T
TULIPed
Guest
You totally had to look up the word “pedantry” before you used it. Admit it. (What does it mean?) 
Last edited:
- Status
E
EndTimes
Guest
I totally did…
When one speaks of Catholics / Jews . One must be specific; think ye not?
I’ve made a simple request
It’s False to make comments as if they applied to entire Group of people when they don’t.
As in “Catholics do this…” Or, “Jews do that…” ETc…
Please to say at least "some… ", for even that vague generality makes a world of difference.
Last edited:
G
Gorgias
Guest
LOL!You totally had to look up the word “pedantry” before you used it. Admit it. (What does it mean?)
Nope; it was pretty clear in context, which is why I think your objection was pedantic.
E
EndTimes
Guest
Yes. You’ve said that. … And I continue on the - That’s your opinion…Nope; it was pretty clear in context, which is why I think your objection was pedantic.
When one speaks of Catholics / Jews . One must be specific; think ye not?
I’ve made a simple request
It’s False to make comments as if they applied to entire Group of people when they don’t.
As in “Catholics do this…” Or, “Jews do that…” ETc…
Please to say at least "some… ", for even that vague generality makes a world of difference.
J
JohnR77
Guest
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
When I searched the word the following came up.
Here are some more jokes
https://www.google.com/search?q=pedantry&lr=&hl=en&as_qdr=all&sxsrf=ACYBGNSjYvhUBCbCXl7D3VfKB3-Kl1xM9w:1578017173778&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=Cyt5p_qeubEwoM%3A%2CTj3iP3LfYEq_lM%2C%2Fm%2F03vr2l&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kSFjWh8KteSJhr-ppZrehBAzHPZ9w&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjwnN6IrObmAhXMKs0KHfH8AaMQ_B0wE3oECAwQAw#imgrc=Cyt5p_qeubEwoM:
E
EndTimes
Guest
And I did… .
Nothing can be said which lessens this lesson…
When one speaks of Catholics / Jews . One must be specific; think ye not?
I’ve made a simple request
It’s False to make comments as if they applied to entire Group of people when they don’t.
As in “Catholics do this…” Or, “Jews do that…” ETc…
Please to say at least "some… ", for even that vague generality makes a world of difference
Last edited:
P
pnewton
Guest
While some of these devotions may work for you, I think it important to keep the balance that not all need the same devotions. if for one have found little use for St. Louis deMonfort’s rather extreme Marian language. I prefer to keep my Marian devotions minor compared to the Sacraments and devotions to Christ. The Catholic Church does not even require Catholics to say the rosary, though it is by far the greatest personal devotion.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Perhaps this question is a crucial one in terms of better understanding the place of Mary in human redemption.
Let’s turn this around a bit.
Did Eve (and subsequently Adam) stand between each of us and Jesus when they ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?
If they did (to echo your second question) what does that mean?
From the early Church to today, Mary has been held up as the new Eve, who by her fiat (yes to God) undid the event of the fall.
So, to put this in perspective, why would God permit a choice by two human beings to affect the lives of every human being born since? Why did God permit Eve (and Adam) to “stand between” all of us and him? Between you and Jesus (God)?
The answer is not clearly known to us.
So, too, the fact that we don’t comprehend that separation, does not mean we can merely dismiss the means that God chose to heal that separation and the role Mary played in it.
Perhaps, trying to seriously understand what Co-Redemptrix could possibly mean might involve a call to humility trusting that God acts and chooses the means because he alone understands the full nature of the situation?
Perhaps, too, that we are quick to throw out terms that we don’t fully understand might indicate a need for more humility on our part? We might ask why do we find the term Co-Redemptrix so offensive? Who are we to judge or assess Mary’s role when we have so little understanding of the situation to begin with?
Do we truly understand Eve’s (and Adam’s) role in separating human beings from God to begin with?
How can we speak with any kind of authority?
This is a good reference…
Jesus and the Jewish Roots of MARY: Unveiling the Mother of the Messiah - Dr. Brant Pitre
THIS ITEM IS CURRENTLY OUT OF STOCK. From best-selling author of Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist Dr.
Last edited:
P
patricius79
Guest
I agree that everyone’s subjectivity and relationship with Jesus and Mary are unique.
I personally don’t find St. Louis’s teachings any more radical than the teachings of the Magisterium.
While the Marian spirituality of St. Louis De Montfort is specifically singled out and encouraged by the ordinary Magisterium, a particular person may not understand it. And it is not required.
I think that St. Louis’s basic idea, however, is that all graces are given through Mary. And Catholics are obliged to sincerely adhere to this, since it is the teaching of the ordinary Magisterium.
But everyone, in the way Christ leads them according to their ability, should cultivate their relationship with their Blessed Mother, who was given to them as a unique individual from the Cross.
Here is a passage from Blessed Pope Paul VI which some may find helpful:
I personally don’t find St. Louis’s teachings any more radical than the teachings of the Magisterium.
While the Marian spirituality of St. Louis De Montfort is specifically singled out and encouraged by the ordinary Magisterium, a particular person may not understand it. And it is not required.
I think that St. Louis’s basic idea, however, is that all graces are given through Mary. And Catholics are obliged to sincerely adhere to this, since it is the teaching of the ordinary Magisterium.
But everyone, in the way Christ leads them according to their ability, should cultivate their relationship with their Blessed Mother, who was given to them as a unique individual from the Cross.
Here is a passage from Blessed Pope Paul VI which some may find helpful:
Last edited:
P
patricius79
Guest
Brilliant question.
That’s the thing. As Catholics we’re called to accept all Catholic dogma as a matter of faith and all Catholic ordinary Magisterial teachings with religious assent, even if we don’t understand something. That is what faith is. We seek understanding based on faith. We don’t demand that others “prove” to us something according to our own lights. First we receive what is being taught. We practice the idea of “faith seeking understanding”.
I’m not sure if the word “Co-Redemptrix” should be the word used in a dogmatic definition.
But I tend to think we do need, at some point, a dogmatic definition relating to Mary’s role as the New Eve, our Mother in the order of grace and Mother of each human person, as Vatican II calls her.
Part of the reason I think we probably need this is to call us to an increase in faith and an increase in filial love for our mother who is so often ignored or diminished by us.
Last edited:
A
annad347
Guest
Adam and Eve doesn’t stand between us and Jesus, they are the ones who opened the door to sin by disobeying… giving into sin is what stands between us and Jesus.
Adam and Eve stood between us being born in Garden of Eden, total unbelievable Paradise. Which leads to another question are we born in their sin which is why we are baptized as babies so we can be filled The Holy Spirit to protect us sin… most churches say yes, others aren’t so sure, but that’s a question for another thread.
Its very clear, God tested Adam and Eve, they failed and we have been paying for it time and time again… until Jesus.
The only role Mary played in the plan to heal our separation with God is to become is the Ark of The New Covenant, which allowed our Savior Jesus to be born.
True and since there is such a limit understanding, then why try to define that understanding in a way it makes it seem like its a requirement to believe for our way to Jesus?
Last edited:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
How do you know with any degree of certainty that the “only role” Mary played was to be a passive vessel to allow Jesus to be born?
Isn’t claiming that to be the ONLY role of Mary doing exactly what you caution against below, namely defining the limits of what is required to “believe for our way to Jesus?”
In other words, how is thinking that the ONLY role of Mary was to be the Ark or vessel allowing Jesus to be born not, itself, “setting a requirement” to believe?
How do we know where, exactly, the “limit” to understanding is, by our own light alone?
We are to KNOW, love and serve God. Why would that entail, necessarily, that God limits our understanding by setting minimal “requirements” regarding what we must believe? Perhaps God is leading us to a fullness of understanding by asking us not to set our own limits on what he desires us to know?
Why even couch the term as a “requirement” when it may, rather, be a step towards fuller understanding? Defining it as an unnecessary “requirement” may be placing an impediment in the path to understanding by characterizing faith as more a blind process than one leading to a fullness of understanding, i.e., knowing, loving and serving God, who is the fullness of Being Himself.
Last edited:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
This doesn’t exactly depict the nature and reality of original sin in terms of what the Church teaches. We are not merely deprived of Paradise, our nature has been irrevocably altered and wounded.
389 The doctrine of original sin is, so to speak, the “reverse side” of the Good News that Jesus is the Savior of all men, that all need salvation and that salvation is offered to all through Christ. The Church, which has the mind of Christ, knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ.
405 Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.
404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin , but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state . It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.
407 The doctrine of original sin, closely connected with that of redemption by Christ, provides lucid discernment of man’s situation and activity in the world. By our first parents’ sin, the devil has acquired a certain domination over man, even though man remains free. Original sin entails “captivity under the power of him who thenceforth had the power of death, that is, the devil”. Ignorance of the fact that man has a wounded nature inclined to evil gives rise to serious errors in the areas of education, politics, social action and morals.
A
annad347
Guest
with the same degree of certainty that Jesus is my Lord and Savior with the same certainty that Jesus came, lived and died for me with the same certainty that Jesus will lead me to The Father… with the same certainty that when I pray, ‘Our Father, Who art in heaven, Hallowed be Thy Name; Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done…’, He hears me.
as for the rest, its okay for some, but not me… giving Mary a title like Co- Redemptrix isn’t something I believe she needs… but apparently one she already has just not given to her officially by the Pope?
A
annad347
Guest
are those from The Catechism?
Shouldn’t there biblical verses that follow each statement?
never read The Catechism, except when its posted here, but I thought each saying was back up with scripture.
Shouldn’t there biblical verses that follow each statement?
never read The Catechism, except when its posted here, but I thought each saying was back up with scripture.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
So all that is required from you is “to be heard?”HarryStotle:
with the same degree of certainty that Jesus is my Lord and Savior with the same certainty that Jesus came, lived and died for me with the same certainty that Jesus will lead me to The Father… with the same certainty that when I pray, ‘Our Father, Who art in heaven, Hallowed be Thy Name; Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done…’, He hears me.
Is there no other requirement from you in response?
That doesn’t seem to completely coincide with Jesus’ teaching in the Gospels.
Mary’s response: Thy will be done.
What can Mary teach us?
Perhaps that the certainty of “being heard” is not sufficient.
A
annad347
Guest
what part of what I said that gave you any indication that I wasn’t or didn’t need to do the will of God?
I thought we were talking about Mary’s need in my life… and weather the Pope saying No to her having the title of co-Redemptrix isn’t something he supports.
and if I’m praying for God’s will to be done, why would that indicate I wasn’t willing to do His will?
Last edited:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Including citations…
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P1C.HTM#$DJ
389 The doctrine of original sin is, so to speak, the “reverse side” of the Good News that Jesus is the Savior of all men, that all need salvation and that salvation is offered to all through Christ. The Church, which has the mind of Christ, knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ .
404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature . By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin , but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state . It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.
St. Thomas Aquinas, De malo 4, I.
Cf. Council of Trent: DS 1511-1512
Continued…
H
HarryStotle
Guest
405 Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.
Cf. John Paul II, CA 25.
407 The doctrine of original sin, closely connected with that of redemption by Christ, provides lucid discernment of man’s situation and activity in the world. By our first parents’ sin, the devil has acquired a certain domination over man, even though man remains free. Original sin entails “captivity under the power of him who thenceforth had the power of death, that is, the devil”. Ignorance of the fact that man has a wounded nature inclined to evil gives rise to serious errors in the areas of education, politics, social action and morals.
Council of Trent (1546): DS 1511
Cf. John Paul II, CA 25.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
HarryStotle:
what part of what I said that gave you any indication that I wasn’t or didn’t need to do the will of God?
I thought we were talking about Mary’s need in my life… and weather the Pope saying No to her having the title of co-Redemptrix isn’t something he supports.
and if I’m praying for God’s will to be done, why would that indicate I wasn’t willing to do His will?
Continued…
- Status