T
- Status
Z
Zooey
Guest
Now, we all had best believe and hope that this is not true! Because if Jesus ever did “insult Mary”, He broke the commandment to “Honor your father & your mother”.
If Jesus broke a commandment, He was not sinless.
If Jesus was not sinless, His sacrifice of Himself on the cross of Calvary was meaningless & useless.
If Jesus’ sacrifice was meaningless & useless, it does not atone for sin.
If Jesus’ sacrifice does not atone for sin, then everybody on this planet earth, is going to hell. Everybody. Without exception.
I really do hope that no one is trying to argue that? That you had simply never thought through to the logical conclusion of what you are saying??!!
Z
Zooey
Guest
L
LilyM
Guest
Dangnabbit! Why won’t ol’ Nesty just STAY dead!!!
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
Nectorius… Nectorius… Grace4hIM preaches the ancient heresy from the 5th century…
On the side note, Mary is the Mother of God, the Son. Jesus is God therefore Mary is the mother of God. This title invokes St. Elizabeth when she said, "how is it that the Mother of** My Lord **come to ME?
Since Jews cannot say God’s name, they use Lord. Jesus is Lord, and He is God.
On the side note, Mary is the Mother of God, the Son. Jesus is God therefore Mary is the mother of God. This title invokes St. Elizabeth when she said, "how is it that the Mother of** My Lord **come to ME?
Since Jews cannot say God’s name, they use Lord. Jesus is Lord, and He is God.
T
Tomster
Guest
“And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.” - St. John 1:14
When Mary bowed her lovely head with the consenting words on her lips there took place incomparably the greatest event in the history of creation. Greatest seems such an inadequate word. Call the Incarnation amazing, astounding, astonishing, startling, and you are far from the mark; describe it as inenarrable, inexpressible, ineffable, unspeakable, unutterable and you are still falling short; say it is sublime, splendid, superb, glorious and you touch but one of its facets; tell of its importance, significance, consequences and momentousness and yet all you say must be inadequate. It is absolutely unique, utterly and completely indescribable in its infinite fullness. It dwarfs into nothingness all the otherwise most momentous happenings to matter, man or spirit. It infinitely transcends all comparison, outstrips all analogy and excells all parallels. To compare it with anything is to belittle it.
Is it not strange that familiarity has so dimmed man’s perception that he no longer estimates the importance of other human happenings by their relationship to this one pivotal thing, the union of God and man in Mary’s womb? Indeed most of the men who call themselves Christians hardly ever pause to think of the meaning of that happening in history which made Christianity possible. Stop twenty men tomorrow and ask each of them which, in his opinion, is the greatest event of all time - how many would reply without a moment’s hesitation the coming of God into a virgin’s womb? Yet that is the true answer.
When Mary bowed her lovely head with the consenting words on her lips there took place incomparably the greatest event in the history of creation. Greatest seems such an inadequate word. Call the Incarnation amazing, astounding, astonishing, startling, and you are far from the mark; describe it as inenarrable, inexpressible, ineffable, unspeakable, unutterable and you are still falling short; say it is sublime, splendid, superb, glorious and you touch but one of its facets; tell of its importance, significance, consequences and momentousness and yet all you say must be inadequate. It is absolutely unique, utterly and completely indescribable in its infinite fullness. It dwarfs into nothingness all the otherwise most momentous happenings to matter, man or spirit. It infinitely transcends all comparison, outstrips all analogy and excells all parallels. To compare it with anything is to belittle it.
Is it not strange that familiarity has so dimmed man’s perception that he no longer estimates the importance of other human happenings by their relationship to this one pivotal thing, the union of God and man in Mary’s womb? Indeed most of the men who call themselves Christians hardly ever pause to think of the meaning of that happening in history which made Christianity possible. Stop twenty men tomorrow and ask each of them which, in his opinion, is the greatest event of all time - how many would reply without a moment’s hesitation the coming of God into a virgin’s womb? Yet that is the true answer.
T
Tomster
Guest
O4G,
Although the Scriptures do not explicitly call Mary the Mother of God, the angel Gabriel at the Annunciation speaks of the Child Mary is to conceive as the “Son of the Most High,” “the Son of God” (Luke 1:32,35). Elizabeth salutes Mary as the Mother of her Lord (Luke 1:43). Although Lord (Kyrios) is employed in the New Testament for man as well as God, in the present context it seems more certain that the Holy Spirit revealed the mystery of the Incarnation to Elizabeth in full. When she asks why should “the Mother of My Lord come to me?” Elizabeth speaks of the same Lord of whom Mary sings: “My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior” (Luke 1:47). It is beyond the scope of this message to expound the testimony of Scripture regarding the divinity of Mary’s Son. Still, because this truth is at the very foundation of the divine motherhood, it may be well to recall the precious prologue of St. John’s gospel in which he trumphets forth the divinity of Jesus Christ. The Word is God, he says (John 1:1). God the Word was made flesh (1:14). God the Word-made-flesh is Jesus Christ, of whom John the Baptist gave testimony (1:15-17). Jesus Christ is Mary’s Son.
In the Synoptics we read that when Jesus was on trial for His life before the Sanhedrin, He professed under oath (Matthew 26:63,64) that He was the Christ, the Son of God, and was charged guilty of death for blasphemy (Mark 14:64), a charge having no meaning unles His claim meant equality with God Himself. Moreover, at least three times Jesus is explicitly called God by the Apostles. Recall the profession of faith on the part of the doubting Thomas, as Jesus shows him the wound in His side: “My Lord and My God” (John 20:28). St. John in his first epistle is direct and explicit about the divinity of Christ (1 John 5:20).
Futhermore, St.Paul not only says that "God sent His Son, born of a woman: (Galatians 4:4), that Jesus was “in the form of God” (i.e. by nature God) and regarded Himself "equal to God: (Phil. 2:6), but speaks of “Christ in the flesh, who exalted about all things is God blessed forever” (Romans 9:5).
Therefore, even though Mary is never explicitly called Mother of God in Scripture, she is explicitly the Mother of the Lord, the Mother of Jesus; and her Son Jesus, whom she conceived, is explicitly called God. Mary is the Mother of God.
Although the Scriptures do not explicitly call Mary the Mother of God, the angel Gabriel at the Annunciation speaks of the Child Mary is to conceive as the “Son of the Most High,” “the Son of God” (Luke 1:32,35). Elizabeth salutes Mary as the Mother of her Lord (Luke 1:43). Although Lord (Kyrios) is employed in the New Testament for man as well as God, in the present context it seems more certain that the Holy Spirit revealed the mystery of the Incarnation to Elizabeth in full. When she asks why should “the Mother of My Lord come to me?” Elizabeth speaks of the same Lord of whom Mary sings: “My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior” (Luke 1:47). It is beyond the scope of this message to expound the testimony of Scripture regarding the divinity of Mary’s Son. Still, because this truth is at the very foundation of the divine motherhood, it may be well to recall the precious prologue of St. John’s gospel in which he trumphets forth the divinity of Jesus Christ. The Word is God, he says (John 1:1). God the Word was made flesh (1:14). God the Word-made-flesh is Jesus Christ, of whom John the Baptist gave testimony (1:15-17). Jesus Christ is Mary’s Son.
In the Synoptics we read that when Jesus was on trial for His life before the Sanhedrin, He professed under oath (Matthew 26:63,64) that He was the Christ, the Son of God, and was charged guilty of death for blasphemy (Mark 14:64), a charge having no meaning unles His claim meant equality with God Himself. Moreover, at least three times Jesus is explicitly called God by the Apostles. Recall the profession of faith on the part of the doubting Thomas, as Jesus shows him the wound in His side: “My Lord and My God” (John 20:28). St. John in his first epistle is direct and explicit about the divinity of Christ (1 John 5:20).
Futhermore, St.Paul not only says that "God sent His Son, born of a woman: (Galatians 4:4), that Jesus was “in the form of God” (i.e. by nature God) and regarded Himself "equal to God: (Phil. 2:6), but speaks of “Christ in the flesh, who exalted about all things is God blessed forever” (Romans 9:5).
Therefore, even though Mary is never explicitly called Mother of God in Scripture, she is explicitly the Mother of the Lord, the Mother of Jesus; and her Son Jesus, whom she conceived, is explicitly called God. Mary is the Mother of God.
T
Tomster
Guest
O4G,
The history of the Church’s teaching is to a great extent the history of her combat with error. Her infallible authority to interpret the deposit of faith and guard it from error leads the Church to define more and more precisely her own teaching. So it has been with the doctrine of Mary’s divine motherhood.
In the very early ages of Christianity belief in Mary’s divine motherhood found its expression in the creed attributed to the Apostles. According to the form in use at the time of Hippolytus (c. 215), the catechumens were asked:
"Dost thou believe in Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who was born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary . . . "
St. Ignatius of Antioch, a bishop and martyr who died shortly after the close of thefirst century, and who was probably a disciple of the Apostles themselves, is an eloquent witness to the early teachings of the Church. In his letter to the Ephesians he says ;
“God our Lord Jesus Christ was born in the womb by Mary, according to the dispensation of God, from the seed of David, by the power of the Holy Spirit.”
As Mary can be the Mother of God only if she is truly the mother of Jesus and if her Son Jesus is truly God, distorted views of the Word’s Incarnation logically involve a denial of the divine motherhood. The basic errors about the Incarnation are two: 1) Jesus, the Son of God, did not really become flesh, at least not flesh of our flesh, and hence cannot be said to have had a mother in any real sense; 2) the man, Jesus, who was born of Mary was only a human person, not the second Person of the Blessed Trinity. Therefore we can trace the history of the Church’s teaching on Mary’s divine motherhood by studying the Church’s reaction to each of these two heretical tendencies.
Care to give it a go?
The history of the Church’s teaching is to a great extent the history of her combat with error. Her infallible authority to interpret the deposit of faith and guard it from error leads the Church to define more and more precisely her own teaching. So it has been with the doctrine of Mary’s divine motherhood.
In the very early ages of Christianity belief in Mary’s divine motherhood found its expression in the creed attributed to the Apostles. According to the form in use at the time of Hippolytus (c. 215), the catechumens were asked:
"Dost thou believe in Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who was born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary . . . "
St. Ignatius of Antioch, a bishop and martyr who died shortly after the close of thefirst century, and who was probably a disciple of the Apostles themselves, is an eloquent witness to the early teachings of the Church. In his letter to the Ephesians he says ;
“God our Lord Jesus Christ was born in the womb by Mary, according to the dispensation of God, from the seed of David, by the power of the Holy Spirit.”
As Mary can be the Mother of God only if she is truly the mother of Jesus and if her Son Jesus is truly God, distorted views of the Word’s Incarnation logically involve a denial of the divine motherhood. The basic errors about the Incarnation are two: 1) Jesus, the Son of God, did not really become flesh, at least not flesh of our flesh, and hence cannot be said to have had a mother in any real sense; 2) the man, Jesus, who was born of Mary was only a human person, not the second Person of the Blessed Trinity. Therefore we can trace the history of the Church’s teaching on Mary’s divine motherhood by studying the Church’s reaction to each of these two heretical tendencies.
Care to give it a go?
T
Tomster
Guest
O4G,
Consider this if you would.
In treating any theological truth, a theologian must not only establish the fact that the proposition is true and contained somehow in authentic sources of divine revelation, but he must also try to find the divine reasons why the proposition is true so that the truth revealed by God may be assimilated by the human intellect operating under the light of faith. What, then, must have been God’s reasons for wanting to have a human mother? We can best approach the answer to this question by looking into God’s own plan for the Redemption of mankind.
To restore His creation which had been ruined by man’s sin, God called upon the infinity of His love and the omnipotence of His divine artistry. Unlike the human artist, who can only imperfectly represent his idea in matter, the Father of heaven and earth could put His very own Living Idea, His Eternal Word, into the very materials of His creation to remold it into His own image with infintely greater beauty. In taking to Himself human flesh, the Eternal Word summed up within Himself the whole hierarchy of reality - matter and spirit, body and soul, the human and divine, creature and Creator - in order to restore harmony to the world in the Image of God. The mystery of the Word-made-flesh became the supreme communication of God’s wisdom and love to a disintegrated world and opened up for man a vision of the goodness and beauty of every part of creation when rebuilt in the Eternal Image of God.
The flesh assumed by the Word for the Redemption of mankind was not newly created out of nothing, but taken from the stock of Adam in whose flesh sin and death entered the world. For omnipotent love had decreed that the same flesh which through sin had become subject to corruption and death would be instrumental in its own redemption and resurrection. Divine respect for the creature of His making decided that the nature which had fallen should be lifted back to God by the very same nature, so that the victory over the world, the flesh, and the devil could be the achievement of the human race (St. Thomas Aquinas, Sum. Theol., III, q.4, a.6). Infinite justice had ruled that no other flesh than that belonging to the one human family should be fashioned for the redeeming Word of God, because no other flesh had sinned; nor would any other flesh be offered in the holocaust of sacrifice (St. Ambrose, De Incarnationis Dominicae sacramento liber unus, 6, 54; PL, 16, 832: “From us He (Christ) received what as His very own He offered in our behalf, so that He might redeem us out of what was ours and confer upon us what was not ours out of His own posssesions.”); for no other flesh had to be saved (St. Irenaeus, Adversus haereses, 3, 21, 10; PG, 7, 955). In this divine ecomony of love it was necessary that the redeeming Image of the Father be of the same family as those who perished in Adam; the Son of God must become a son of Adam; God’s own Son must be born of a human mother.
continued
Consider this if you would.
In treating any theological truth, a theologian must not only establish the fact that the proposition is true and contained somehow in authentic sources of divine revelation, but he must also try to find the divine reasons why the proposition is true so that the truth revealed by God may be assimilated by the human intellect operating under the light of faith. What, then, must have been God’s reasons for wanting to have a human mother? We can best approach the answer to this question by looking into God’s own plan for the Redemption of mankind.
To restore His creation which had been ruined by man’s sin, God called upon the infinity of His love and the omnipotence of His divine artistry. Unlike the human artist, who can only imperfectly represent his idea in matter, the Father of heaven and earth could put His very own Living Idea, His Eternal Word, into the very materials of His creation to remold it into His own image with infintely greater beauty. In taking to Himself human flesh, the Eternal Word summed up within Himself the whole hierarchy of reality - matter and spirit, body and soul, the human and divine, creature and Creator - in order to restore harmony to the world in the Image of God. The mystery of the Word-made-flesh became the supreme communication of God’s wisdom and love to a disintegrated world and opened up for man a vision of the goodness and beauty of every part of creation when rebuilt in the Eternal Image of God.
The flesh assumed by the Word for the Redemption of mankind was not newly created out of nothing, but taken from the stock of Adam in whose flesh sin and death entered the world. For omnipotent love had decreed that the same flesh which through sin had become subject to corruption and death would be instrumental in its own redemption and resurrection. Divine respect for the creature of His making decided that the nature which had fallen should be lifted back to God by the very same nature, so that the victory over the world, the flesh, and the devil could be the achievement of the human race (St. Thomas Aquinas, Sum. Theol., III, q.4, a.6). Infinite justice had ruled that no other flesh than that belonging to the one human family should be fashioned for the redeeming Word of God, because no other flesh had sinned; nor would any other flesh be offered in the holocaust of sacrifice (St. Ambrose, De Incarnationis Dominicae sacramento liber unus, 6, 54; PL, 16, 832: “From us He (Christ) received what as His very own He offered in our behalf, so that He might redeem us out of what was ours and confer upon us what was not ours out of His own posssesions.”); for no other flesh had to be saved (St. Irenaeus, Adversus haereses, 3, 21, 10; PG, 7, 955). In this divine ecomony of love it was necessary that the redeeming Image of the Father be of the same family as those who perished in Adam; the Son of God must become a son of Adam; God’s own Son must be born of a human mother.
continued
T
Tomster
Guest
In the divine plan the process of restoration was to be an exact counterpart of the process of the fall, a counteraction paralleling and corresponding inversely to the action of the fall - somewhat like the untying of a knot. A virgin had co-operated in the ruin of men by heeding an angel in disobedience to God: likewise, then, a virgin should co-operate in redeeming the world by believing an angel in obedience to God (Tertullian, De carne Christi; also St. Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses). As the ruin caused by Adam could not have spread to his progeny apart from the moterhood of Eve, so salvation, as it was willed by the Father, would be given to the race only through the motherhood of the New Eve.
These are but a few of the divine reasons why God wanted to have a human mother. They give us a glimpse into the riches of divine omnipotence and wisdom and justice and merciful love that have gone into an economy of salvation which required that God should have a mother. In this plan He becomes like us in all things except sin, even to a point of having a mother of His own to cherish and love; and on our part, we can more naturally approach Him since we know him as a baby in His Mother’s arms. He can and does love us with a kind of natural love for His human brothers (St. Thomas Aquinas, op. cit., II-II, q.26, a.8). He can give us an example of obedience to His Mother, of humility in subjection to parental authority, of divine life in a human family. What greater proof could He give that He had a real human body like our own? And what greater inspiration could be given men to respect all womankind than to see one of them elevated to the greatest dignity that God’s omnipotent wisdom can confer upon a human person?
These are but a few of the divine reasons why God wanted to have a human mother. They give us a glimpse into the riches of divine omnipotence and wisdom and justice and merciful love that have gone into an economy of salvation which required that God should have a mother. In this plan He becomes like us in all things except sin, even to a point of having a mother of His own to cherish and love; and on our part, we can more naturally approach Him since we know him as a baby in His Mother’s arms. He can and does love us with a kind of natural love for His human brothers (St. Thomas Aquinas, op. cit., II-II, q.26, a.8). He can give us an example of obedience to His Mother, of humility in subjection to parental authority, of divine life in a human family. What greater proof could He give that He had a real human body like our own? And what greater inspiration could be given men to respect all womankind than to see one of them elevated to the greatest dignity that God’s omnipotent wisdom can confer upon a human person?
R
Ruben
Guest
This is just one line of reasoning.
- Honor is in the one honoring.
In the following 3 scenarios, who pays the higher honor?
a) I visit the pope
b) The mayor of my city visits the pope
c) The President visits the pope
Answer: c) The President, by virtue of his position and
authority. He sets a higher standard of honor by
which the Pope is honored due to the president’s
position in the natural order. - The highest honor is bestowed by God.
In the following 3 scenarios, who pays the higher honor to
Mary?
a) St. Joseph
b) St. John
c) Jesus Christ, the son of God
Answer: c) Jesus, by virtue of his infinite authority as God
himself sets the highest standard of honor by which
all of humanity should honor our Blessed Mother.
Mary is Jesus mother. As her son He honors her
and by virtue of his divine nature he honors her above
all other humans, saints and angels in the
supernatural order.
T
Tomster
Guest
“This is not intended for people who are going to here only once!”
Now that we have established that the Blessed Virgin is truly the Mother of God, let us move on to the topic, if you will, on her universal mediation.
A mediator is one places himself between two persons in order to unite them, either because there is a reconciliation to be achieved or a favor to be obtained. To fulfill his role, the mediator must be acceptable to both parties that are to be united; the closer he is to them, the easier it will be for him to mediate.
In the supernatural order, the two persons to be brought together are God and man who have become separated by sin.
Jesus as man is the perfect mediator between God and man, being hypostatically united to God and constituted by Him the spiritual head of the huma race.
Jesus alone is a perfect mediator because He alone was able to merit in all justice our reconciliation with God and the graces which the appeased God was going to give us. There is only one God, proclaims St. Paul, and only one Mediator between God and men, Christ Jesus become man, who gave Himself as a ransom for all. No other foundation can be laid than the one which has been given, Jesus Christ. (1 Timothy 2:5 & 1 Corinthians 3:11)
This foundation established, the faithful attribute a certain function of mediation to Mary, at the side of Jesus. Mother of God and Mother of men, it seems clear that she too is to serve as a bond between Him and them. But her mediation, far from diminishing that of Christ, results from it and seems to complete it; it is carried out under Christ and in union with Christ from whom it receives all its efficacy.
continued
Now that we have established that the Blessed Virgin is truly the Mother of God, let us move on to the topic, if you will, on her universal mediation.
A mediator is one places himself between two persons in order to unite them, either because there is a reconciliation to be achieved or a favor to be obtained. To fulfill his role, the mediator must be acceptable to both parties that are to be united; the closer he is to them, the easier it will be for him to mediate.
In the supernatural order, the two persons to be brought together are God and man who have become separated by sin.
Jesus as man is the perfect mediator between God and man, being hypostatically united to God and constituted by Him the spiritual head of the huma race.
Jesus alone is a perfect mediator because He alone was able to merit in all justice our reconciliation with God and the graces which the appeased God was going to give us. There is only one God, proclaims St. Paul, and only one Mediator between God and men, Christ Jesus become man, who gave Himself as a ransom for all. No other foundation can be laid than the one which has been given, Jesus Christ. (1 Timothy 2:5 & 1 Corinthians 3:11)
This foundation established, the faithful attribute a certain function of mediation to Mary, at the side of Jesus. Mother of God and Mother of men, it seems clear that she too is to serve as a bond between Him and them. But her mediation, far from diminishing that of Christ, results from it and seems to complete it; it is carried out under Christ and in union with Christ from whom it receives all its efficacy.
continued
T
Tomster
Guest
The office of our great Mediator is twofold: first of all, to merit the grace of reconciliation for all mankind; and then, to apply this grace to each of the individuals composing the human race - in other words, to give us the grace of reconciliation, first by right and then in fact. The first act Jesus accomplishes by the Redemption, the second by the distribution of graces. Both are acts of mediation because in the one as in the other Christ places Himself between God and man to serve as a bond between them.
Now, Christian thought associates Mary with her Son in both these actions. Mary’s mediation, like that of Jesus, will be twofold through her participation in the mystery of the Redemption and in the distribution of grace. It would be wrong, therefore, to limit it, as some have done, to an earthly co-operation in the mission of Jesus, or, as others prefer, to her heavenly mission as Distributrix of grace.
Now, Christian thought associates Mary with her Son in both these actions. Mary’s mediation, like that of Jesus, will be twofold through her participation in the mystery of the Redemption and in the distribution of grace. It would be wrong, therefore, to limit it, as some have done, to an earthly co-operation in the mission of Jesus, or, as others prefer, to her heavenly mission as Distributrix of grace.
T
Tomster
Guest
Mary’s co-operation in the Redemption has not been defined by the Church and it is still the subject of discussion among theologians, not, in general, as to the fact itself, but rather as to its exact extent. Before giving its precise meaning, it will be necessary to consult the thought of Tradition concerning it. We can immediately make, at least tentatively, several statements. The universal sentiment of the Church attributes to Mary alongside the Redeemer a part in the work of our salvation. This part cannot be limited to the physical fact of having given the Son of God a human nature by means of which He was able to redeem us; rather it implies a certain union of wills, of sufferings, and of self-oblation. God accepted that co-operation in the work of His Son and gave it a real redemptive value, so that we can say we have been saved first and principally by Christ and secondarily by the action of Mary in subordination to the action of Christ.
T
Tomster
Guest
St. Luke tells how Gabriel, the envoy sent by God, announced to the Blessed Virgin that she was to be the Mother of the Messias whose name would be Jesus, that is, Savior. Undoubtably she knew by divine inspiration, at least to the same extent as Joseph and Zachary, that He would be so named because He would deliver His people from their sins (Matthew 1:21 & Luke 1:77) In answering she shows to what she is engaging herself. She gives her consent to this motherhood and to all that her Son’s mission will include.
Forty days after the birth of Jesus, Mary and Joseph took the Infant to the Temple to present Him to the Lord. There the Virgin learned from Simeon both that the Child would be a source of contradiction and that a sword of sorrow would pierce her own heart. (Luke 2:34-35) St. John in his turn shows us Mary on Calvary close to her Son, who, nailed to a cross, consummates His sacrifice. (John 19: 25-27) We also know from the gospel that Christ began His redemptive mission by using His Mother as instrument. For it was at Mary’s voice that the Precursor leaped in Elizabeth’s womb and was filled with the Holy Spirit. (Luke 1:40-44) And it was once more in Mary’s presence that the little Messias welcomed the Jews in the person of the shepherds and the pagans represented by the Magi. (Luke 2:16 & Matthew 2:11)
Thus it was quite natural, even for the first Christians, to unite in some manner the thought of Mary with the thought of Christ, the Redeemer.
Forty days after the birth of Jesus, Mary and Joseph took the Infant to the Temple to present Him to the Lord. There the Virgin learned from Simeon both that the Child would be a source of contradiction and that a sword of sorrow would pierce her own heart. (Luke 2:34-35) St. John in his turn shows us Mary on Calvary close to her Son, who, nailed to a cross, consummates His sacrifice. (John 19: 25-27) We also know from the gospel that Christ began His redemptive mission by using His Mother as instrument. For it was at Mary’s voice that the Precursor leaped in Elizabeth’s womb and was filled with the Holy Spirit. (Luke 1:40-44) And it was once more in Mary’s presence that the little Messias welcomed the Jews in the person of the shepherds and the pagans represented by the Magi. (Luke 2:16 & Matthew 2:11)
Thus it was quite natural, even for the first Christians, to unite in some manner the thought of Mary with the thought of Christ, the Redeemer.
O
Observing4Grace
Guest
O
Observing4Grace
Guest
O
Observing4Grace
Guest
O
Observing4Grace
Guest
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
That’s false a understanding of history.
Catholic Answer: No. It is historical fact. Historical records show that the Church decreed in the Council of Rome 382 73 Old Testament Books and 27 NT Books, which is affirmed in the Council of Hippo, Council of Carthage, and Council of Trent. How do we know the 27 NT are inspired Word of God? Yes, there was Scripture before the Church but this Scripture was only the Old Testament and they come in manuscripts or scrolls. The one we have now are only copies not the original.
If you say the Bible we have today existed at the time of the Apostle, you are wrong. The Gospel of Jesus was spread orally and Jesus himself did not write anything except what he wrote on the dirt. Go to Deutrocanononical Books Apologetics.
You just neither have a difficult time understanding this fully because you are not Catholic nor raise Catholic, or if you were an Ex-Catholic, you are poorly catechized since only poorly catechized Catholics leave the Church.
But the doctrines would give a notion but it doesn’t. Second, 2 Thess. gives us an option because the teachings would be FULLY contained in both.
Catholic Answer:
I would have to disagree with you. The NT epistles were written to make corrections. For one in 1 Corin 11, Paul warn the Corinthians not to received the Body and Blood of the Lord unworthily. So yes these letters were written to correct abuses and to show the faithful to remain faithful to the teachings.
How do you explain Jesus’ rebukes with using only scripture? How about Paul’s constant writings without appealing to Jewish Tradition? Sadly, I highly doubt you understand God’s word and I pity you.
Catholic Answer:
Jesus use Scripture as in the Old Testament Text. He used to justify that he is the coming Messiah. Paul used Scripture and cited 2 Tim 3:16 that all of Scripture is God’s breath. John also said in his writings that there other things concerning Jesus not written in these books. Paul also said that we should hold fast the tradition either by letter or word of mouth. He used both oral and written Word of God. He did not negate the two (unfortunately Protestants like you just completely ignore the ENTIRE Word of God).
That’s an incorrect position for why we need the church.
Catholic Answers:
Peter himself warned us that there are things written in Paul Letters difficult to understand, and that the ignorant will use to their own destruction. We see this in Protestantism with their variety of doctrines. The only sole interpreter of the Bible is the Church, the Catholic Church who gave us the Bible.
They didn’t give us the bible. The church is consisted of believers to whom God revealed himself and his word. Whatever is written is written under his guidance and the usage of it is commanded by him.
Catholic Answers:
Yes the Catholic Church did. It was the Church in the Council of Rome in 382 that canonized 27 Books of the New Testament. Prior to that there other Gospels floating around like the Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Judas, Acts of Peter, Gospel of Mary, these books were rejected by the Church.
It’s that Tradition that tells us the things associated with a particular teaching. Who better to explain those things than the entity whose members produced and bound/canonized the bible?
Catholic Answer: No. It is historical fact. Historical records show that the Church decreed in the Council of Rome 382 73 Old Testament Books and 27 NT Books, which is affirmed in the Council of Hippo, Council of Carthage, and Council of Trent. How do we know the 27 NT are inspired Word of God? Yes, there was Scripture before the Church but this Scripture was only the Old Testament and they come in manuscripts or scrolls. The one we have now are only copies not the original.
If you say the Bible we have today existed at the time of the Apostle, you are wrong. The Gospel of Jesus was spread orally and Jesus himself did not write anything except what he wrote on the dirt. Go to Deutrocanononical Books Apologetics.
You just neither have a difficult time understanding this fully because you are not Catholic nor raise Catholic, or if you were an Ex-Catholic, you are poorly catechized since only poorly catechized Catholics leave the Church.
But the doctrines would give a notion but it doesn’t. Second, 2 Thess. gives us an option because the teachings would be FULLY contained in both.
Catholic Answer:
I would have to disagree with you. The NT epistles were written to make corrections. For one in 1 Corin 11, Paul warn the Corinthians not to received the Body and Blood of the Lord unworthily. So yes these letters were written to correct abuses and to show the faithful to remain faithful to the teachings.
How do you explain Jesus’ rebukes with using only scripture? How about Paul’s constant writings without appealing to Jewish Tradition? Sadly, I highly doubt you understand God’s word and I pity you.
Catholic Answer:
Jesus use Scripture as in the Old Testament Text. He used to justify that he is the coming Messiah. Paul used Scripture and cited 2 Tim 3:16 that all of Scripture is God’s breath. John also said in his writings that there other things concerning Jesus not written in these books. Paul also said that we should hold fast the tradition either by letter or word of mouth. He used both oral and written Word of God. He did not negate the two (unfortunately Protestants like you just completely ignore the ENTIRE Word of God).
That’s an incorrect position for why we need the church.
Catholic Answers:
Peter himself warned us that there are things written in Paul Letters difficult to understand, and that the ignorant will use to their own destruction. We see this in Protestantism with their variety of doctrines. The only sole interpreter of the Bible is the Church, the Catholic Church who gave us the Bible.
They didn’t give us the bible. The church is consisted of believers to whom God revealed himself and his word. Whatever is written is written under his guidance and the usage of it is commanded by him.
Catholic Answers:
Yes the Catholic Church did. It was the Church in the Council of Rome in 382 that canonized 27 Books of the New Testament. Prior to that there other Gospels floating around like the Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Judas, Acts of Peter, Gospel of Mary, these books were rejected by the Church.
It’s that Tradition that tells us the things associated with a particular teaching. Who better to explain those things than the entity whose members produced and bound/canonized the bible?
- Status