows of the truth. This is the principle, above spoken of, which I have called the Sacramental.” (http://www.newmanreader.org/works/development/chapter8.html#grace)

Peace.
 

Zeke

Well-known member
Galatians 4:20-28 also depicts the two Mother theme one of flesh/matter and the other of Sou/Spirit which is why Matt 11:11 is a revelation that supports the Jesus motif represents the inner man born from above not physical.
In the Gospel drama John the Baptist enacts the role of the first-born or natural man, coming first to prepare the physical ground of evolution for the advent of the second Adam, or Christ. He would therefore stand in the allegory as the son of the Water Mother, Virgo, and under the astrological symbolism would be born at the autumn equinox, or in his mother’s house, which stands as that station in the zodiac. On the other side of the cycle of descent, "death" and resurrection, would stand Jesus, the Christos, son of the Fish Mother, born in his mother’s house of the Fishes. These houses are six months apart on the zodiacal chart!

Hence the whole edifice of Gospel historicity trembles under the impact of the strange dramatic circumstance, given in the first chapter of Luke’s Gospel, that the Annunciation to Mary of her conception of the coming Christ by the Holy Spirit came in the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy with John the Baptist. So we can see what the myth-makers devised for discerning intelligence in the allegory in Luke. The natural man, having covered the zodiacal "six months" between his conception and the date of his quickening into spiritual status in his evolution, was dramatized as being "quickened" at a point exactly opposite from the point of the beginning of his life. Six months on the chart would mark the end of an epoch begun opposite it. Six months, speaking purely zodiacally, would terminate the period of mortal life and bring the natural man to the place of his deification. At that point he would be represented as being quickened from natural to spiritual life. So then, according to the Lukan account, when the mother of the true spiritual Christ, who had just been impregnated by the Holy Ghost, came into the presence of the first mother, carrying her child at the figurative completion of his cycle of physical evolution, and awaiting only the advent of the spiritual Lord to be quickened into a new order of exalted being, he was dramatized as manifesting this reawakening by the statement that "he leaped in his mother’s womb." The Luke narration makes it clear that the conception of Jesus had just taken place when Mary visited her cousin Elizabeth and found her at the six months stage of her pregnancy. Mary’s coming

19

into the presence of Elizabeth is made the occasion of the natural man’s leaping in his mother’s womb. When the Christos comes to the natural man the latter leaps into the higher kingdom of spirit.

It is but a simple matter of arithmetic to note that the last three months of Elizabeth’s pregnancy with John coincided with the first three of Mary’s pregnancy with Jesus, bringing the birth of Jesus just six months after that of John! So Luke has it. But it was in the zodiacal chart some thousands of years before it could have "happened" in Judea. It had occurred zodiacally long before it could have occurred historically. And the implication is overmastering that the supposed historical occurrence is but a presumption of ignorance based on the zodiacal when that became circulated as history among the unintelligent masses.

The final link of significant data, now to be presented is by no means a minor one. St. Paul declares that we come to birth spiritually only as we die carnally, meaning that the quantum or quality of divine character in us grows in proportion as the quantum of raw nature decreases. We increase deifically as we decrease humanly; the god gains in power as the animal dies. So the structure of the allegory depicted the spiritual
man, Jesus, son of Nun, the "Fish," as increasing, while John, son of Virgo, the Water Mother, decreases in stature. Astrologically, as a star or constellation sinks below the horizon in the west, its opposite star or constellation would be rising in the east. As John, type of the first, the natural man, went down (having completed his mission of preparing the way for his greater successor), Jesus, type of the spiritual birth, rose on the world. So the narrative has John saying: "I must decrease, but he must increase." In the descent of soul into the body spiritual power decreases as physical life increases. But on the reverse arc of the cycle, or evolution, the physical (John) decreases as the Christ power increases in its new round of growth. Mans two births Alvin Boyd Kuhn
 

Bard_the_Bowman

New member
Why can't those who attend the church at Rome understand that salvation comes from the Lord Jesus Christ alone?

"... It is the divine name that alone brings salvation, and henceforth all can invoke his name, for Jesus united himself to all men through his Incarnation, so that "there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 432)

It is pretty clear that you are wrong.

The Catholic Church doesn't teach what you mistakenly think that it does.

Peace.
 
Top