T
Tim_Kirchoff
Guest
Don’t forget to pray for yourself.
- Status
D
dpgreen
Guest
geocities.com/Athens/Atrium/8410/kecharitomene.html
Perhaps Sellers could look at the above link and use his expertise in Greek to dispel the myth that Mary had sin, because you seem incapable of dispelling the myth that Mary and Joseph had relations after they came together (they were actually already married when the angel appeared - no engagements in ancient times). Better luck with this one
Perhaps Sellers could look at the above link and use his expertise in Greek to dispel the myth that Mary had sin, because you seem incapable of dispelling the myth that Mary and Joseph had relations after they came together (they were actually already married when the angel appeared - no engagements in ancient times). Better luck with this one
D
dpgreen
Guest
Show me where in the Catechism that the CC teaches that Christ’s sacrifice was not all sufficient, needing nothing from us. If you cannot find the source of your accusations, I will have to assume that it is pseudo-knowledge, ignorance or just plain anti-Catholicism parroting the likes of Swaggart, Boettner, Chick, Green, White etc.
H
happilycatholic
Guest
Thanks jpaul. It’s not me. I can’t take credit. The Holy Spirtit has a message and I am just a messenger. I am hurt when people say such things about our Blessed Mother. I can’t wrap my mind around why people can’t see her as God does.
G
guanophore
Guest
You have made some false statements and some true. No, the word does not mean what it seems to imply to you. How do we know this?
You are right, we understand the Scritpure in the light of the faith that was committed to the Church by the Apostles. You are also right that Truth does not need to be “bent to fit”. The Faith received by the Church “once for all” makes it clear that Jesus was the only child of Mary, therefore, this passage cannot mean what you believe it “implies” because there is no contradiction between what the Church believes and what she has written in the NT.
You understand the passage differently because you have been unable to keep the Apostolic commandment to preserve the traditions. Your spiritual ancestors separated themselves from these about 5 centuries ago, and that is why you have had no access to them.
H
happilycatholic
Guest
Sellers,
Let me try to simplify the catholic POV about our Blessed Virgin Mother:
We believe in the Trinity.
We believe that Christ is one part of the Trinity.
We believe that the Father and the Holy Spirit are the other two parts of the Trinity.
We do not believe you can separate the Trinity and Heaven. (There is never a time when God is not in Heaven)
We believe that Mary is the mother of Christ and therefore the mother of all three parts of the Trinity.
Since the Trinity can’t be separated from Heaven, we believe that Mary was chosen by God to be a mother in Heaven, not an earthly mother. God has never left Heaven and so when Mary became Christ’s mother, she became a mother in Heaven. Unless of course you *can *separate God from Heaven.
I don’t see how you could come to any other conclusion. By accepting God’s message from Gabriel, Mary was in communion with the Holy Spirit and therefore Heaven, all the Angels and Saints and everything that is Heaven.
Now, I don’t know about you, but I’ve always been taught that Heaven is not in communion with anything that is impure and since Mary would have been considered impure upon giving up her virginity to become and earthly mother or to fulfill some wifely duty, she would have been impure.
Think about that for a moment.
None of that is assumption. It’s all in Scripture. The assumption would be that Mary at some point gave up her virginity and became impure for earthly purposes. Why would a Heavenly mother do that?
As a protestant, don’t you need to find proof in Scripture that Mary was anything other than a Heavenly mother before you just assume that Mary gave up her Heavenly motherhood? Or do protestants have (T)raditions afterall? That would have been a big deal. Where is that? Show me where anyone can be in communion with Heaven through the Holy Spirit and be unpure, please.
Show me where I’m wrong.
Let me try to simplify the catholic POV about our Blessed Virgin Mother:
We believe in the Trinity.
We believe that Christ is one part of the Trinity.
We believe that the Father and the Holy Spirit are the other two parts of the Trinity.
We do not believe you can separate the Trinity and Heaven. (There is never a time when God is not in Heaven)
We believe that Mary is the mother of Christ and therefore the mother of all three parts of the Trinity.
Since the Trinity can’t be separated from Heaven, we believe that Mary was chosen by God to be a mother in Heaven, not an earthly mother. God has never left Heaven and so when Mary became Christ’s mother, she became a mother in Heaven. Unless of course you *can *separate God from Heaven.
I don’t see how you could come to any other conclusion. By accepting God’s message from Gabriel, Mary was in communion with the Holy Spirit and therefore Heaven, all the Angels and Saints and everything that is Heaven.
Now, I don’t know about you, but I’ve always been taught that Heaven is not in communion with anything that is impure and since Mary would have been considered impure upon giving up her virginity to become and earthly mother or to fulfill some wifely duty, she would have been impure.
Think about that for a moment.
None of that is assumption. It’s all in Scripture. The assumption would be that Mary at some point gave up her virginity and became impure for earthly purposes. Why would a Heavenly mother do that?
As a protestant, don’t you need to find proof in Scripture that Mary was anything other than a Heavenly mother before you just assume that Mary gave up her Heavenly motherhood? Or do protestants have (T)raditions afterall? That would have been a big deal. Where is that? Show me where anyone can be in communion with Heaven through the Holy Spirit and be unpure, please.
Show me where I’m wrong.
G
guanophore
Guest
This much is Catholic.
This much is not. I think a study of the early heresies, and the council of Ephesus will make it clear that Theotokos (Mother of God) applies to being the mother of Jesus, the second person of the Trinity.
The Church teaches that humans do not exist before the moment of conception. The Church also teaches that the Trinity cannot be separated, but that Jesus “emptied Himself” of His divine perogatives in order to take form in the likeness of humanity. Mary is not considered the Mother of Father God, but she is considered the Spouse of the Holy Spirit.
Certainly she was at the time of the Annunciation, but not prior to her conception.
The way this is stated, it makes it sound as if giving up virginity or fulfulling a wifely duty is impure in itself. I think we will all agree that marriage is a sacrament, and that the role of a wife and mother is also blessed and pure. However, Mary was a consecrated vessel, and it would be a sacriledge to take what has been consecrated and apply it to daily use.
It is NOT all in scripture. In fact, the word Trinity is not in scripture. Mary did not become “heavenly” until she was assumed.
No, because her motherhood was earthly. It certainly did have eternal consequences (value), but it did not occur in heaven before it occurred here on earth.
Yes, Protestants have many traditions, that of Sola Scriptura being one of the most insidious.
I think you are trying to say that Mary having other children after Jesus would have made her “impure”. However, I think the concept you are basing this on is erroneous.
I did my best.
S
Sellers1
Guest
No No No. It’s on you to prove the Marian dogma that she was perpetually virgin when Scripture says nothing of the sort. Nobody else is making this claim except you.geocities.com/Athens/Atrium/8410/kecharitomene.html
Perhaps Sellers could look at the above link and use his expertise in Greek to dispel the myth that Mary had sin, because you seem incapable of dispelling the myth that Mary and Joseph had relations after they came together (they were actually already married when the angel appeared - no engagements in ancient times). Better luck with this one
S
Sellers1
Guest
As often as I can.
S
Sellers1
Guest
Respond to those Catholics here who have stated time and again that faith in Christ is not enough.
G
guanophore
Guest
This is false on two counts, Sellers. It is not up to us to prove a dogma. A dogma states what God has revealed to the Church. The revelation of God is not subject to human proofs. It is not a subject of science, but a disclosure from the Divine. I submit that all such divine mysteries defy our human understanding of “proof”. Furthermore, it is you that is departing from what the Church Jesus founded has believed and taught for 2000 years. Since you are the one innovating a “different gospel” from the one that was committed to the Church by the Apostles, then it seems to me that you are the one who is in position to justify this view. It would be considered heresy by the Apostles, so that is quite a burden.No No No. It’s on you to prove the Marian dogma that she was perpetually virgin when Scripture says nothing of the sort. Nobody else is making this claim except you.
And still more, this “claim” is made by all Churches founded by the Apostles, including those not in union with Rome. Go to the Orthodox and Eastern Orientals and try to convince them of your modern innovation. Then come back and let us know how that went.
When Catholics read scripture, we do so in the light of what was committed to the Church by the Apostles. Protestants are separated from this deposit of faith, since their ancestors jettisoned the Sacred Traditions about 500 years ago. There is no way that you could have known what they were, and that is no fault of your own.
G
guanophore
Guest
I think you misunderstand the Apostolic Teaching on the relationship between faith and works, Sellers. We do say that faith in Christ is enough. However, we may have a different understanding of the NATURE of that faith. The Apostles taught that this is not a faith that is only professed with the intellect, heart, will, and mouth (although all those things are also true) but that without works, it is 'dead". It is as though works are the glove which is animated by saving faith. The glove does not move without grace, through faith, yet when it is filled with grace, through faith, it takes form and function, and is animated. Just as the body without the soul is dead, so is faith without works dead.
We believe in a faith that works, that endures until the end, and we believe that a faith that does not work, or endure, is not a saving faith.
So you see, it is not that we don’t believe faith in Christ is “enough”, it is that we embrace the Apostolic Teaching on the NATURE of that faith. It is never separated from the holy works that it produces. That is why we never say “faith alone”. Faith is always accompanied by hope and love.
1 Cor 13:12-14:1
13 So faith, hope, love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.
Have you never considered why, if faith was the most essential for salvation, why it is not the greatest?
S
Sellers1
Guest
No, I understand what St. Paul and St. James are saying the New Testament regarding faith and works. I am refuting the spin your church has put on it.I think you misunderstand the Apostolic Teaching on the relationship between faith and works, Sellers. We do say that faith in Christ is enough. However, we may have a different understanding of the NATURE of that faith. The Apostles taught that this is not a faith that is only professed with the intellect, heart, will, and mouth (although all those things are also true) but that without works, it is 'dead". It is as though works are the glove which is animated by saving faith. The glove does not move without grace, through faith, yet when it is filled with grace, through faith, it takes form and function, and is animated. Just as the body without the soul is dead, so is faith without works dead.
We believe in a faith that works, that endures until the end, and we believe that a faith that does not work, or endure, is not a saving faith.
So you see, it is not that we don’t believe faith in Christ is “enough”, it is that we embrace the Apostolic Teaching on the NATURE of that faith. It is never separated from the holy works that it produces. That is why we never say “faith alone”. Faith is always accompanied by hope and love.
1 Cor 13:12-14:1
13 So faith, hope, love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.
Have you never considered why, if faith was the most essential for salvation, why it is not the greatest?
H
happilycatholic
Guest
H
happilycatholic
Guest
I think we need to pray for the souls of those who pass judgement in spite of the Commandment.
H
happilycatholic
Guest
Hail Mary full of grace the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women, blessed is the fruit of thy womb Jesus.
Holy, Mary Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. Amen.
There is that.
Holy, Mary Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. Amen.
There is that.
S
Sellers1
Guest
This is false on two counts, Sellers. It is not up to us to prove a dogma.
A dogma states what God has revealed to the Church. The revelation of God is not subject to human proofs.
It is not a subject of science, but a disclosure from the Divine.
I submit that all such divine mysteries defy our human understanding of “proof”. Furthermore, it is you that is departing from what the Church Jesus founded has believed and taught for 2000 years. Since you are the one innovating a “different gospel” from the one that was committed to the Church by the Apostles, then it seems to me that you are the one who is in position to justify this view. It would be considered heresy by the Apostles, so that is quite a burden.
And still more, this “claim” is made by all Churches founded by the Apostles, including those not in union with Rome. Go to the Orthodox and Eastern Orientals and try to convince them of your modern innovation. Then come back and let us know how that went.
When Catholics read scripture, we do so in the light of what was committed to the Church by the Apostles.
Protestants are separated from this deposit of faith, since their ancestors jettisoned the Sacred Traditions about 500 years ago. There is no way that you could have known what they were, and that is no fault of your own.
.
H
happilycatholic
Guest
Mary and God’s eternal plan:
This is from Catholic Encyclopedia:
The term conception does not mean the active or generative conception by her parents. Her body was formed in the womb of the mother, and the father had the usual share in its formation. The question does not concern the immaculateness of the generative activity of her parents. Neither does it concern the passive conception absolutely and simply (conceptio seminis carnis, inchoata), which, according to the order of nature, precedes the infusion of the rational soul. The person is truly conceived when the soul is created and infused into the body. Mary was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin at the first moment of her animation, and sanctifying grace was given to her before sin could have taken effect in her soul.
In other words, not her *human *conception.
Also:
No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture. But the first scriptural passage which contains the promise of the redemption, mentions also the Mother of the Redeemer. The sentence against the first parents was accompanied by the Earliest Gospel (Proto-evangelium), which put enmity between the serpent and the woman: “and I will put enmity between thee and the woman and her seed; she (he) shall crush thy head and thou shalt lie in wait for her (his) heel” (Genesis 3:15). The translation “she” of the Vulgate is interpretative; it originated after the fourth century, and cannot be defended critically. The conqueror from the seed of the woman, who should crush the serpent’s head, is Christ; the woman at enmity with the serpent is Mary. God puts enmity between her and Satan in the same manner and measure, as there is enmity between Christ and the seed of the serpent. Mary was ever to be in that exalted state of soul which the serpent had destroyed in man, i.e. in sanctifying grace. Only the continual union of Mary with grace explains sufficiently the enmity between her and Satan. The Proto-evangelium, therefore, in the original text contains a direct promise of the Redeemer, and in conjunction therewith the manifestation of the masterpiece of His Redemption, the perfect preservation of His virginal Mother from original sin.
This proves God’s *eternal *plan for Mary and how she was in communion with the Holy Spirit and therefore Heaven. God could not have put enmity between her and Satan if it were not to be eternal, for ever and ever.
This is from Catholic Encyclopedia:
The term conception does not mean the active or generative conception by her parents. Her body was formed in the womb of the mother, and the father had the usual share in its formation. The question does not concern the immaculateness of the generative activity of her parents. Neither does it concern the passive conception absolutely and simply (conceptio seminis carnis, inchoata), which, according to the order of nature, precedes the infusion of the rational soul. The person is truly conceived when the soul is created and infused into the body. Mary was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin at the first moment of her animation, and sanctifying grace was given to her before sin could have taken effect in her soul.
In other words, not her *human *conception.
Also:
No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture. But the first scriptural passage which contains the promise of the redemption, mentions also the Mother of the Redeemer. The sentence against the first parents was accompanied by the Earliest Gospel (Proto-evangelium), which put enmity between the serpent and the woman: “and I will put enmity between thee and the woman and her seed; she (he) shall crush thy head and thou shalt lie in wait for her (his) heel” (Genesis 3:15). The translation “she” of the Vulgate is interpretative; it originated after the fourth century, and cannot be defended critically. The conqueror from the seed of the woman, who should crush the serpent’s head, is Christ; the woman at enmity with the serpent is Mary. God puts enmity between her and Satan in the same manner and measure, as there is enmity between Christ and the seed of the serpent. Mary was ever to be in that exalted state of soul which the serpent had destroyed in man, i.e. in sanctifying grace. Only the continual union of Mary with grace explains sufficiently the enmity between her and Satan. The Proto-evangelium, therefore, in the original text contains a direct promise of the Redeemer, and in conjunction therewith the manifestation of the masterpiece of His Redemption, the perfect preservation of His virginal Mother from original sin.
This proves God’s *eternal *plan for Mary and how she was in communion with the Holy Spirit and therefore Heaven. God could not have put enmity between her and Satan if it were not to be eternal, for ever and ever.
H
happilycatholic
Guest
Sellers,
Prove Mary was not ever virgin. Same thing. You have yet to show us where the word until illudes to any change after the birth of Christ. You are going on your own assumptions. At least we can say that we are not using our own interpretation of Scripture as our only source of faith.
You are using your version of The Bible According to Sellers.
We on the other hand are using the Bible according to 2000 years of Tradition. I’ll take the Tradition. Thanks.
Oh and by the way, at least I didn’t call into question the state of your soul. That’s pretty harsh and sometimes gets you kicked off this forum.
Prove Mary was not ever virgin. Same thing. You have yet to show us where the word until illudes to any change after the birth of Christ. You are going on your own assumptions. At least we can say that we are not using our own interpretation of Scripture as our only source of faith.
You are using your version of The Bible According to Sellers.
We on the other hand are using the Bible according to 2000 years of Tradition. I’ll take the Tradition. Thanks.
Oh and by the way, at least I didn’t call into question the state of your soul. That’s pretty harsh and sometimes gets you kicked off this forum.
H
happilycatholic
Guest
Sellers: "So then it is your position that no Protestants at all know what the ancient Christian traditions are. I’ll bet many in the Anglican Communion would have a serious problem with that statement "
No, it’s actually the position that you deny most of them.
You can read the Traditions of the Apostles in Scripture and *know *what they are. That doesn’t mean you’re going to follow them as you are told to do.
No, it’s actually the position that you deny most of them.
You can read the Traditions of the Apostles in Scripture and *know *what they are. That doesn’t mean you’re going to follow them as you are told to do.
- Status