Mary, co-redeemer and co-mediator

  • Thread starter Thread starter justaccord
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
ScottH:
Your problem is that you should read them sometime.
You presume that you know me? Another fallacy promoted by anti-Catholics is that Catholics don’t read Scripture. FYI - Scripture is central to Catholicism and I personally read from them each day.

You might be best off casting your presumptions aside.
 
Last I checked the minds of men on an individual level were too ignorant to follow the message for a mere 2000 years without changing the meaning. ie Protestants in regards to Real Presence, contraception, homosexuality, Salvation, Rapture, Forgiveness of Sins, Baptism, etc.
 
40.png
ScottH:
No, but you think they are capable of super-human discernment on all things.
If you are referring to infallible teaching, that comes from the Holy Spirit. Careful who you bash.
 
40.png
ScottH:
Your problem is that you should read them sometime.
During mass we have three seperate readings from the missal. I myself am trying very hard to read three chapters a day-hard to do with four kids. I think that most people on this board read their bibles, so it isn’t a book that we are unfamiliar with.

Hmm…we seem to be wandering off topic again. Can we go back to Mary?
 
40.png
Titanites:
You presume that you know me? Another fallacy promoted by anti-Catholics is that Catholics don’t read Scripture. FYI - Scripture is central to Catholicism and I personally read from them each day.

You might be best off casting your presumptions aside.
Presumptions.
Hmmm, kinda like the "Assumption."

…which is a perfect case of a word having duality of meaning, yet indicating the same thing either way.
 
40.png
ScottH:
It assumes the “perfection” of “Apostolic Tradition”, come what may. Yet, the apostles themselves were human. All humans are sinners in need of a savior. (Sorry folks, but Christ is Mary’s savior too, infer what you will there…)
No, it “assumes” no such thing, and has nothing to do with Sola Scriptura. You seem to forget that all of His Apostles deserted Him, that one even betrayed Him, that the leader, the Rock, even denied Him three times., but even with all of these failures, who did He return to after His resurrection? He didn’t discard them because they were sinners. We don’t put anyone on the level as Jesus, we are all sinners, the pope included. However, the Church and specifically the pope is guaranteed by Jesus Himself to be guided to all truth by the Holy Spirit.
40.png
ScottH:
So- why is it so “preposterous” that Biblical Protestants don’t put Luther up on an alter of perfection? I mean- Luther was a flawed man, just like the pope of that time- and all human beings.
I don’t know the answer to this, perhaps I will get greater insight if I ever meet a “Biblical” Protestant.
40.png
ScottH:
The very position of sola scriptura is that all men are sinners in need of a savior, thus imperfect - and in need of the perfect sacrifice (Christ).
Please excuse my ignorance but exactly how does this have anything to do with Sola Scriptura? The Catholic Church teaches “all men are sinners in need of a savior, thus imperfect - and in need of the perfect sacrifice (Christ)” but does NOT follow Sola Scriptura.they are not interdependent.
40.png
ScottH:
We are all “in error”. Otherwise, we wouldn’t need Christ.
Agreed, nothing to do with Sola anything
40.png
ScottH:
Luther needs Him just like you, me, and the rest of us- the same is true for Pope Benedict.
Well, not really, it’s too late for poor old Martin.
 
Of COURSE Christ is Mary’s savior too.
BUT. . .He saved her before she was even born.
Why is that such a difficult concept for you to grasp?
His death on the cross was also prefigured at the LAST SUPPER–which took place the NIGHT BEFORE. The bloody sacrifice on Calvary is seen in the UNBLOODY sacrifice of the Mass. Not only that–the SAME sacrifice on Calvary is seen at every single Mass. (No, we don’t crucify Christ every time, it is the same sacrifice that took place circa 33 A.D.)

You see, God is not subject to time or place. . .He CREATED them, after all. When He chose to become Incarnate, in the hypostatic union His human nature of Jesus existed as a human being, His divine nature existed, as it always had and always will, as “divine”–outside of humanity. That’s why the hypostatic union is a mystery, and that is apparently why so many posters get confused over “time” and “space” issues and can’t understand that because Christ died for all of us at a specific time and place in “earth” terms, that death outside of earth could “exist” always and forever, in essence both “retrograde” and “forward”; so that those born BEFORE Christ were saved and those born AFTER Christ are saved.

Mary was saved by Christ. . .but the salvific action in her case took place before her conception and birth. . . her Immaculate Conception and birth. That is why SHE is “the Immaculate Conception” and Jesus is “the Incarnation”. She was conceived without sin as a human; He is God incarnate and thus there was never a question of “sin” to begin with.

But I wonder if the very thing that I feel most separates Catholics from Protestants is the reason that so many have “trouble” with giving Mary the honor (not worship) she is due as Mother of God. . .and that reason IMO is that Protestants are very “egalitarian”. Their churches are run, for the most part, by committees and communities and pastors are chosen by the people, the people are ALL ministers, etc. etc. There is a big emphasis on how we are ALL sinners, etc. etc. Nobody is held up to be better than any other person. In fact, the sort of “reverse” humility that I see common is actually making people even WORSE than they are (Luther’s dung heaps covered with snow come to mind).

But Catholics are NOT egalitarian (and that is a GOOD thing!) The Kingdom of Heaven (Kingdom, not “republic”) is a monarchy, with a king, who is immeasurably above us. . .but you’ll note in the OT and NT that kings had plenty of people in a “hierarchy”. They had ministers, those ministers had assistants who had assistants etc. etc. And a person could “rise” to a position of authority. Look at Joseph under Pharoah, for example. No, Catholics are very comfortable in seeing that SOME people ARE more “worthy” in the way they FOLLOW CHRIST, and some are less. (That is not because they themselves are so great–some of them had their rotten moments, ask St. Peter and St. Paul-- but really rests in how much they have surrendered to GOD’s will in them. After all, no one can say, Lord, except by the will of the Father.) That is a fact of life. And Mary was the very best example of a person following Christ that God gave us. Part of that is shown by her humility and grace, and part of that humility and grace is indirectly seen by how “little” is in the gospels about her. She points the way to Christ. He doesn’t “need” her, but since He chose her, and God does not change, apparently He found her helpful then and finds her helpful now. Shouldn’t we be emulating God more thoroughly and taking advantage of the gift He gave us in Mary?
 
40.png
justaccord:
Because my faith is a major part of my life. Certainly anyone raising a spiritual topic would know quickly that I am a Christian who believes in the innerant authoritative Word of God as the only rule of faith and practice. Elevating anything over the Word of God mocks the true faith that came from Him to us, not the other way around.

The reformation is a complex historical event. Some (especially early Reformers) could never escape major portions of their catholicism – Luther would be a good example.

By the time of the Westminster Divines, the church had sufficient time to study all of the doctrine and dogma of the catholic church (except of course what hadnt come along yet) and determine what was sound and what had to be rejected/ In fact that extended past doctrine and dogma to liturgy, romish festivals, etc.
Mine is too, but that doesn’t stop people from asking upon hearing the number of children I have if I am Catholic or not. I had wrongly assumed there was something less obvious going on then just stating the facts here. 🙂

Oh dear… and we were having such a nice conversation and now you have used the ’ fighting words’ Romish festivals… sigh

Again, without looking it up, I do believe that God has given the Church the authority to establish Festivals and feast days. So if the church has declared Dec 25 as the Feast of the Navitity, it’s well with in the rights of the church to do so and that makes it a legit Holy Day.

I think the biggest hurdle for prots is accepting any authority over themselves. They say God is their authority, but God would not be so divided on doctrine as the prots are. So someone has to have THE authority to teach truth, and so far I don’t see any other churches who qualify.

So tell me, if the reformers were suddenly right, and the RCC was wrong all those years, does that mean that God’s churched failed? Where was the TRUE church during all that time since not much had changed since the beginning? Had God with held the truth of salvation all that time?

I have also been searching for a non-RCC church that was in operation concurently all those years, but no luck there either. I now call it The Church of Most Holy Mirage… prots just think they see it, but it’s really a mirage. 🙂
 
40.png
Mickey:
If you are referring to infallible teaching, that comes from the Holy Spirit. Careful who you bash.
So, its the Holy Spirit that coerced you folks into Marian idolotry?

You are half right. I think it was a spirit.
Just not a “Holy” one.
 
St. Irenaeus (130-202), in his famous Against Heresies (bet. 180-199) wrote:
. . . so also Mary . . . being obedient, was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race . . . Thus, the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith.
 
St. Ambrose of Milan (c. 339-397):
Let us not be astonished that the Lord, who came to save the world, began his work in Mary, so that she, by whom the salvation of all was being readied, would be the first to receive from her own child its fruits.
 
St. Augustine (354-430) wrote:
. . . just as death comes to us through a woman, Life is born to us through a woman; that the devil, defeated, would be tormented by each nature, feminine and masculine, since he had taken delight in the defection of both.
 
The Second Council of Nicaea (787), the seventh Ecumenical Council, which is fully accepted by the Orthodox, declared:
The Lord, the apostles and the prophets have taught us that we must venerate in the first place the Holy Mother of God, who is above all the heavenly powers . . . If any one does not confess that the holy, ever virgin Mary, really and truly the Mother of God, is higher than all creatures visible and invisible, and does not implore, with a sincere faith, her intercession, given her powerful access (parrhésia) to our God born of her, let him be anathema.
 
40.png
ScottH:
So, its the Holy Spirit that coerced you folks into Marian idolotry?

You are half right. I think it was a spirit.
Just not a “Holy” one.
Sadly, I don’t think that you even understand why this is offensive.
 
Oh… heck, well- there you have it. You quoted two Catholic “Saints”.

Darn, us Protestants are done-for now. Surely the Saints weren’t sinners capable of being wrong about Mary’s role, and how that role doesn’t jive with scripture.

I mean, surely these two saints knew here personally. (Perhaps even better than John, her caretaker- who didn’t write much more than a few sentences about her.)

Heck, i didn’t realize what I was up against.

Geez. I guess I’ll see you all at mass on Sunday then?
 
40.png
ScottH:
Oh… heck, well- there you have it. You quoted two Catholic “Saints”.

Darn, us Protestants are done-for now. Surely the Saints weren’t sinners capable of being wrong about Mary’s role, and how that role doesn’t jive with scripture.

I mean, surely these two saints knew here personally. (Perhaps even better than John, her caretaker- who didn’t write much more than a few sentences about her.)

Heck, i didn’t realize what I was up against.

Geez. I guess I’ll see you all at mass on Sunday then?
Very intelligent response. Wow… that really convinced me NOT to go Mass next Sunday.

Did you even read the quotes? How could you disagree with Jerome or Augustine!?!?
Do you disagree that Mary is the New Eve?
What would be unBiblical about that title?
 
40.png
ScottH:
Oh… heck, well- there you have it. You quoted two Catholic “Saints”.

Darn, us Protestants are done-for now. Surely the Saints weren’t sinners capable of being wrong about Mary’s role, and how that role doesn’t jive with scripture.

I mean, surely these two saints knew here personally. (Perhaps even better than John, her caretaker- who didn’t write much more than a few sentences about her.)

Heck, i didn’t realize what I was up against.

Geez. I guess I’ll see you all at mass on Sunday then?
Forgot to add… it I only had a nickel for each time these same Saints were quoted in defense of the doctrines of Grace to me coming in the Calvinist camp… well I would be a whole lot richer then I am now. So RCC are not the only ones who depend on what the church father’s wrote or history to check out accuracy.
 
40.png
ScottH:
So, its the Holy Spirit that coerced you folks into Marian idolotry?
You are misinformed. Catholics don’t believe the Virgin Mary is God or is equal to God.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top