"Scholars have found that over 75% of rites and ceremonies practiced by the Roman Catholic church are of pagan origin..."

[Markway]

Why not? You can read in the NT that Jesus and His Apostles attended the synagogue and temple. Do you not think there were liturgies?

They were liturgies but obviously no Christian liturgies

There were years that passed before Peter was sent to the house of Cornelius, the first Gentile convert. Peter was surprised, because at the time, he did not fully understand that Gentiles were also to be converted. If you read Acts, you can see that Paul, after he was converted, went on pilgrimmage for three years before he began preaching.

This is true, but what do you consider to be the early church? It is internally evident from the Bible, and historically unchallenged that most of the apostles hung around Jerusalem for quite awhile, and the majority of early church growth was due to the missionary trips of Paul. Reading his letters it is clear that these churches were struggling with how to practice their faith, and manage their meetings.

Which if the Apostles and disciples that followed Christ did you think was a Greek? Maybe Luke, but he did not convert until he ran into Paul on a Missionary journey.

Obviously, all of the first 14 apostles were of Hebrew origin.

It is true that the forms of the liturgy have changed, but even in the NT we can see the foundation of them. Already there was the laying on of hands (holy orders), eucharist, baptism, confirmation, annointing of the sick, sacrament of reconciliation, and marriage.

Liturgy does evolve. Sometimes for the worse!

I don’t understand why you say this.

I say that you would not allow St Paul to take communion with you because he was not a Roman Catholic.

In this context, that is quite a compliment. It is better to have a small remnant of purity than a whole planet of lukewarmness, or error.

This was not meant as a complement. You write as if the Catholic Church were infallible, and it obviously is not and has not been. I make no such claims for any current Christian denomination. A nun used to recruit me to help her do good works that her church would not do because they were for no-Catholics. We are ordered by Christ to be open and giving, not stingy and self-righteous.

Since most of the saints and Apostles were alive when the NT was written, it states that they just gathered in someones house to pray together.

When the martyring began, that is when the believers asked those who had passed to pray for them.

Praying FOR the dead is one thing, praying TO the dead is quite another matter. Asking a dead person to pray with you for some purpose may be defensible, if we knew that they heard us in the first place and this is not clear in scripture.

Yes, only one, who is Christ. However, He chooses to share that divine ministry of reconciliation with his chosen. Mary has a unique role in His redeeming work, having brought Him forth into the world. Mary can do nothing apart from Christ, just as none of us can.

I can find no basis for this sharing at all; as a matter of fact quite the opposite. God is a jealous God, who guards those things that are His. Mary did not bring Jesus into the world, the Father brought Christ Jesus into the world. Giving birth is not the same thing at all. Jesus was all man and all God, right? Mary gave birth to His physical body, but could not give birth to His Godhood, it having existed from the beginning. Christ, The Father, and The Spirit are present in Genesis at the creation, not Mary.

 

[Markway]

Post 172 on this thread, Markway?

Also: John Henry Newman *An Essay on the Development of Doctrine. *

“Co-redemptioness?” I can understand asking a question, but you mention it with a somewhat snide nuance, as if you think you are actually asking the right question. May we might suggest that you re-frame your question? For example, like this: I have heard that the Church is considering naming Mary “co-redemptioness”. Since Christ is our Redeemer, how can this be?

The term is not “co-redemptioness.” And there are several threads on the topic. When explained clearly, this is not nearly as odd as it sounds at first blush.

I did not mean to sound snide, I meant to sound shocked and appalled!

In some parts of the rest of The Christian Church we have a question that we ask when dealing with heresy. We do not demand that everyone march in lockstep, recognizing that the Bible has some room for interpretation. We also recognize that some doctrine is foundational. The question is, “Is this something to divide over?”, meaning is this issue important enough to break fellowship with that person or group. If the Catholic Church adopted the co-redemptioness business an an article of faith I would have to divide with you, as you would have passed over into heresy.

Nothing like this is found in the Bible or any of the early writings of the Church that I am aware of. We are redeemed by Christ and our faith in Him. This is the one foundational truth of Christianity.

 

[LilyM]

I can find no basis for this sharing at all; as a matter of fact quite the opposite. God is a jealous God, who guards those things that are His. Mary did not bring Jesus into the world, the Father brought Christ Jesus into the world. Giving birth is not the same thing at all. Jesus was all man and all God, right? Mary gave birth to His physical body, but could not give birth to His Godhood, it having existed from the beginning. Christ, The Father, and The Spirit are present in Genesis at the creation, not Mary.

Put it this way - your mother is the mother of 100% of yourself, yes? Even though your soul comes straight from God (and he, being outside of time, knew you too from the beginning!)?

Even though half your DNA comes from your biological father and, assuming that he is older than your mother, also pre-existed her?

So Mary is mother of 100% of Jesus. Your objections are no objections at all.

You don’t seem to realise that by saying Mary ISN’T Mother of God you aren’t just saying Christ had two natures, you’re actually saying he was two separate and distinct persons rather than ONE person with two natures. Now if he was two separate persons then his death saved humankind no more than the death of any other human could save all of humankind.

You are subscribing to a dangerous heresy called Nestorianism which was soundly condemned by the Council of Ephesus way back in 431, which asserted Mary as Theotokos (God-bearer).

 

[Mannyfit75]

I can find no basis for this sharing at all; as a matter of fact quite the opposite. God is a jealous God, who guards those things that are His. Mary **did not bring **Jesus into the world, the Father brought Christ Jesus into the world. Giving birth is not the same thing at all. Jesus was all man and all God, right?

Partially true but to say Mary did not bring to Jesus into the world, then how did the word became flesh. God had to do it with a woman. Isaiah 7:14 said, “A virgin shall conceived and bear a son.” This child is Jesus who brought forth Jesus in flesh? Mary.

Mary gave birth to Jesus my friend when she consented to God’s will by saying, “I am the Handmaid of the Lord, Be it Done Unto Me, According to Your Word!”

Mary gave birth to His physical body, but could not give birth to His Godhood, it having existed from the beginning. Christ, The Father, and The Spirit are present in Genesis at the creation, not Mary.

Of course. Mary did not brought forth God. She did brought forth the Word of God which became incarnated as flesh. Mary didn’t gave birth to God, the Father because he didn’t became flesh, nor did Mary give birth to the Holy Spirit because the Holy Spirit didn’t become Flesh.

Only God, the Son, Jesus Christ recarnated as flesh. By the flesh, blood, and bone of Mary, Jesus the Word dwelt with men. We also know that Jesus is both True God, and True Man. Therefore, we can proudly call Mary the Mother of God.

She is only the Mother of Jesus Christ, not the Holy Spirit nor God the Father.

 

[Milliardo]

I can find no basis for this sharing at all; as a matter of fact quite the opposite. God is a jealous God, who guards those things that are His. Mary did not bring Jesus into the world, the Father brought Christ Jesus into the world. Giving birth is not the same thing at all. Jesus was all man and all God, right? Mary gave birth to His physical body, but could not give birth to His Godhood, it having existed from the beginning. Christ, The Father, and The Spirit are present in Genesis at the creation, not Mary.

This is Nestorian heresy, the very same notion Nestorius had that the Council of Ephesus condemned. The Council then made it clear that Jesus’ humanity and divinity are connected and could not be separated; hence, Mary was the mother of both the physical and divine aspects of Jesus. To say that she only gave birth to the physical Christ is to separate His divinity from His humanity; now that is something that cannot be gleaned from Scripture, either explicitly or implicitly.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Partially true but to say Mary did not bring to Jesus into the world, then how did the word became flesh. God had to do it with a woman. Isaiah 7:14 said, “A virgin shall conceived and bear a son.” This child is Jesus who brought forth Jesus in flesh? Mary.

Mary gave birth to Jesus my friend when she consented to God’s will by saying, “I am the Handmaid of the Lord, Be it Done Unto Me, According to Your Word!”

Of course. Mary did not brought forth God. She did brought forth the Word of God which became incarnated as flesh. Mary didn’t gave birth to God, the Father because he didn’t became flesh, nor did Mary give birth to the Holy Spirit because the Holy Spirit didn’t become Flesh.

Only God, the Son, Jesus Christ recarnated as flesh. By the flesh, blood, and bone of Mary, Jesus the Word dwelt with men. We also know that Jesus is both True God, and True Man. Therefore, we can proudly call Mary the Mother of God.

She is only the Mother of Jesus Christ, not the Holy Spirit nor God the Father.

I like to made a correct. Where I wrote, Mary did not brought forth God, I meant she did not brought forth God, the Father, and God, the Holy Spirit. She did brought forth the God In Flesh, the Second Person of the Trinity, Jesus Christ.

 

[Zooey]

I can find no basis for this sharing at all; as a matter of fact quite the opposite. God is a jealous God, who guards those things that are His. Mary did not bring Jesus into the world, the Father brought Christ Jesus into the world. Giving birth is not the same thing at all. Jesus was all man and all God, right? Mary gave birth to His physical body, but could not give birth to His Godhood, it having existed from the beginning. Christ, The Father, and The Spirit are present in Genesis at the creation, not Mary.

And yet again:
http://bestsmileys.com/halloween1/13.gif
whistle: See below!!!)

This is Nestorian heresy, the very same notion Nestorius had that the Council of Ephesus condemned. The Council then made it clear that Jesus’ humanity and divinity are connected and could not be separated; hence, Mary was the mother of both the physical and divine aspects of Jesus. To say that she only gave birth to the physical Christ is to separate His divinity from His humanity; now that is something that cannot be gleaned from Scripture, either explicitly or implicitly.

 

[Mannyfit75]

[SIGN]The rising of Nestorianism to those who denied that Mary is the Mother of God. [/SIGN]

 

[Zooey]

What I meant was that I doubt that very many people can really do what Christ wants esp, and when comittee rules it gets worse.
.

Hmmmm…You do know that the King James Version of the Bible was translated by committee, no???

 

[mercygate]

I can find no basis for this sharing at all; as a matter of fact quite the opposite. God is a jealous God, who guards those things that are His. Mary did not bring Jesus into the world, the Father brought Christ Jesus into the world. Giving birth is not the same thing at all. Jesus was all man and all God, right? Mary gave birth to His physical body, but could not give birth to His Godhood, it having existed from the beginning. Christ, The Father, and The Spirit are present in Genesis at the creation, not Mary.

Markway – All mainstream Protestants accept the title “Mother of God” for the Blessed Virgin Mary. If you have a problem with this doctrine, I urge you to see if you can’t find Presbyterian, R. C. Sproul’s excellent treatment of this subject on his website, Ligonier Ministries. Heck! Baptists believe this one!

'Nother thread.

 

[mercygate]

I did not mean to sound snide, I meant to sound shocked and appalled!

In some parts of the rest of The Christian Church we have a question that we ask when dealing with heresy. We do not demand that everyone march in lockstep, recognizing that the Bible has some room for interpretation. We also recognize that some doctrine is foundational. The question is, “Is this something to divide over?”, meaning is this issue important enough to break fellowship with that person or group. If the Catholic Church adopted the co-redemptioness business an an article of faith I would have to divide with you, as you would have passed over into heresy.

Nothing like this is found in the Bible or any of the early writings of the Church that I am aware of. We are redeemed by Christ and our faith in Him. This is the one foundational truth of Christianity.

Still hoping that you have registered post 172 on this thread regarding sacraments.

Again: when explained carefully, the idea of Mary as co-redemptrix is not nearly as strange as it sounds. Even you are a “co-redeemer” if you consider that you are in Christ – as Paul says: a co-worker. 'Nother thread.

 

[Markway]

Put it this way - your mother is the mother of 100% of yourself, yes? Even though your soul comes straight from God (and he, being outside of time, knew you too from the beginning!)?

Even though half your DNA comes from your biological father and, assuming that he is older than your mother, also pre-existed her?

So Mary is mother of 100% of Jesus. Your objections are no objections at all.

You don’t seem to realise that by saying Mary ISN’T Mother of God you aren’t just saying Christ had two natures, you’re actually saying he was two separate and distinct persons rather than ONE person with two natures. Now if he was two separate persons then his death saved humankind no more than the death of any other human could save all of humankind.

You are subscribing to a dangerous heresy called Nestorianism which was soundly condemned by the Council of Ephesus way back in 431, which asserted Mary as Theotokos (God-bearer).

Sorry, the Word existed from the beginning. My mother is/was not 100% of me, a strange assertion. Mary was selected to raise Jesus, a great honor, but so?..

I am fully aware of Nestorianism, but this whole topic is difficult of description.

 

[Markway]

Put it this way - your mother is the mother of 100% of yourself, yes? Even though your soul comes straight from God (and he, being outside of time, knew you too from the beginning!)?

Even though half your DNA comes from your biological father and, assuming that he is older than your mother, also pre-existed her?

So Mary is mother of 100% of Jesus. Your objections are no objections at all.

You don’t seem to realise that by saying Mary ISN’T Mother of God you aren’t just saying Christ had two natures, you’re actually saying he was two separate and distinct persons rather than ONE person with two natures. Now if he was two separate persons then his death saved humankind no more than the death of any other human could save all of humankind.

You are subscribing to a dangerous heresy called Nestorianism which was soundly condemned by the Council of Ephesus way back in 431, which asserted Mary as Theotokos (God-bearer).

Sorry, the Word existed from the beginning. My mother is/was not 100% of me, a strange assertion. Mary was selected to raise Jesus, a great honor, but so?..

I am fully aware of Nestorianism, but this whole topic is difficult of description.

 

[Markway]

Put it this way - your mother is the mother of 100% of yourself, yes? Even though your soul comes straight from God (and he, being outside of time, knew you too from the beginning!)?

Even though half your DNA comes from your biological father and, assuming that he is older than your mother, also pre-existed her?

So Mary is mother of 100% of Jesus. Your objections are no objections at all.

You don’t seem to realise that by saying Mary ISN’T Mother of God you aren’t just saying Christ had two natures, you’re actually saying he was two separate and distinct persons rather than ONE person with two natures. Now if he was two separate persons then his death saved humankind no more than the death of any other human could save all of humankind.

You are subscribing to a dangerous heresy called Nestorianism which was soundly condemned by the Council of Ephesus way back in 431, which asserted Mary as Theotokos (God-bearer).

Sorry, the Word existed from the beginning. My mother is/was not 100% of me, a strange assertion. Mary was selected to raise Jesus, a great honor, but so?..

I am fully aware of Nestorianism, but this whole topic is difficult of description. You ARE aware that The Word existed from the beginning? Christianity 101. Was Mary there? I find no mention of Her in the Godhead. Give Mary whatever titles make you happy, but they are dangerous. The title, “Mother of God” implies that She was there before Him, just as my parents existed before me. This is not the case with Mary though. How to say this? If you can express this in a happier way I will be willing to initial the change.

 

[guanophore]

I can find no basis for this sharing at all; as a matter of fact quite the opposite. God is a jealous God, who guards those things that are His. Mary did not bring Jesus into the world, the Father brought Christ Jesus into the world. Giving birth is not the same thing at all. Jesus was all man and all God, right? Mary gave birth to His physical body, but could not give birth to His Godhood, it having existed from the beginning. Christ, The Father, and The Spirit are present in Genesis at the creation, not Mary.

Ah! You are a Nestorian!

Once a person rejects the Divine Authority given to the Church to define doctrine, such a one will eventually fall into heresy of one type or another.

catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9409hotm.asp

 

[guanophore]

Sorry, the Word existed from the beginning. My mother is/was not 100% of me, a strange assertion. Mary was selected to raise Jesus, a great honor, but so?..

I am fully aware of Nestorianism, but this whole topic is difficult of description.

No, Markway, we are having NO DIFFICULTY recognizing this heresy in your posts!

Mary was selected to raise Jesus, a great honor, but so?..

In what way are you honoring her?

You ARE aware that The Word existed from the beginning? Christianity 101. Was Mary there? I find no mention of Her in the Godhead. Give Mary whatever titles make you happy, but they are dangerous. The title, “Mother of God” implies that She was there before Him, just as my parents existed before me. This is not the case with Mary though. How to say this? If you can express this in a happier way I will be willing to initial the change.

Mary is not part of the Godhead, Nestorius. What is dangerous is the denial of the Teaching Authority that God appointed to His church. The Truth of God does not exist for the purpose of making you happy, Nestorius. I do think you will be a happier person if you accept it, but the Truth will not be “expressed” in such a manner to appease your unhappy feelings.

 

[Zooey]

I am fully aware of Nestorianism, but this whole topic is difficult of description. You ARE aware that The Word existed from the beginning? Christianity 101. Was Mary there? I find no mention of Her in the Godhead. Give Mary whatever titles make you happy, but they are dangerous. The title, “Mother of God” implies that She was there before Him, just as my parents existed before me. This is not the case with Mary though. How to say this? If you can express this in a happier way I will be willing to initial the change.

[sign]Pshaw! Piffle-poofle!! Pfui!!![/sign]
[SIGN]The rising of Nestorianism to those who denied that Mary is the Mother of God.[/SIGN]
[sign]
Hence,
http://bestsmileys.com/halloween1/13.gif
[/sign]

 

[mercygate]

Sorry, the Word existed from the beginning. My mother is/was not 100% of me, a strange assertion. Mary was selected to raise Jesus, a great honor, but so?..

I am fully aware of Nestorianism, but this whole topic is difficult of description. You ARE aware that The Word existed from the beginning? Christianity 101. Was Mary there? I find no mention of Her in the Godhead. Give Mary whatever titles make you happy, but they are dangerous. The title, “Mother of God” implies that She was there before Him, just as my parents existed before me. This is not the case with Mary though. How to say this? If you can express this in a happier way I will be willing to initial the change.

Again, I encourage you to take up the designation “Mother of God” with a good Lutheran, Presbyterian, Methodist, Congregationalist, Baptist, or Episcopalian. We Catholics have enough unique doctrines to defend without having to manage this one single handed: nowithstanding Zooey’s (name removed by moderator)ut here.

The title does not imply that Mary is older than God.

 

[Gamera]

… My mother is/was not 100% of me, a strange assertion. …

You misread the post. The comment was that Mary is mother of 100% of Jesus. In other words, Mary wasn’t mother of only 50% of Jesus, or 75% of Jesus, but of all of Jesus.

Imagine if I said to my mother, “You only gave birth to my body, not to my soul.” That would be absurd! Each person’s mother gave birth to their whole person – their body, their soul, their mind, their personality. It has nothing to do with creation. Nobody claims that Mary created God. But Mary gave birth to ALL of Jesus, not just to His body. She is His mother.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Gottle, you make some great points and I’ll think about them. You were cagey, but did you mean that the Catholic Church might make mistakes? Scary when you start THAT fox.

Not cagey, I hope, so much as eager to clear up possible sources of confusion - not everything in the Church is of equal value, weight, obligation, or origin, & it is a mistake to try to defend everything in it as though everything were.​

Can the Church make mistakes ? Of course. Why not ? Its history is littered with them. Very few things are outside our ability to make a dog’s breakfast out of. ##

What I meant was that I doubt that very many people can really do what Christ wants esp, and when comittee rules it gets worse.
Church doctrine:any brand of Christian, Non Catholic, is probably full of error. And RC’s are probably no better.

That depends on what sort of thing is being discussed - some things are for certain, others admit of some degree of doubt; things vary. “We see in part…we know in part…” is as true of the CC as of any other Christian body; that doesn’t mean the CC does not enjoy a certain infallibility. That side of things has just not been much emphasised - which is a pity, IMHO. (I would hate to have become Catholic as a result of arguments based on any kind of Churchly omniscience ) ​