What dear friend, do you find strange about Catholicism?

[frangiuliano115]

Hi PJM,

Have to think about that one, but it seems contradictory to grace, an unmerited favor, even to see truth. Seems like grace is the condition for Truth, the source of Truth, the channel for Truth. Otherwise a Truth holder could be boastful , even sectarian prone.

Blessings

I like to think of it this way:

JESUS IS TRUTH!!

Fran

 

[adrift]

Please read all of 488. Slowly…

Oh. And while we’re at it, please explain to me how to reconcile man’s free will with God’s Providence. Thanks.

Fran

How about you provide evidence that the Church teaches Mary could not say no.

 

[frangiuliano115]

How about you provide evidence that the Church teaches Mary could not say no.

It’s a theological question Adrift. I’m just trying to show you that everything is not as easy as you make it out to be.

In your very own post you put no. 488 of the CCC

488 “God sent forth his Son”, but to prepare a body for him,125 he wanted the free co-operation of a creature. For this, from all eternity God chose for the mother of his Son a daughter of Israel, a young Jewish woman of Nazareth in Galilee, “a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary”:126

So God wanted the free cooperation of a creature.
But from all eternity God CHOSE for the mother of His son…

Now if it said that He chose in a general way it would be okay. But it specifically points to a young Jewish woman of Nazareth in Galilee betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph of the house of David, and even gives her name as Mary.

So if God chose her, how did she freely cooperate??

Look at the title of 488:

“Mary’s Predestination”

So she was predestined?

Then go down to 490:

God enriched Mary with gifts appropriate to such a role.

More proof that He chose her and prepared her.
And what about Luke 1: 31. Is that a request? You never answered.

This whole discussion brings up the point of reconciling man’s free will with God’s Providence. Not an easy task, and one which I don’t understand.

So you’re asking me to prove something I’m not interested in proving because I don’t even understand it!

Do you??

Fran

 

[benhur]

I like to think of it this way:

JESUS IS TRUTH!!

Fran

Amen. That is why I try to remember and capitalize “truth”, and sometimes even “wisdom”.

 

[Peter_J]

I’m just trying to show you that everything is not as easy as you make it out to be.

Hence why I qualified my disagreement with your statement – i.e. if you had meant that in the most literal sense, that Mary was incapable of saying “No” to the angel (which to me is like saying that she was incapable of sin) then I would have to disagree.

 

[frangiuliano115]

Hence why I qualified my disagreement with your statement – i.e. if you had meant that in the most literal sense, that Mary was incapable of saying “No” to the angel (which to me is like saying that she was incapable of sin) then I would have to disagree.

She COULD have said no, but she wasn’t meant to say no.
I don’t like to think about this too much.
This room I’m in is full of smoke!!

Fran

 

[rcwitness]

She COULD have said no, but she wasn’t meant to say no.
I don’t like to think about this too much.
This room I’m in is full of smoke!!

Fran

 

[adrift]

It’s a theological question Adrift. I’m just trying to show you that everything is not as easy as you make it out to be.

In your very own post you put no. 488 of the CCC

488 “God sent forth his Son”, but to prepare a body for him,125 he wanted the free co-operation of a creature. For this, from all eternity God chose for the mother of his Son a daughter of Israel, a young Jewish woman of Nazareth in Galilee, “a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary”:126

So God wanted the free cooperation of a creature.
But from all eternity God CHOSE for the mother of His son…

Now if it said that He chose in a general way it would be okay. But it specifically points to a young Jewish woman of Nazareth in Galilee betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph of the house of David, and even gives her name as Mary.

So if God chose her, how did she freely cooperate??

Look at the title of 488:

“Mary’s Predestination”

So she was predestined?

Then go down to 490:

God enriched Mary with gifts appropriate to such a role.

More proof that He chose her and prepared her.
And what about Luke 1: 31. Is that a request? You never answered.

This whole discussion brings up the point of reconciling man’s free will with God’s Providence. Not an easy task, and one which I don’t understand.

So you’re asking me to prove something I’m not interested in proving because I don’t even understand it!

Do you??

Fran

I have answered and so has guanophore without free will you are not a human. What you are saying is that Mary could not have sinned. The Angel told Mary what was to happen but he didn’t just leave he waited for her yes “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord. May it be done to me according to your word.”
Divine Providence

"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

 

[benhur]

I am not quite sure what you are stating here.
It is problematic to believe that you can let scripture speak for itself. For instance the word betrothal, in order to understand the scripture you need to understand what Luke meant by it. It wasn’t an engagement as the word means today. If you try to discern scripture by your understanding of today skews what scripture is trying to present. If scripture truly spoke for itself there wouldn’t be so many interpretation. Speaking only of the New Testament, the Church came first, out of the Church came Scripture not the other way around.

God did speak figuratively but if you are speaking of the Eucharist the circumstance shows that Jesus was not speaking figuratively.

Hi a,

Yeah, I could have been more clear. One thing is to take a word a phrase in historical meaning, as an aid. It is another thing to rest on historical, even ‘traditional’ interpretations. Sometimes that works, others times not so. Another words,more discernment is needed that to say, “well, that is how my parents saw it, and their parents, down thru the ages, so it must be so, and that from the beginning (apostolic)”. That is fine if they say Jesus is the Christ who takes away our sins. Another thing to say we confess our sins to Him only thru a priest and his prescribed penance. The former is scripturaly succinct with more historical, traditional mirroring than the latter, which is implicitly in scripture, and resting more on historical, even evolving traditional interpretation.

As far as figurative vs literal, indeed the circumstance, the context in which it is used, helps determine which it is. The ‘eating’ is no different . All views/forms of ‘eating’ interpret the same circumstances yet differently.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

It’s a theological question Adrift. I’m just trying to show you that everything is not as easy as you make it out to be.

In your very own post you put no. 488 of the CCC

488 “God sent forth his Son”, but to prepare a body for him,125 he wanted the free co-operation of a creature. For this, from all eternity God chose for the mother of his Son a daughter of Israel, a young Jewish woman of Nazareth in Galilee, “a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary”:126

So God wanted the free cooperation of a creature.
But from all eternity God CHOSE for the mother of His son…

Now if it said that He chose in a general way it would be okay. But it specifically points to a young Jewish woman of Nazareth in Galilee betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph of the house of David, and even gives her name as Mary.

So if God chose her, how did she freely cooperate??

Look at the title of 488:

“Mary’s Predestination”

So she was predestined?

Then go down to 490:

God enriched Mary with gifts appropriate to such a role.

More proof that He chose her and prepared her.
And what about Luke 1: 31. Is that a request? You never answered.

This whole discussion brings up the point of reconciling man’s free will with God’s Providence. Not an easy task, and one which I don’t understand.

So you’re asking me to prove something I’m not interested in proving because I don’t even understand it!

Do you??

Fran

Hi fran,

From “Faith and Works” thread:

Yes. The sign before the Pearly Gates reads, “Well done for you chose wisely whom to serve that day”. You get to the other side and a sign reads, " You have been chosen before the foundations of the Earth"

Blessings

PS- A wonderful conundrum if I ever saw one.

 

[frangiuliano115]

Hi fran,

From “Faith and Works” thread:

Yes. The sign before the Pearly Gates reads, “Well done for you chose wisely whom to serve that day”. You get to the other side and a sign reads, " You have been chosen before the foundations of the Earth"

Blessings

PS- A wonderful conundrum if I ever saw one.

Thanks for the giggle.

Where’s Calvin when you need him?

LOL.

Fran

 

[benhur]

It is not problematic to understand the scriptures as they were penned in their historical and cultural context. Ignatius had these scriptures, and personally knew the Apostles. If he understood Jn. 6 to be referring to the Real Presence in the Eucharist this is important. If he and everyone who received the Apostolic faith believed this, and those who did not were considered heretics, it is an important factor in understanding the text.

Understand. Again we differ over “This is my Body…” and we will surely differ over “they believe not the Eucahrist to be the Body of…”. The “if” is that indeed an interpretation is needed in both for we all know of figurative speech, along with the literal.

No, benhur. No one who relishes history makes a claim that there is “no evidence” that the Apostles believed and taught the Real Presence.

Agree. Glad I did not say that. In fact, in a post I said all communion views have rational, scriptural, historical, and traditional evidences. What I did post is that there is no evidence, or to show me evidence, that in Ch 6 that the apostles took it literally. Most Catholics here agree it is not explicit, or that it is not as sure as what they (Peter) did state (thou art the Christ with words of eternal life). I was not referring to what they thought later at the Last Supper, or twenty years later (Paul) or seventy years later(Ignatius).

Yet, in your mind, this is not “evidence”?

Ignatius certainly can be used as evidence. He may well have believed in your real presence. He may also have written it figuratively. But my unanswered question was why did the Gnostics not believe in real presence, according to what Ignatius wrote before and after his much noted quote ? I believe a fuller version of his ‘quote’ was posted earlier giving the answer.

Blessings

 

[Peter_J]

She COULD have said no, but she wasn’t meant to say no.
I don’t like to think about this too much.
This room I’m in is full of smoke!!

Fran

Yeah, I don’t like to think about it too much either (or to spend very much time on internet discussion forums – as I may have told you before, I forget). Unfortunately, in this day and age people can and do get the idea that Mary was not *capable *of sin – but generally I think the best response to that is just a simple “Yes, she was” rather then getting into a specific hypothetical like “Mary could have responded the same way Zachariah did” or whatever.

 

[Memaw]

What I find a bit strange is how broken Roman Catholics are in the way they practice their faith. Now, I do not mean to offend but I attended the Catholic mass many times in my life and found that every time that I went, people were always trying to put on a big show; the fancy suits, the fancy shoes, and do not get me started on the womens’ perfume!

Also, K find it odd that Catholics call their priests, ‘Father.’ I have NEVER accepted his practice because in the Bible, Jesus clearly states that we are not to call anyone by the name father except our biological father and of course God the Father.

All in all, I respect Catholics as my Christian brothers and sisters, but I do not feel the Catholic Church is for me.

God Bless!

Jesus called Abraham, “Father Abraham” and others are referred to as father also. You need to study the whole Bible. Not just a line or so. God Bless, Memaw

 

[rcwitness]

She COULD have said no, but she wasn’t meant to say no.
I don’t like to think about this too much.
This room I’m in is full of smoke!!

Fran

The primary thing that helps me understand Mary and her role as mother to all Christians is this:

Scripture, in Luke, tells us that Elizabeth (speaking from the Holy Spirit) professed that Mary was blessed because she believed what the Angel delivered her.

If we put this in context of what Jesus tells us about true blessedness, namely that those who hear the Word and keep it are blessed, we know that Mary did that… she heard, believed, and kept it in her heart. This is why she is blessed among women… not for merely conceiving the the Son of God, but believing and keeping the good news.

Her “blessedness” and “motherhood” has a necessary relation to her will full response to the grace given to her… just like it does for all her offspring… those who keep the commandments of her Son.

 

[frangiuliano115]

Yeah, I don’t like to think about it too much either (or to spend very much time on internet discussion forums – as I may have told you before, I forget). Unfortunately, in this day and age people can and do get the idea that Mary was not *capable *of sin – but generally I think the best response to that is just a simple “Yes, she was” rather then getting into a specific hypothetical like “Mary could have responded the same way Zachariah did” or whatever.

I agree. Can’t even remember how it came up.

The reason I brought it up is to show how free will is not so easy to understand. We throw the words around as if we really understood it. We treat God like He’s something easily understood.

I think He’s too great to be understood - that’s pretty much my point. In learning about prayer you learn that prayer is supposed to be in line with God’s will. Jesus prayed for God’s will. So what IS God’s will ? Is it John 6:40 or is it more?

Is it this grand scheme of things. He’s headed somewhere but we can’t really know where. God’s Providence.

It’s a big mystery to me.

Fran
I rather stick to the simpler things, but some make everything out to be simple!

 

[Peter_J]

The primary thing that helps me understand Mary and her role as mother to all Christians is this:

Scripture, in Luke, tells us that Elizabeth (speaking from the Holy Spirit) professed that Mary was blessed because she believed what the Angel delivered her.

If we put this in context of what Jesus tells us about true blessedness, namely that those who hear the Word and keep it are blessed, we know that Mary did that… she heard, believed, and kept it in her heart. This is why she is blessed among women… not for merely conceiving the the Son of God, but believing and keeping the good news.

Her “blessedness” and “motherhood” has a necessary relation to her will full response to the grace given to her.

Indeed. As St. Irenaeus says, “what the virgin Eve bound through her unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosened by her faith.”

That also brings up Mark 3:35, “Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother.” (Granted that speaks of doing rather than believing, but it’s all related.)

 

[Memaw]

Yeah, I don’t like to think about it too much either (or to spend very much time on internet discussion forums – as I may have told you before, I forget). Unfortunately, in this day and age people can and do get the idea that Mary was not *capable *of sin – but generally I think the best response to that is just a simple “Yes, she was” rather then getting into a specific hypothetical like “Mary could have responded the same way Zachariah did” or whatever.

Mary was as “capable” as Eve was. Mary had a free will just as Adam and Eve did, but Mary chose to obey God completely. I don’t care about what “could have been”. I am thankful for her fiat and our Savior. God Bless, Memaw

 

[PJM]

WHAT???

Is this the reason you were taught why the Immaculate Conception had to be?

How about that Mary had to be immaculate for the simple reason that she was going to bear GOD? And since He’s without sin how could her nature have sin.

See. It’s simple really.

At this point we could bring up Mary’s free will versus God CHOOSING her. Luke 1:30.
And also at what point did she become immaculate? Before cenception, at conception or just after conception?

But we won’t get into that.

Fran

Fran I don’t mean to be uncharitable; BUT you seem to struggle comprehending the English language

I NEVER said “had to be”; in FACT I wen out of my way to explain that God in an absolute sense did NOT HAVE to do this; but freely choose to do so knowing the life of perfect humility and obedience Mary would freely herself choose to live.

IF your going to quote me; kindly provide MY words; what I’m sharing and not take the liberty to. change what I’m saying to meet your agenda.

God DID what God freely Choose to do; he was under NO obligation to do so.

Were this NOT a public forum I would not even respond to your post.

God Bless and guide you

Patrick

 

[benhur]

Thanks for asking

In an absolute sense Mary did not NEED to be conceived without the stain of Original sin.

Likewise, God had no obligation to preform this Miracle. It was a freewill choice of his.; who felt that Mary MERITED this grace.

WHY?

Because God who knows all things; KNEW but DID NOT force in any way Mary to always; every-time and in every-way; without failing even one time to accept fully and completely accept and correctly apply God’s gifts of Grace to her.

God KNEW that Mary would NEVER sin; but could not force this condition upon Her. It HAD to be Mary’s Freewill choice. And because Mary choose to never sin; it was God’s view that She Merited to be conceived without sin.

Does that hel you?

Mary Christians!

Hi PJM,

Agree with the not needing part. Just not sure how grace can be merited. Kind of contradiction in terms, not withstanding God’s foreknowledge.

Of course many folks do not have to face such complexities taking the view that she was a normal though righteous Jewish virgin. That Jesus forsook all heavenly privileges, not asking for any extra human privileges (as in an ‘immaculate’, sinless, ever virgin mother) and yet staying within prophecy (a Jewish virgin).

Blessings