J
justaccord
Guest
Would you kindly explain for me how Mary can be co (whether equal or unequal) redeemer and/or mediator, when Scripture prescribes one and only one and no other?
- Status
C
Church_Militant
Guest
This is a badly messed up statement and indicates that you do not understand what you are talking about. You appear to be repeating something that you have heard or read somewhere. The only contradiction is between the ears of the person who fed you that stuff because that is NOT Catholic teaching.
Nowhere in our beliefs is it said that Mary is our redeemer. Anyone who tells you that is either ignorant or outright lying to you.
The mediation of the Blessed Virgin is nothing more than the same intercession of saints that all Christians share and are enjoined by the Bible itself to do. It has been a doctrine in Christianity from the days of the early church and the historical evidence of it is carved on the tombs of the earliest martyrs in the catacombs, showing that they both prayed for the dead and asked the intercession of those brothers and sisters that are already with the Lord. Mary’s intercessory role is foreshadowed in the OT “giberah”, or Queen Mother. Another whole thread alltogether…
However…none of this is relevent to the stated topic of this thread and Robert is already having trouble figuring out how to stay on topic with all his varied questions… so I’ll make this my only answer to this post.
The only way to get clear and complete answers to all these questions is
- Read the articles on each of these topics over on the ma(name removed by moderator)age library. Most times you can save yourself about a ton of typing if you folks would just please check that library to see what we teach on these things. You will also find that in general you will not see us alter that position on these forums… the fact is that THAT is what we believe. All the discussion til hell freezes over isn’t gonna change that. it’s not that we don’t want to talk with you about this stuff, but as the man said earlier…we’ve done it thousands of times before…get the answers upfront…save us all a lot of hassle.
- If you really want to talk something over, make a thread about it and we’ll all find it and offer what comments we have. One topic-one thread. Case in point…this thread is about Sola Scriptura ( :whacky: again…), not petrine primacy, The Blessed Virgin, salvation, or anything else.
You may also find that if you do a forum search you will find that there are already a boatlad of threads where this particular horse has been beat to death but good. :banghead:
Pax vobiscum,
C
Church_Militant
Guest
You need to make this the topic of your own thread and NOT hijack this one on Sola Scriptura. It’s really rude to do that to a guy whose tryin’ to get answers to another question. Don’t you even have any sense of courtesy for another non-Catholic? Sheesh man!
G
geezerbob
Guest
Since you have refused to stay on topic per forum rules, other posters have been kind enough to start new threads on some of the other topics which have been inserted into this one. Please re-post your questions there or, if you don’t find one dealing with the subject matter you wish to discuss, please feel free to start a new one yourself. This thread is dealing only with the question of whether Scripture is all-sufficient. Thank you.
J
justaccord
Guest
Church Militant:
At the risk of requiring you to make one more post on an issue other than sola scriptura (actually, this point is about sola scriptura – it’s about how catholicism elevates myth, imagination and tradition above the contrary Word of God, I’m going to ask for one more clarification – then I’ll leave the thread or change the subject.
.
Who knows more about catholic doctrine – you, or John Paul II?
The biggest problem with discussion with catholics seems to be that everyone has a different doctrine – a great irony since you trumpet the everyone-is-on-the-same-page motif against Christians.
Anyway, when John Paul II says Mary is a CO-REDEMPTRIX with Christ, when I can go to Mexico and buy crosses with Jesus nowhere to be seen but Mary on them, and you tell me the catholic church doesnt and never has had such doctrine, what exactly do I do?
Maybe you can help me figure that out.
Here’s what your late pope said:
John Paul II, Allocution at the Sanctuary of Our Lady of Guayaquil, given on Jan 31, 1985, reported in L’Osservatore Romano Supplement of Feb. 2, 1985 and in English L’Osservatore Romano, March 11, 1985, p. 7.
“Crucified spiritually with her crucified Son (cf. Gal 2:20), she contemplated with heroic love the death of her God, she ‘lovingly consented to the immolation of this Victim which she herself had brought forth’ (Lumen gentium #58) … as she was in a special way close to the Cross of her Son, she also had to have a privileged experience of his Resurrection. In fact, Mary’s role as co-redemptrix did not cease with the glorification of her Son.”
Get it – not only is Mary a co-redemptrix with Christ, but her role continues, even today (while Scripture tells us that His role, as He stated with His dying words, was FINISHED at the cross).
Is the pope “ignorant, or lying” to me?
The one “thread” that seems to run throughout all the threads on this site is condescension. You people seemed to trained to answer every observation or point with a broad statement that one who dares to make the point does not know what he is talking about.This is a badly messed up statement and indicates that you do not understand what you are talking about. You appear to be repeating something that you have heard or read somewhere. The only contradiction is between the ears of the person who fed you that stuff because that is NOT Catholic teaching.
Nowhere in our beliefs is it said that Mary is our redeemer. Anyone who tells you that is either ignorant or outright lying to you.
The mediation of the Blessed Virgin is nothing more than the same intercession of saints that all Christians share and are enjoined by the Bible itself to do. It has been a doctrine in Christianity from the days of the early church and the historical evidence of it is carved on the tombs of the earliest martyrs in the catacombs, showing that they both prayed for the dead and asked the intercession of those brothers and sisters that are already with the Lord. Mary’s intercessory role is foreshadowed in the OT “giberah”, or Queen Mother. Another whole thread alltogether…
However…none of this is relevent to the stated topic of this thread and Robert is already having trouble figuring out how to stay on topic with all his varied questions… so I’ll make this my only answer to this post.
The only way to get clear and complete answers to all these questions is
Now…back to your regularly scheduled playtime.
- Read the articles on each of these topics over on the ma(name removed by moderator)age library. Most times you can save yourself about a ton of typing if you folks would just please check that library to see what we teach on these things. You will also find that in general you will not see us alter that position on these forums… the fact is that THAT is what we believe. All the discussion til hell freezes over isn’t gonna change that. it’s not that we don’t want to talk with you about this stuff, but as the man said earlier…we’ve done it thousands of times before…get the answers upfront…save us all a lot of hassle.
- If you really want to talk something over, make a thread about it and we’ll all find it and offer what comments we have. One topic-one thread. Case in point…this thread is about Sola Scriptura ( :whacky: again…), not petrine primacy, The Blessed Virgin, salvation, or anything else.
You may also find that if you do a forum search you will find that there are already a boatlad of threads where this particular horse has been beat to death but good. :banghead:
Pax vobiscum,
At the risk of requiring you to make one more post on an issue other than sola scriptura (actually, this point is about sola scriptura – it’s about how catholicism elevates myth, imagination and tradition above the contrary Word of God, I’m going to ask for one more clarification – then I’ll leave the thread or change the subject.
.
Who knows more about catholic doctrine – you, or John Paul II?
The biggest problem with discussion with catholics seems to be that everyone has a different doctrine – a great irony since you trumpet the everyone-is-on-the-same-page motif against Christians.
Anyway, when John Paul II says Mary is a CO-REDEMPTRIX with Christ, when I can go to Mexico and buy crosses with Jesus nowhere to be seen but Mary on them, and you tell me the catholic church doesnt and never has had such doctrine, what exactly do I do?
Maybe you can help me figure that out.
Here’s what your late pope said:
John Paul II, Allocution at the Sanctuary of Our Lady of Guayaquil, given on Jan 31, 1985, reported in L’Osservatore Romano Supplement of Feb. 2, 1985 and in English L’Osservatore Romano, March 11, 1985, p. 7.
“Crucified spiritually with her crucified Son (cf. Gal 2:20), she contemplated with heroic love the death of her God, she ‘lovingly consented to the immolation of this Victim which she herself had brought forth’ (Lumen gentium #58) … as she was in a special way close to the Cross of her Son, she also had to have a privileged experience of his Resurrection. In fact, Mary’s role as co-redemptrix did not cease with the glorification of her Son.”
Get it – not only is Mary a co-redemptrix with Christ, but her role continues, even today (while Scripture tells us that His role, as He stated with His dying words, was FINISHED at the cross).
Is the pope “ignorant, or lying” to me?
D
deb1
Guest
I am using your thread as a jumping off point. If your point, just accord, is right and true it will continue to be right and true even if you FOLLOW THE RULES OF THIS FORUM! By not doing this you are proving yourself a bad ambassador for your message. If I did not come from a Protestant background or have Godly Protestant friends, I would believe, based on your actions on this board, that all Protestants were rude, self righteous people who don’t believe that rules apply to them. Far from making me rethink Catholisim, you would make me run toward it harder.:tsktsk:
Just think about this, if people get annoyed enough to ban you from these forums, then who will hear your message?. Think of all the evangilical opportunities that you will be missing.
G
geezerbob
Guest
I finally got enough of his anti-Marian diatribe and reported him about a half hour ago. This is the second thread he’s hijacked.
D
deb1
Guest
Thank you.
S
ScottH
Guest
D
deb1
Guest
deb1:
By not doing this you are proving yourself a bad ambassador for your message. If I did not come from a Protestant background or have Godly Protestant friends, I would believe, based on your actions on this board, that all Protestants were rude, self righteous people who don’t believe that rules apply to them…
I am at a loss to know how to respond to you. SO, I will choose to ignore what I find insulting in your reply and just suggest that you begin a new thread when a new subject arises.
T
Tom
Guest
Robert Shadwick:
Did these “members” of the Catholic Church not tell you that the Catholic Church issues a lectionary (schedule) for every day of the year to insure that EVERY Word of Scripture is read and discussed at Mass? That’s every Word to include the deuterocanon, and even those passages which are difficult to understand. Please show us your churches lectionary, or schedule which insures ALL of His Word is read. BTW, this is not a new invention, we’ve pretty much always done it this way.
D
Doihavtasay
Guest
Justaccord and ScottH
I am a long time reader, rarely post Calvinist who started reading Catholic Theology after listening to anti-Catholic rhetoric at my church each Sunday… some of things the Pstr said were so outlandish that I had to go and read up just to see if what he was saying was true… I was raised RCC but didn’t really know my faith very well, but well enough to know I was never Mary was equal to Jesus in any way shape or form… anyway.
The problem you are having here is you are hearing what is being said through Protestant ears. You have been trained to come to this with a preconceived idea of what they are saying and are LOOKING for anything that sounds that as though it will support your veiw rather then trying to move out of that box and HEAR WHAT THEY ARE SAYING.
I had a hard time in the beginning, but it gets easier. It’s like learning a new language.As for what John Paul II said, here is my take with out looking it up-Mary was His mother, she nursed Him, cared for Him , protected Him, realized He was God… how hard it must have been for her to watch them toture and kill Him having known Him so intimately. If I had been His mother, i would NOT have CO-opperated, I would have tried to kill those who took Him. I would have cried buckett snd railed against the world as He hung dying. But she instead, bore HER CROSS of being totally submissive and restrained herself from raising a hand to stop this. If that is not being CO-operative and being ‘cruixified’ spiritutally, I don’t what would be.
We are all asked to take up our crosses… you just don’t get the metaphors and language of the Bible.
They are being very kind and have gone out of their way to explain things, but you basically keel telling them they are lying about what they believe. I would have gotten condecending many posts ago…
If they honestly believed she was equal, won’t they be HAPPY to admit that??? Not admiting it would be disgracing to Mary and if they placed her as high as the Lord, why on earth would they do that???
Honestly, it’s your attitudes that have made me look very seriously at the RCC. You guys just don’t seem able to think clearly when it comes to Catholic Doctrine and are simply shadow boxing, not really engaging in any real meaningfull discusion about the differences in doctrine.
This is not said in anger at all. Accept it in peace and please take another look at how open your mind really is to learning and understanding what they are saying.
J
justaccord
Guest
I sincerely appreciate your response and would like to discuss it more with you, but am tired of the venom pouring from your fellow catholics (Christians, really!!!) about being on the wrong thread – I am new to this forum thing --how can we move this discussion to a different thread?Justaccord and ScottH
I am a long time reader, rarely post Calvinist who started reading Catholic Theology after listening to anti-Catholic rhetoric at my church each Sunday… some of things the Pstr said were so outlandish that I had to go and read up just to see if what he was saying was true… I was raised RCC but didn’t really know my faith very well, but well enough to know I was never Mary was equal to Jesus in any way shape or form… anyway.
The problem you are having here is you are hearing what is being said through Protestant ears. You have been trained to come to this with a preconceived idea of what they are saying and are LOOKING for anything that sounds that as though it will support your veiw rather then trying to move out of that box and HEAR WHAT THEY ARE SAYING.
As for what John Paul II said, here is my take with out looking it up-Mary was His mother, she nursed Him, cared for Him , protected Him, realized He was God… how hard it must have been for her to watch them toture and kill Him having known Him so intimately. If I had been His mother, i would NOT have CO-opperated, I would have tried to kill those who took Him. I would have cried buckett snd railed against the world as He hung dying. But she instead, bore HER CROSS of being totally submissive and restrained herself from raising a hand to stop this. If that is not being CO-operative and being ‘cruixified’ spiritutally, I don’t what would be.
We are all asked to take up our crosses… you just don’t get the metaphors and language of the Bible.
They are being very kind and have gone out of their way to explain things, but you basically keel telling them they are lying about what they believe. I would have gotten condecending many posts ago…
If they honestly believed she was equal, won’t they be HAPPY to admit that??? Not admiting it would be disgracing to Mary and if they placed her as high as the Lord, why on earth would they do that???
Honestly, it’s your attitudes that have made me look very seriously at the RCC. You guys just don’t seem able to think clearly when it comes to Catholic Doctrine and are simply shadow boxing, not really engaging in any real meaningfull discusion about the differences in doctrine.
This is not said in anger at all. Accept it in peace and please take another look at how open your mind really is to learning and understanding what they are saying.
Thanks
sdg
D
deb1
Guest
Go to the particular forum that you want-probably apologetics. On the upper left side of the top of the list of threads is a button to start new thread. Click that button, name your thread and post a reply. That’s it.
H
hlgomez
Guest
Robert Shadwick,
One thing I can say: The ISBE is not an infallible interpreter of history, neither of Sacred Scriptures. We are not dealing with how Matthew was written in original language, BUT what language the Lord Jesus spoke.
You will notice that the Lord Jesus himself spoke in Mark 15:
"And at three o’clock Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” which is translated, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”
I guess this too is written in your Bible. This utterance of our Lord weren’t dared changed by the translators. This is the oldest evidence that the Lord Jesus spoke in Aramaic.
Pio
I
Ignatius
Guest
If you would really like to discuss things, why have you not answered my posts above. I would truely like to disucss these issues with you.
Please respond to my previous posts. Thank you in advance for your reply.
Yours in Christ.
J
justaccord
Guest
I have lost track of what posts you refer to. I only saw one, dealing with canonization – an utterly different topic. The fact that the early church (which was the visible church at the time) canonized the Bible under the guidance and inspiration of the Holy Spirit does not entail that catholicism is the one true religion.
Please restate whatever your question is, except canonization goes nowhere. The infallibility of the canon is the result of a fallible process under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, as God’s infallible Word was written by fallible men under inspiration.
You cant get there from here.
Please restate whatever your question is, except canonization goes nowhere. The infallibility of the canon is the result of a fallible process under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, as God’s infallible Word was written by fallible men under inspiration.
You cant get there from here.
T
TNT
Guest
Oh yes you can.
You said:
**visible church at the time…
When did it become Invisible? Or did it?
If it became invisible, WHO made it disappear from visiblity? WHY did they do that?
Are you saying that the early Christian had a visible Church, and later Christians were abandoned to struggle on their own with NO visible Church advantage?
Where did they worship the Sunday AFTER the VISIBLE church disappeared?
Who were their ministers, teachers, preachers, the day AFTER the disappearance?
** You said:the early church …under the guidance and inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
**EXACTLY WHEN did this inspiration reveal itself by the visible Church declaring 27 (only) NT writings? A year would help.
Who declared it on behalf of the Church?
What was the name of the Church in the documents of history, if there are any that supports this?
Is the disappearing church found in your bible?
Is the “inspiration of the Holy Spirit” in discerning the NT books, in your bible?
If not, wouldn’t that be an admission that your bible really is quite insufficient for such beliefs?
When did the HS decide to abandon His inspiration? The Year would help.
Was INTERPRETATION to be fallible and UNinspired? If so, what good, pray tell, is an inspired writing with erroneous interpretation. I propose worse than useless.
**You said:
…**a fallible process…
Can you tell us who humanly conducted this process?
Do they have a name?
Please give us a brief description of the process and who were the human participants?
** YOU are raising more questions than you answer!
J
justaccord
Guest
The wheat and the tares are together. One can profess Christ and not know Him at all. Mt 7.21-22
The visible church is simply shorthand for the assemblage of all those claiming to be part of the body of Christ – some are and some are not. It’s been the same way since Jesus’ professing disciples walked on earth – some were, and some weren’t
it’s a constant condition, doesnt change with time. Surely you must know that
D
Doihavtasay
Guest
Then there has to be some record of this church if were seperate from the RCC, right?
Do you have any documentation? Any Church Fathers that were not RCC?
This is really a pivotal issue. No other church means that the RCC is the true Church because God promised He would protect His church.
And that doesn’t mean churchES, just one church, one doctrine.
- Status