co-mediatrix

[mrS4ntA]

excatholic:

Would you believe the Jewish canon and Flavius Josephus, or would anything change your mind?

what on earth are Jewish canon and Flavius Josephus?

What he’s trying to get at is the fact that the Catholic Church’s Council (post-Constantine Church, mind) determined which books were canon (God-breathed or Scripture) and which were not. Especially since at that time (4th-5th century), there were only copies of the manuscripts, not original ones.

Now if you say the Church is corrupt, why believe that a document (Bible) issued by this corrupt Church as inerrant?

 

[Todd_Easton]

excatholic:

Would you believe the Jewish canon and Flavius Josephus, or would anything change your mind?

The Pharisees at the Jewish Council of Jamnia about A.D. 90, who fixed the canon of Sacred Scripture for the Jews, excluded from the canon of Sacred Scripture the deuterocanonical books as well as all the New Testament books. If they were wrong about all the New Testament books, is it not also possible that they were wrong about the deuterocanonical books? Flavius Josephus was not a Christian; why should his opinion about what is or is not Sacred Scripture according to the Jews matter for a Christian? What matters for a Christian is what early Christians accepted as Sacred Scripture and, along with the books of the New Testament, they accepted the Greek-language Septuagint, which included the deutrocanonical books.

 

[beng]

excatholic:

Would you believe the Jewish canon and Flavius Josephus, or would anything change your mind?

Why would I believe an authority that is not from God and an authoirty who has rejected God?

The Jews didn’t have any Canon for so long after Christ’ death.

Beside, who gives you the table of content for your New Testament?

 

[mtr01]

excatholic:

Remeber I was Catholic:Mary as Co-redeemer and Mediatria: Catholics speak of Mary as the co-redeemer of humanity. They offer a number of arguments in support of this idea. For example, Mary’s very agreement to bear in her womb the human-divine Messiah shows a cooperation on her part with (and a taking part in) the divine plan of humankind’s redemption.For this reason, the Second Vatican Council tells us, a number of the early church fathers asserted that “the knot of Eve’s disobedience was untied by Mary’s obedience: what the virgin Eve bound through her disbelief, Mary loosened by her faith.” Comparing Mary with Eve, they claim: “death through Eve, life through Mary”. Moreover, Mary is often portrayed as offering her son to the Father on Golgotha. Hence, it is argued. Mary played a pivotal role in the redemption of humankind. She is thus referred to as “co-redeniptor” Let me know if you want my (name removed by moderator)ut about scriptural.

This is very fine research indeed, however you have not answered my question. Once you do, tell me how the above contradicts the title, and why you think the title is refuted by Scripture.

 

[mrS4ntA]

mtr01:

This is very fine research indeed, however you have not answered my question. Once you do, tell me how the above contradicts the title, and why you think the title is refuted by Scripture.

He’ll probably quote, “I am the way, the truth, the life … no one comes to the Father except through me,” which is taken way out of its actual meaning in terms of Mary’s co-redemptive and mediative roles…

 

[maklavan]

“There is only one mediator between God and man,and that is Jesus”(Timothy)

marineboy:

the Church does teach that Mary is the co-redemtric–co meaning with–the Church has taught this in many encyclicals—it has not be extraordinarily defined but it is still infallible because it has been taught by the ordinary magisterium for a constant period of time—the grwoing controversy is whether the doctrine should be defined extraordinarily—so as Catholics ur obligated to believe in this --please see ludwig ott’s book Fundamentals of catholic dogma

 

[beng]

“There is only one mediator between God and man,and that is Jesus”(Timothy)

Strawman.

 

[maklavan]

It is amazing how some people will try to bully others into accepting their views by using the idea that “the Church has spoken”.
In fact, there are few things that Catholics are obliged to believe. I do not have to believe, for example, that Mary appeared at Lourdes or Fatima or anywhere elsedepite thes ebeing popular beliefs.Even infallibility is limited to very few ex cathedra pronouncements e.g. the 4 dogmas on the Mother of God. even the pope can err in his ordinary teaching or writing ,and many did .
The magisterium proclaimed, inter alia, the earth is flat, the earth is the centre of the universe,sex is sinful even in marriage. Anyone believing these ideas today would be treated with pity.You will not win people over by telling them what they MUST believe, but only by showing the what they should believe.

 

[beng]

maklavan:

It is amazing how some people will try to bully others into accepting their views by using the idea that “the Church has spoken”.
In fact, there are few things that Catholics are obliged to believe. I do not have to believe, for example, that Mary appeared at Lourdes or Fatima or anywhere elsedepite thes ebeing popular beliefs.Even infallibility is limited to very few ex cathedra pronouncements e.g. the 4 dogmas on the Mother of God. even the pope can err in his ordinary teaching or writing ,and many did .

The doctrine of Mary mediatrix has strong root in ancient Tradtion and it’s a constant teaching of the Church. It’s not infallible YET. It’s not some apparitions that have zero binding power.

The magisterium proclaimed, inter alia, the earth is flat, the earth is the centre of the universe,sex is sinful even in marriage. Anyone believing these ideas today would be treated with pity.

Those have no binding power.

You will not win people over by telling them what they MUST believe, but only by showing the what they should believe.

The truth is not up to individual so that they could decide whether they want to accept it or not.

 

[DianJo]

I went to that website and read the posts and some there are contributing her position as Queen of Heaven as to being the “wife of God”. On this point, you can explain to them that it was a common thing for kings (married or unmarried) of countries to make their mothers “Queen Mother”.

If he was married, his wife would be THE queen but his mother would still be considered “queen mother”. If the king were, however, unmarried, his mother would be queen. The queen mother always defers to the king. People of the kingdom would frequently go the queen mother to ask her to convince her son, the king, for whatever they needed or wanted. They could, of course, themselves go directly to the king and ask but the thinking was that if they could get the queen mother on their side, they’d have a much better chance of having their needs or requests met.

In England, Queen Elizabeth’s mother was known as the Queen Mother (she was mother to Elizabeth as Mary is mother to Jesus). So, Mary’s position is not because of God the Father and being his wife, but God the Son for being his mother.
Mary is daughter to God (not wife), mother to Jesus the King (therefore she is Queen Mother), and spouse to the Holy Spirit.

Hope this tidbit helps.

 

[Church_Militant]

Point out that the kings of isreal never made their wives the Queen
Solomon instituted the position of “Giberah”, or Queen Mother.
Her function was to intercede with the king for the poor & needy. She sat on a throne right beside him.

If (as the Bible says) Jesus is the Messiah & King of Kings…that makes His mother, the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Queen Mother as well. It’s especially obvious at the wedding feast in Cana. Mary quietly interceded for the couple & then told the servants the very same thing that she has been saying in every Marian apparition :“Do whatever He tells you.”

Pax Tecum

 

[mrS4ntA]

maklavan:

…
In fact, there are few things that Catholics are obliged to believe.

Not true. There are many tenets of our Faith; if all the dogmas of the Catholic Faith is to be listed and explained, it will take a set of encyclopediae!

The doctrine of the Trinity is an infallible dogma.
The canon of the Bible is another.
The forgiveness of sins, the seven sacraments, the communion of saints, etc etc.

Even infallibility is limited to very few ex cathedra pronouncements e.g. the 4 dogmas on the Mother of God.

Says who? ex-cathedra pronouncement is from the Pope and falls into the category of extra-ordinary infallible authority.

What is taught by the ordinary magisterium is also infallible: it’s an ordinary infallible authority.

The magisterium proclaimed, inter alia, the earth is flat, the earth is the centre of the universe,sex is sinful even in marriage.

scientific teachings is not of faith and moral and not binding. The magisterium certainly never infallibly proclaimed those teachings!

 

[maklavan]

Quote; “The magisterium certainly never proclaimed those teachings”

Try telling Galileo that!

 

[beng]

maklavan:

Quote; “The magisterium certainly never proclaimed those teachings”

Try telling Galileo that!

Search for sources and come back tom me.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Try telling Galileo that

Sigh. Another poster who has absolutely no idea what the Church said of and to Gallileo, and why.

And I suppose that the Reformation started because the nasty old Catholics were impeding freedom of thought, withholding Bibles from the people, and blocking “science”.

Sure.

 

[mtr01]

Tantum ergo:

Sigh. Another poster who has absolutely no idea what the Church said of and to Gallileo, and why.

The thing that many people don’t know (and I’ll confess surprised when when I researched it) is that the Church was actually correct in its decision concerning Gallileo.
Tantum ergo:

And I suppose that the Reformation started because the nasty old Catholics were impeding freedom of thought, withholding Bibles from the people, and blocking “science”.

Sure.

Of course :whacky:

 

[joehar]

. Mary. The Catholic Church gives honor and adoration to Mary that the Scriptures do not; she is readily referred to as “holy,” the “Mother of God,” and has been dubbed the “Co-Redemtrix,” thereby making her an object of idolatrous worship (e.g., the rosary has ten prayers to Mary for each two directed to God). In 1923, Pope Pius XI sanctioned Pope Benedict XV’s (1914-1922) pronouncement that Mary suffered with Christ, and that with Him, she redeemed the human race. And Pope Pius XII officially designated Mary the “Queen of Heaven” and “Queen of the World.” Catholics claim not only that Mary was perfectly sinless from conception, even as Jesus was (doctrine of Immaculate Conception, proclaimed by Pope Pius IX in 1854), but that the reason she never sinned at any time during her life was because she was unable to sin (cf. Luke 1:46,47; Romans 3:10, 23, 5:12; Hebrews 4:15; 1 John 1:8, 10). Catholics also believe that Mary was a perpetual virgin (cf. Psalm 69:8; Matthew 1:24-25, 13:54-56; Mark 6:3; John 7:5), and that she was assumed, body and soul, into heaven (doctrine of Assumption of Mary, declared ex cathedra by Pope Pius XII in November of 1950 – that Mary was raised from the dead on the third day after her death, and anyone who refuses to believe this has committed a mortal sin). The consequence of all this veneration of Mary, in effect, establishes her authority above Christ’s – Rome says, “He came to us through Mary and we must go to Him through her.” All this is so obviously idolatrous, one wonders why Catholics take offense when their religious affections are called cultic. And also
The Bible says:
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.
-1 Timothy 2:5 (KJV) Jesus Christ of Nazareth… 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 (KJV)

 

[fcfahs]

Would one (or more) of the Catholic “heavy hitters” on this forum please
reply to post #37, submitted by joehar. As a Roman Catholic, I find this
post rather disturbing, particularly after I reviewed the scripture verses he
referenced to support his argument.

Thanks,

Frank

 

[MaggieOH]

excatholic:

Would you believe the Jewish canon and Flavius Josephus, or would anything change your mind?

I would certainly not believe Flavius Josephus. One commentary I have on his works indicates that he was rather puffed up. I have two copies of his works. One is the unabridged complete works and the other is “The Jewish Wars”. It is the commentary that is written for the latter translation that indicates that Josephus is not a trusted source for information.

As to the Jewish canon? Well, this does not exist. The men who met at Jamnia were not there in an official capacity and they did not have the authority to decide the canon of Scripture. They met after the sacking of Jerusalem, and they had ulterior motives when they chose to remove those books that indicated that the Romans were invited to come into Jerusalem. Also they did not want to admit anything that pointed to Christ as the Messiah, or any manuscript that was written in the Greek, even if it was inspired. Since this meeting occurred after Christ, the authority that they originally had was already taken from them, thus whatever they decided at Jamnia has no force for the Christian community.

Maggie

 

[MaggieOH]

. Mary. The Catholic Church gives honor and adoration to Mary that the Scriptures do not; she is readily referred to as “holy,” the “Mother of God,” and has been dubbed the “Co-Redemtrix,” thereby making her an object of idolatrous worship (e.g., the rosary has ten prayers to Mary for each two directed to God). In 1923, Pope Pius XI sanctioned Pope Benedict XV’s (1914-1922) pronouncement that Mary suffered with Christ, and that with Him, she redeemed the human race. And Pope Pius XII officially designated Mary the “Queen of Heaven” and “Queen of the World.” Catholics claim not only that Mary was perfectly sinless from conception, even as Jesus was (doctrine of Immaculate Conception, proclaimed by Pope Pius IX in 1854), but that the reason she never sinned at any time during her life was because she was unable to sin (cf. Luke 1:46,47; Romans 3:10, 23, 5:12; Hebrews 4:15; 1 John 1:8, 10). Catholics also believe that Mary was a perpetual virgin (cf. Psalm 69:8; Matthew 1:24-25, 13:54-56; Mark 6:3; John 7:5), and that she was assumed, body and soul, into heaven (doctrine of Assumption of Mary, declared ex cathedra by Pope Pius XII in November of 1950 – that Mary was raised from the dead on the third day after her death, and anyone who refuses to believe this has committed a mortal sin). The consequence of all this veneration of Mary, in effect, establishes her authority above Christ’s – Rome says, “He came to us through Mary and we must go to Him through her.” All this is so obviously idolatrous, one wonders why Catholics take offense when their religious affections are called cultic. And also

• The Bible says: For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. -1 Timothy 2:5 (KJV) Jesus Christ of Nazareth… 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 (KJV)

Each and every doctrine concerning Mary is a doctrine that is not Marian in intent, but is Christological. One of the earliest doctrines to be declared is that of Theotokos, or Mary Mother of God. This doctrine was in response to a heresy that denied the divinity of Jesus Christ. There is Scriptural support for this doctrine in the Gospel of Luke: "How is it that the Mother of my Lord comes to me?’ (Lk 1:43) It is clear even from this small verse from the text that Elizabeth is referring to God, as “My Lord”, so yes the Scripture is very explicit in naming Mary as Mother of God. But wait there is more that can be taken from the Scripture, especially the Gospel of Luke:

“You shall conceive and bear a son and you shall call him Jesus. He will be great and shall rightly be called Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the kingdom of David, his ancestor; he will rule over the people of Jacob forever, and his reign shall have no end.” (Luke 1:31-33)

When one denies that Mary is Theotokos then one is also accepting the Nestorian heresy, or I should say the neo-Nestorian heresy, for what we have today is the denial of Mary as the Mother of God, and subsequently the denial that Jesus is both human and divine, that is Jesus is God. Yet the Scripture states clearly that Jesus is “Emmanuel” that is “God is with us” or as John the Evangelist wrote:

“In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was with God, and the Word was God; he was in the beginning with God… And the word was made flesh…” (John 1:1, 14)

When the Church Fathers discerned the doctrine of Theotokos, they were discerning the Truth within the Scripture, that Jesus is God, and that it was God who became man and dwelt amongst us. That is why in the Apostles Creed we recognize that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, was born of the Virgin Mary and was made man.