Mary - sinner - Romans 3?

[Marybeloved]

Originally Posted by Frank Hagen forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
*Rinnie,

You answered your own question if you see what you posted.

[If Mary were in the same room with you it would appear you are talking to her.

Since Mary is in heaven you are praying to her and asking in prayer that she likewise pray for you.**I think that the intercession of Our Lady and the Saints is not something that Protestants readily accept because they do not understand the truth of the supernatural character of the Church and the communion of Saints.

Catholics do not believe that people who die with and in Christ are cut off from his body at death! To the contrary, they are more permanently the body than any of us here . Just as they were part of the body on earth they are in the mystical body in heaven, (only more so than we) so we are one with them. As St. Paul teaches, the eye affects the foot and the foot the finger, indeed the rest of the body is affected. To Catholics, St. Paul is more a part of the body now than he ever was when he wrote the scriptures, because he’s glorified now, much more unified with Christ in Heaven than we here with all our daily failures and what-not. To Catholics, these Saints are not just “a bunch of dead people” but people more alive than we can begin to comprehend (Remember St. Paul- No eye has seen, nor ear heard…).

So to us, if asking this guy at church to pray with you and for you, who just did something rude or mean (probably worse) back at home, is nonetheless good and profitable, how much better and more effective to ask the glorious Mother of God in Heaven or the gloried Apostles and the Holy Martyrs who shed their blood for Christ, to join with you in prayer and to pray for you?- These who are at once so close to God and far from sin, yet still very much with us due to the communion of saints in the one body! Hebrews tells us we have a cloud of witnesses that surrounds us in our race. We believe they don’t just watch us, but cheer us on and intercede for us much more than they did here on Earth because they have a better view from where they are , both of the awaiting crown and the dangers that beset us.

Catholics also believe Christ when he promised us we would reign with him if we lived with and for him here on Earth. People see our view of Mary as hyper, but we see her enjoying her reign with her Son as part of her crown- They see Our view of the Apostles, Martyrs and All Saints and Blesseds as exaggerated but we see them glorified and enjoying their crowns after finishing the race. So people are scandalized that we believe St. Paul can perform a miracle for you- Why not? He did in his earthly unglorified state- How much more now that he reigns with Christ?

Peace!

 

[Ginger2]

Perhaps I can help you understand why Protestants believe Catholics are praying to Mary and not simply asking her to pray for them.

Below are excerpts from the Psalters of the Blessed Virgin, which Catholics find acceptable to pray:

For comparison, I have included the Psalms of David with the The Psalters.

15
Preserve me, O Lord, for I have put my trust in thee.
Preserve me, O Lady, for I have hoped in thee:

25
Judge me, O Lord, for I have walked in my innocence:
Judge me, O Lady, for I have departed from my innocence:

53
Save me, O God, by thy name, and judge me in thy strength
O Lady, save me in thy name: and deliver me from my injustices.
Please note: David was praying to God and the name of God is replaced with reference to Mary in the Psalters. The Catholic Church does not condemn this nor even try to distance themselves from those who promote it.

Below is comparison Psalms of David 148 &The Psalters of Mary 148:

1
Hallelujah! 1 Praise the LORD from the heavens; give praise in the heights.
Let us praise Our Lady in the heavens: glorify her in the highest.

2
Praise him, all you angels; give praise, all you hosts.
Praise her, all ye men and beasts: birds of the air, and fishes of the sea.

3
Praise him, sun and moon; give praise, all shining stars.
Praise her, sun and moon: stars, and the orbs of the planets.

4
Praise him, highest heavens, you waters above the heavens.
Praise her, Cherubim and Seraphim: thrones and dominations and powers.

5
Let them all praise the LORD’S name; for the LORD
Praise her, all ye legions of angels: praise her all order of heavenly
dwellers.

You can’t see how this looks like you are praying to Mary? In fact to us it even looks like you are given the praise intended for God to another…not saying that is what you’re doing, just that it is easy to get the impression.

 

[Marybeloved]

Hello, Ginger. It’s good to here from you again.

You can’t see how this looks like you are praying to Mary? In fact to us it even looks like you are given the praise intended for God to another…not saying that is what you’re doing, just that it is easy to get the impression.

You’re right- It can definitely look that way! Someone on another thread showed me a similar thing from the Orthodox that was a prayer for the litany of the Holy Angels!

But I still insist that it is a fundamental misunderstanding based on a lack of knowledge/understanding of the belief behind the practice, therefore the meaning of the practice. What you see there is a celebration! Not an ordinary one, but of a glorification of one who now reigns with Christ!

It’s just what I said in my last post about the reigning Saints- It’s the crown of Christian life- And you will enjoy it too one day, my friend (hopefully)! There is I think one word that will help explain Catholic life, belief and practice- **Participation. **When we become believers and are baptized we are joined to Christ truly (Yes, we believe even Protestants are joined to him, too!) and his life is born in us- The Life of God himself and the Blessed Trinity dwells in us. Slowly but surely (unless we place obstacles in his way, God the Holy Spirit turns everything in us into grace and we are perfected- That is already participation in what is strictly God’s alone. When we are utterly perfected we say with St. Paul "No longer I, But Christ lives…"- That is participation. When we die and go to heaven (right away, hopefully) we are in Christ in his glorious seat at the right hand of the father from where he reigns and we with him- Just as here on Earth we participate in his life and sufferings as he promised (pick up your cross…If they throw you in Prison for my sake…Just as they hated me, so will they hate you…). We are literally and truly “in Christ”- And so shall we be in Heaven.

Like I said- When it comes to the Church glorified (what we call the Saints in Heaven) you will see what looks like exaggeration and hyperbole- It’s intentional- we believe they are literally in Christ reigning at the right hand of the Father! It’s a party- A celebration of God’s super-human honors to humans in Heaven! But believe me, we suffer from no confusion as to the nature of the Saints- We know what they- humans, given a crown that belongs to one who is God-man! -But then again, that’s the whole point of the great joy to begin with .

Peace!

 

[Marybeloved]

Just to add a little more. Have you ever been to a wedding, or a birthday Party, or Anniversary celebrations? (Of course) Have you heard the songs, the praises, the joy expressed over the one who is being celebrated? Catholics believe that each saint has a Birthday, a Wedding, An Anniversary, A Christmas one million, billion times- forever and ever and ever and ever!!! Occasionally we on earth join in the party, in anticipation of our own hoped-for glorification, just as the Church glorified participates in our struggles and prayers (communion of Saints)

Peace!

 

[PRmerger]

You can’t see how this looks like you are praying to Mary? In fact to us it even looks like you are given the praise intended for God to another…not saying that is what you’re doing, just that it is easy to get the impression.

Let’s take a step back and look at your argument from a non-Christian’s perspective, Ginger.

A Muslim, for example, may look at a Christian who talks about the “Law of Moses” and say, “See you ascribe to Moses what could only be ascribed to God. How could Moses, a man, write the Laws of God??”.

Or when he reads in Paul’s writings: “for I want somehow to make the people of Israel jealous of what you Gentiles have, so I might save some of them”–what? the Muslim may protest. * You Christians believe that Paul saves? I thought it was only JESUS who saves!*

You as a Christian might gently explain to this uniformed Muslim, “Yes, Paul saves but only in and through the power of Jesus Christ.” And “Moses gave us the Law, but only in and through the power of God the Almighty.”

Similarly, you can apply that to the Catholic understanding of litanies to the Blessed Mother. We “praise” her, but only in and through the redemptive power of Her Son.

 

[pablope]

Ok, I think I see what you mean. Essentially, you are saying that the Holy Spirit, by the once-off **use **of the men who put together the Bible as well as the men that succeeded these men, allocated to them an irrevocable authority (which you call “the Church tradition”) to interpret the Bible on His behalf for all time to come. Is that right?

:

Gerhard…look at post 473…where I posted a partial list of early christian writings…so how was an early Christian know which one was scripture and not from that list?

I will ask you this question to help you in your understanding…How do you know Mark authored the Gospel of Mark? Cite and provide the chapter and verse from the Bible where Mark claims authorship of the Gospel of Mark…and after you find this…answer this…Why do you now accept the authorship of Mark of the Gospel of Mark? Why do you now believe it is Scripture, or it should be in the Bible? Where does the Bible say that Mark’s Gospel should be part of the Bible?

I’m afraid that if that is your understanding it is something hard to believe especially given that, according to your own admission, these very same men and/or their successors, have been subject to error (“some more than others”).:shrug

Well, has your pastor not sinned? Can you say he has not sinned? So, why do you believe what your pastor tells him?

I think you are mistaking impeccability from infallibility. I think yo uneed to distinguish between the two. Infallibity does not mean impeccability.

 

[CopticChristian]

Not sure where you that deduction from, Mary?
I said we agreed that the men who put the Bible together did so under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I certainly did not say they put the Bible together under the “teaching authority of the church”. Quite the contrary. I have made the point that the “teaching authority of the church” and the guidance of the Holy Spirit has not always been the same thing. Moreover, that the fact that the Spirit used someone or some people to put together the Bible does not guarantee that these very same people were infallible in their subsequent teachings.

What confuses me a little is that you say that the Bible was put together under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. And then you also (seemingly) say the Bible was put together as a function of the tradition of the church. Knowing that church men over the ages have erred (knowingly and unknowingly) how can you reconcile these different ideas?

In order to continue this dialogue it would be appropriate for proper understanding as I am sure all would like to know who you believe these men are by names. Please name these men and the dates that they did as you say please.

Enquiring minds want to know!

 

[CopticChristian]

Ok, I think I see what you mean. Essentially, you are saying that the Holy Spirit, by the once-off **use **of the *men who put together the Bible *as well as the men that succeeded these men, allocated to them an irrevocable authority (which you call “the Church tradition”) to interpret the Bible on His behalf for all time to come. Is that right?

I’m afraid that if that is your understanding it is something hard to believe especially given that, according to your own admission, these very same men and/or their successors, have been subject to error (“some more than others”).

Your timeline is incorrect. The timeline starts with Christ and the Apostles. The Bible is a point in time in the future.

Who are the men you have agreed on as to compiling the Bible, that you agree did put it together. Name them and dates.

Proved the errors on Faith and Morals that were committed so I may be enlightened.

 

[CopticChristian]

joe370;8479770:

People hear themselves and are convinced they heard from God. Often ego or zeal gets in the way of the true voice of the Spirit. This does not mean the Spirit is not speaking, only that people are not hearing. Even Paul didn’t know whether he had been taken to heaven in the body or spirit (“was I really there?”). It also does not mean that people should not try to listen - they should, because Loving Comforter is speaking (directly) to His children all the time.

Often, after having “heard of God” or having been convinced of their “calling” naïve Christians set off to start a church. This is not the case all the time, however. Legitimate churches are started, even by lay people.

Like the church who was started invprison by an ex-atheist after he had found God in prison. This man’s prayers, directed by a name and a face in a vision, would get a person turn to God outside of prison. This man would lead other men to God insidevof prison and teach them about the OT and NT. That is church, doing the work of Jesus, bringing healing. Never ordained, never trained. Just led by the Holy Spirit in humility and praying.

Since you believe you have been led by the Spirit and can designate truth. Help me understand the requirements of a legitimate church that would satisfy Scripture.

 

[PRmerger]

IWhether or not that authenticates the men in question is answered by the questions as to whether or nor Balaam’s donkey was authenticated when he spoke to him. Don’t hear me wrong, I’m not saying that the men who put the Bible together were d
donkeys!

Thanks for the clarification that you are not calling the successors to the Apostles “donkeys”.

However, I just came across this beautiful paradigm on another thread, and thought I’d share it with you.

From St. Josemaria Escriva’s Theology of the Donkey:

My child, my little donkey: if the Lord, with Love, has washed your grimy back, so accustomed to the muck, and has laid a satin harness on you, and covered you with dazzling jewels, don’t forget, poor donkey, that with your faults you could throw that beautiful load on to the ground... But on your own you couldn’t put it back on again. Forge, 330

Would that you could acquire, as I know you would like to, the virtues of the donkey! Donkeys are humble, hard-working, persevering — stubborn! — and faithful, with a sure step, tough and — if they have a good master — also grateful and obedient. The Forge, 380

Continue thinking about the donkey’s good qualities and notice how in order to do anything worth while, it has to allow itself to be ruled by the will of whoever is leading it... On its own the donkey would only... make an a*s of itself. Probably the brightest thing that would occur to it to do would be to roll over on the ground, trot to the manger and start braying.

“Dear Jesus”, you too should say to him, “ut iumentum factus sum apud te! — you have made me be your little donkey. Please don’t leave me: et ego semper tecum! — and I will stay with you always. Lead me, tightly harnessed by your grace: Tenuisti manum dexteram meam... — you have led me by the halter; et in voluntate tua deduxisti me... — make me do your Will. And so I will love you for ever and ever — et cum gloria suscepisti me!” The Forge, 381

So we perhaps would not take offense at your calling the successors to the Apostles donkeys in light of the above theology.

However, it’s good that you offered that clarification. It’s always a little different when you say something that seems offensive about your own family, than if someone else says it about your family.

 

[Marybeloved]

Ginger,

I needed to clarify some things to remove any possible “stumbling blocks” to readers who may be scandalized by your quotations when not understood in their proper contexts

Please note: David was praying to God and the name of God is replaced with reference to Mary in the Psalters. The Catholic Church does not condemn this nor even try to distance themselves from those who promote it.

Below is comparison Psalms of David 148 &The Psalters of Mary 148:

1
Hallelujah! 1 Praise the LORD from the heavens; give praise in the heights.
Let us praise Our Lady in the heavens: glorify her in the highest.

2
Praise him, all you angels; give praise, all you hosts.
Praise her, all ye men and beasts: birds of the air, and fishes of the sea.

3
Praise him, sun and moon; give praise, all shining stars.
Praise her, sun and moon: stars, and the orbs of the planets.

4
Praise him, highest heavens, you waters above the heavens.
Praise her, Cherubim and Seraphim: thrones and dominations and powers.

5
Let them all praise the LORD’S name; for the LORD
Praise her, all ye legions of angels: praise her all order of heavenly
dwellers.

You can’t see how this looks like you are praying to Mary? In fact to us it even looks like you are given the praise intended for God to another…not saying that is what you’re doing, just that it is easy to get the impression.

Here, just thought I would add that I’ve read around and the psalter is “a private devotion” by St. Bonaventure- Not part of the teaching of the church- So it’s good to get that out of the way first. No one is required to pray them and the Saint does not speak for the church unless his teaching is explicitly endorsed and it’s not. (doesn’t mean the Saint is wrong, though)

The above bit highlighted above from your post (the praises) are no problem at all- As I said before it’s just the celebrations of the glorification of the Saints in Heaven.

The next bit is what may pose a bit of a problem

Preserve me, O Lord, for I have put my trust in thee.
Preserve me, O Lady, for I have hoped in thee:

25
Judge me, O Lord, for I have walked in my innocence:
Judge me, O Lady, for I have departed from my innocence:

53
Save me, O God, by thy name, and judge me in thy strength
O Lady, save me in thy name: and deliver me from my injustices.

This part must be understood in context and literary styles of the times of its composition- hyperbole is the term to describe the style.

For example,
Judge me, O Lady, for I have departed from my innocence:
St. Bonaventure does not mean here that Mary is the judge of the soul, he couldn’t! He knew the Catholic faith- She was not even a priest and could not hear confessions (which involves at least a little bit of judging by the priest). But most importantly, God and Christ alone are judge.
-He probably means something like reprove me (as a fellow sister or loving mother) for dishonoring God- Help me to awaken to how far I’ve betrayed Christ, unlike you who never soiled your innocence before him.

Preserve me, O Lady, for I have hoped in thee:
He does not mean that Mary is the source of his existence, nor that she sustains him- Again, he couldn’t! He knew the Catholic faith- What he means is help me with prayers, or preserve me with prayers (which means the graces of God) for I need them and expect them from you (I know you cannot deny my requests)

O Lady, save me in thy name: and deliver me from my injustices
Save can also mean simply help- not save from sins, which the Saint can never attribute to anyone but God, because he must have known the catholic faith. This prayer would just mean take up my problems like your own, in your own initiative, and privilege before Christ as his mother, and help me in my troubles- Which is no problem- The saints can help.

**I wanted to make sure I explained these three lines because they may be misleading and can cause scandal if not understood.

Also, the psalms are the Standard of prayer in the Church- In fact they are the Church’s official prayer book- So to use them as the standard for crafting and composing prayer and devotions is no surprise. The Saint has no intention of replacing God (He loved him deeply-that’s why he’s a Saint) but merely to compose beautiful prayer to Our Lady in the poetry of and language of the best examples we have (the psalms). It’s the language of a love letter and a poem (which is always exaggerated) to one who has probably helped him numerous times in his life and whom he praises as the blessed one.

You can imagine a poem by a man to a woman he loves, which says -

*How could I ever live without you? You’re my sun, moon and stars! *

Or
*
Will you not save me from this misery? I can’t bear to be apart from you!*

It’s poetic language of love and must be understood that way- It certainly is not worship. The important thing to learn is that Catholic faith is clear. No worship due to God alone, “latria”, is given to anyone but God.

Peace!

 

[joe370]

Hey gerhardc…

People hear themselves and are convinced they heard from God. Often ego or zeal gets in the way of the true voice of the Spirit. This does not mean the Spirit is not speaking, only that people are not hearing. Even Paul didn’t know whether he had been taken to heaven in the body or spirit (“was I really there?”). It also does not mean that people should not try to listen - they should, because Loving Comforter is speaking (directly) to His children all the time.

Often, after having “heard of God” or having been convinced of their “calling” naïve Christians set off to start a church. This is not the case all the time, however. Legitimate churches are started, even by lay people. Like the church who was started invprison by an ex-atheist after he had found God in prison. This man’s prayers, directed by a name and a face in a vision, would get a person turn to God outside of prison. This man would lead other men to God insidevof prison and teach them about the OT and NT. That is church, doing the work of Jesus, bringing healing. Never ordained, never trained. Just led by the Holy Spirit in humility and praying.

I agree…

I’ll just ask one more time so as not to derail the thread. You said:

In a world where people are conditioned by their culture, upbringing, the doctrines they hear in their church, the iniquities of our heart, etc - do you believe there is a way for each and every person to have a firm grasp of the truths found in the bible? Keeping in mind that the bible is not working because the bible says different things to different folks regarding certain teachings.

The Holy Spirit interprets Scripture for us so that we may take out of it that which we need in order for us to grow closer to God.

Again, I have no idea how a collection of books,we Christians call the inerrant word of God, can interpret itself??? People interpret those books and people take out of it that which they need in order for them to grow closer to God, and quite often what people take from the bible gives way to doctrinal division.

In your opinion, did Jesus leave His church with an authoritative interpreter of His inerrant word (regarding revealed truth) - so that people like you and I, can know with certainty, the truth regarding things like the Eucharist, just to name one of many doctrines with conflicting interpretations in the protestant sphere?

 

[joe370]

And irony of ironies, Martin Luther ‘founder’ of Sola Scriptura believed in Mary’s sinlessness. He affirmed that the Blessed Virgin Mary was preserved from original sin “from the very moment she began to live”:

:

I know , and ML was, for lack of a better word, the father of protestantism. Of course ML didn’t want to start a new church; he merely wanted to change things from within, regarding the indulgence abuses, where he lived, but sadly that escalated into ML embracing novel ideas such as sola scriptura and his eventual denial of certain things he once believed prior to his departure.

As a matter of fact, all of the protestant leaders that spearheaded the various protestant movements, that eventually left the CC, (or left fledgling protestant churches in the beginning) - believed as does the CC regarding Mary’s perpetual sinless state. Those who insist that Mary was a sinner are not just disagreeing with the CC but with the original protestant reformers!

 

[PRmerger]

The Holy Spirit interprets Scripture for the ones who are born again (refer John 3:3) and who have received Him - refer Romans 8:16 - “The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God”.. He interprets Scripture for every child of God and shows them what they need to take out of it right then: “the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him.” (1 John 2:27). Whether or not all are truly born again and whether or not all actually listen to the Spirit when He interprets is another story.

I read this somewhere:

Most non-Catholic sects declare that the Holy Spirit is "teaching" them the truth. However, there can be only one truth. Since the advent of Sola Scriptura and individual interpretation of Scripture, how can the Holy Spirit be in each of the thousands of sects, teaching all of them opposing viewpoints? It is to be noted that all of the following denominations teach from the same Bible, so why the differences in teaching?

1. How can the Holy Spirit tell the Lutherans the Eucharist is the true presence of Christ, and then tell the Baptists it is only a symbol?
2. How can the Holy Spirit tell the Methodists it is alright to have female ministers, and then tell the Baptists it is unbiblical?
3. How can the Holy Spirit tell the Seventh-Day Adventists that Saturday is the day of worship, and then tell the Presbyterians the day of worship is Sunday and not Saturday?
4. How can the Holy Spirit tell the Lutherans that the Blessed Virgin Mary was and remains always virgin, and then tell the Baptists she had other children?
5. How can the Holy Spirit tell the Baptists, "once saved always saved", and then tell the Church of Christ that Sola Fides is unscriptural?
6. How can the Holy Spirit tell Episcopalians to baptize infants and then tell Pentecostals infant baptism is invalid?
7. How can the Holy Spirit tell Mormons that the Holy Trinity is three separate persons, and then tell Methodists the Trinity is three persons in one GOD? [home.inreach.com/bstanley/reform.htm](http://home.inreach.com/bstanley/reform.htm)

Food for thought.

 

[gerhardc]

Gerhard,Your formulation is not exactly right, but close enough- I’ll accept it for the purposes of our discussions.

Gerhard, you’re absolutely right- It is very hard to believe!- So is believing that a poor Carpenter from Nazareth was God himself, Or that a man publicly disgraced and defeated, executed in the most ignoble way possible, scourged and hang naked before a jeering mob- was God! Or that this same man resurrected and walked out of his own grave three days later! How unbelievable is that! Yet, here we both are, believers and lovers of this same Lord and this same utterly unbelievable truths. But ‘easy beliefs’ is not exactly the description of Christian faith, is it, my friend?

So it’s very hard to trust these very fallible men and to believe that it is God the Holy Spirit, from deep within the mystical reality of the Church who rules the public declarations of faith and morals that these men make- I grant you that. But it does not mean that it is not true .

Peace!

Its hard to believe that God will use a humble carpenter’s son to be the Redeemer of the world, but when you judge the fruit of his labour it is clear for anyone to see that He is Truth. As for church officials and an irrevocable authority to represent God’s word on earth, considering the fruit of their labour, it is a different story. After all, we judge a tree by its fruit. The fruit the world has seen in the church (‘officialdom’ over the ages) do not always speak of godliness. To suggest that the men who bear the fruit mentioned in the verse hereafter represent God is more than a bit of a stretch! - “But fornication and all uncleanness or covetousness, let it not even be named among you, as is fitting for saints; neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks. For this you know, that no fornicator, unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. Therefore do not be partakers with them.” Next you will likely ask me to give examples of fornicators and the like, … I will not do that here but I will ask you to speak to sexual abuse victom’s support groups and ask around how many were there as a result of ‘representatives of God’. A previous answer suggested that these ,men were found guilty and now sit in prison. No, not all. Nevertheless, there is your answer - *“no fornicator, unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.” *Yet, some of these men who sit in positions high up in the church help ‘interpret Scripture’ on behalf of the Holy Spirit. I think not. Were these given an irrevocable authority in God’s name? I mean no offense but Scripture tells me no.

For those who, following the above reference to “Scripture” now want to see historical or academic reference to authors, dates and the like of those who wrote about Jesus and His message - the Gospel or the Word - … you are missing the point. No disrespect. If you ***believe ***the Holy Spirit inspired the **writing **of true accounts of the message of Jesus Christ and His Kingdom (not false ones as was the case with many stories and writings that went around at the time), and if you ***believe *** the Holy Spirit also inspired the **binding **of these true accounts, prophesies, letters, etc. into the Bible, then the person’s name or the date or the qualification or the marital status or colour of hair or favourite Apostle or meal they had for breakfast is completely irrelevant because the source of the initiative was the Holy Spirit. It is something you have to believe.

Don’t believe it? That’s your choice. I’m all fine with that. Have fun dissecting history while missing the Story within it.

 

[gerhardc]

Hey gerhardc…

I agree…

I’ll just ask one more time so as not to derail the thread. You said:

Again, I have no idea how a collection of books,we Christians call the inerrant word of God, can interpret itself??? People interpret those books and people take out of it that which they need in order for them to grow closer to God, and quite often what people take from the bible gives way to doctrinal division.

In your opinion, did Jesus leave His church with an authoritative interpreter of His inerrant word (regarding revealed truth) - so that people like you and I, can know with certainty, the truth regarding things like the Eucharist, just to name one of many doctrines with conflicting interpretations in the protestant sphere?

Hi Joe, no disrespect, I like your posts - I just don’t have time today. If you can refer to my post to Mar at #504 please? I think the latter part speak to your question (hope so).

 

[joe370]

gerhardc, you said:

Its hard to believe that God will use a humble carpenter’s son to be the Redeemer of the world, but when you judge the fruit of his labour it is clear for anyone to see that He is Truth. As for church officials and an irrevocable authority to represent God’s word on earth, considering the fruit of their labour, it is a different story.

I can only agree with that if in fact scripture is wrong and God no longer continues to guide His church into all truth, regardless of the chaff mixed in with the whwat.

After all, we judge a tree by its fruit. The fruit the world has seen in the church (‘officialdom’ over the ages) do not always speak of godliness

In that same passage Jesus even predicted that there would be some individual leaders in His church who would be ravenous wolves masquerading as sheep, attempting to destroy His church. Of course Jesus never even remotely suggested that they would succeed; quite the polar opposite - or that doctrinal truth, (because of those inevitable ravenous wolves masquerading as sheep) - would be compromised, for Jesus is the One safeguarding doctrinal truth, in His church, until the end of time - agreed?

*“Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
*

 

[joe370]

Hi Joe, no disrespect, I like your posts - I just don’t have time today. If you can refer to my post to Mar at #504 please? I think the latter part speak to your question (hope so).

I should be in bed myself, but I enjoy dialoging with people like you, here at CAF. Take your time my friend. 504? OK…

 

[Marybeloved]

Its hard to believe that God will use a humble carpenter’s son to be the Redeemer of the world, but when you judge the fruit of his labour it is clear for anyone to see that He is Truth. As for church officials and an irrevocable authority to represent God’s word on earth, considering the fruit of their labour, it is a different story. After all, we judge a tree by its fruit. The fruit the world has seen in the church (‘officialdom’ over the ages) do not always speak of godliness. To suggest that the men who bear the fruit mentioned in the verse hereafter represent God is more than a bit of a stretch! - "But fornication and all uncleanness or covetousness, let it not even be named among you, as is fitting for saints; neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks. For this you know, that no fornicator, unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. Therefore do not be partakers with them." Next you will likely ask me to give examples of fornicators and the like, … I will not do that here but I will ask you to speak to sexual abuse victom’s support groups and ask around how many were there as a result of ‘representatives of God’. A previous answer suggested that these ,men were found guilty and now sit in prison. No, not all. Nevertheless, there is your answer - *“no fornicator, unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.” *Yet, some of these men who sit in positions high up in the church help ‘interpret Scripture’ on behalf of the Holy Spirit. I think not. Were these given an irrevocable authority in God’s name? I mean no offense but Scripture tells me no.

I suppose, Gerhard, that we have dumped the Donkey analogy now, . Bit too inconvenient, now that you’ve encountered undeniable facts about the man-made lie called “sola-scriptura” . Was it you or Ginger who, when we were discussing Mary’s sinlessness provided evidence of God using sinners to do his work?- A murdering adulterer called King David, And an idolater obsessed with women called King Solomon? I believe there were others or there are others- But I know that you get the point.

You tell us of Our Lord’s fruits. I wonder how anyone can take an unbiased look at History and then claim to separate Jesus’ fruits from the Church??. Just what were these fruits apart from the Church that grew out of the upper room on Pentecost? Jesus left exactly 120 followers- It’s ridiculous to separate what these followers did and Jesus- You would end up crediting Our Lord with no fruits at all- How is that a good thing for you?

You tell us of evil fruit from the Church- The Church from the beginning has had wolves in Sheep skin- Don’t you read your Bible, Gerhard? Don’t you notice the part when Jesus warned of these ravenous wolves? Don’t you see the part where the apostles acknowledge that among them are those who have gone out from them but are not of them? Are we now to believe that the Church of the apostles was not guided by God for that fact? Are we to believe that Israel was not guided by YHWH when David sinned? Are we to believe that David was not chosen by YHWH because he was a sinner?

You obviously have a very biased way of seeing things, that’s why you see none of the amazing things that the Church is responsible for! You have never taken a look at the Saints and their impact in society, have you? The Church’s unparalleled influence in education and Charity in Human History in obedience to Christs’ call to serve our neighbor- That’s nothing to you at all, is it? You tell us of the abuse scandals and nothing of The sisters of Charity founded by Mother Teresa and what they are doing, do you? You say nothing of John Paul II’s and Catholicism’s role in bringing an unbloody end to Communism, do you? You say nothing of the fact that the Israeli Jews have credited the Catholic Church of singly doing the most out of anyone in the World, more than any Government to save many Jews from Hitler’s Holocaust? Nothing of the Church in ending slavery by forbidding it long before any protestants thought to, or of the church’s fight for the poor in most societies in which it has an influence? Who in the Christian world still proclaims the truth of the morals of God and has not caved in to cultural pressure? Who first rejected Abortion before the protestants joined the fight?

Let’s take a look at an equally biased view at the fruits of sola scriptura- It brought unprecedented division in the Christian World than anything else before it. It caused bloody religious wars- and protestants did some nasty nasty stuff that the modern day ones seem oblivious about! They burned thousands of “witches” and other such accused- even in America! Again, something modern Protestants never seem aware of. When their churches were busy condoning the slavery of Africans, the Catholic Church issued a papal bull against it! And now it has given birth to a new kind of protestantism called liberalism, secular humanism and the sexual revolution- All from the idea that- No body can tell me what to do but me. Does that look like a pretty thing to you? It’s because it’s biased- like your purported attempt at judging the Church! You should also know- as you throw the recent scandals in our faces-that Protestants have not been spared the evil of sex-abuse in Church- not even to a lesser extent than the Church- That’s researched facts, by the way. They’re just not the enemy of the World that the Catholic Church is seen us and don’t suffer as hateful and as many targeted attacks as she- Why is that, I wonder?

Peace!

 

[guestseeking]

all have fallen short of the Glory of God means that God did not create gods, it doesnt mean that God has no faithful and sinless followers…ask protestants then if all have sinned and if that interprets including Mary why is it that the Holy Spirit overshadowed her while she became pregnant, why have they found it impossible to be in God’s presence for a duration of atleast nine months? ask them that…and then tell them that what is impossible for man is Possible With God and at her first appearance in the bible as we know her to interact with Faith, it is said “God is With you” ask protestants why they seek to be closer to God to have more religious experiences and why one experience they can not hold themselves for nine months even after they are baptised? And do they not know that there are those in that most feared book revalations Blameless? and do they not know that God made adam and eve sinless and that adam and eve chose to sin? do they assume that it is impossible for God to make a human bieng able to not sin? so what if a woman, not a man, not mankind but human hearing the word of the Lord and loving it, given in marriage at the time of her first menstrual period, at a tender age that they do not even give thier children up to ability to chose sin over righteaousness, ask them then why they would deny the Power of God to Provide His SON a Mother fit for the King of KIngs and Lord of Lords, Fit for the Son of God? a temple made and kept pure for God’s sake. would not Mary laugh at those who assume her to have been a sinner? She is the Standard for Women of God, for Children of God, Ask them is the earth your mother? because you have a body of flesh? and dont forget to tell them that Jesus asked a woman who did sin and knew it and all were ready to stone her, “GO and Sin no more” how do they think if they can not stay in the presence of God for more than a little while so that they seek it more than to do God’s will no matter what, if they are so abiding in Grace how can they accuse His Mother Mary The Virgin prophesied of before she was born, How can they Judge Her is it that they have no mother? is it that they themselves have not found God in a way that makes impossible possible as He himselves told them? are they so rich in Knowledge that they Lack Wisdom that the Truth is that God does as he Pleases, and it Pleased Him to Bring His Son into the World in a Virgin, Virgin Blameless, to a sinful world that wont let God do the impossible through them and allow God to help them who had sin and know it, “go and sin no more” they say impossible they know enough they think they believe enough, But the mother of this world Jesus came into is not Mary, the mother of this world is EVE who was prophesied first that his seed shall bruise his heel, her seed shall crush his head, well then eve was made without sin and chose it, Our Mother in Christ was made without sin and Chose rightousness and DID BEAR THAT RIGHTEOUSNESS INTO THE WORLD. so they may know Christ enough to be saved by His Blood, but they have no faith, they can not move the mountain that keeps them from knowing Grace as Satifaction. and look at me. Im not catholic nor will i join those who are not knowing That God Is Not BORN IN A LIE. and i may have salvation but even me i cant go sin no more, and i was raised knowing how little they know, thank God they hold on to His robes but they refuse to Wear His Rightouesness, always protestant of every kind do not stay in His Grace but come in and out of it, there grace is that Jesus saved them, but they dont have the what it takes to feed his sheep, cause they wander in and out of church unfulfilled complaining of not bieng fed. They refuse to give God Glory in His People he Used as a Standard, they dont know how to grow and be satisfied in Him, cause they arent taught enough of the truth to Wear the clothes he offers them, they take a little and they forget and they call their children lost and herretic who Know that some people do not sin. SOme Know and Stay in God. even if I havent that much faith doesnt mean God cant do it. the people who dont know havent enough faith to believe God over their own voice and Go and sin no more, so they cant know Mary like we do. they dont even know what God can do for them permantly. God does not make a lie, God is not the author of confussion, mankind is. Mary is not mankind. the is the one whose seed crushed his head. i didnt always know this, i wasnt raised to know this, it was warned of not to believe it, but even they say if Mary can not be in Heaven who can be? and i could have gone my whole life and not known it. but i prayed and read the bible and waited to see what God says. who will say God did not tell me Mary is innocent and never sinned? not God. Not people who can not bear to see that God chose Mary over them. and then saved them. they have not enough faith to trust God to tell him. its a miracle i did.