Don’t we have a duty to call out teachings that contradict the Gospel of Christ, like for example, Mary as ‘co redemptrix’. Holy Scripture clearly states that there is only one mediator between God and man, the Lord Jesus Christ, and only one Name by which we can be saved. What about when the church taught that you could give money to have your sins forgiven? Would you have supported that too?None. Being Catholic means supporting all Church teachings, not just the ones I like.
I don’t think I would come out too strongly against the Co-Redemptrix title if I were you. Granted, I don’t think you would officially get in trouble, but other Catholics might put you on a negative (mental) list.Don’t we have a duty to call out teachings that contradict the Gospel of Christ, like for example, Mary as ‘co redemptrix’. Holy Scripture clearly states that there is only one mediator between God and man, the Lord Jesus Christ, and only one Name by which we can be saved. What about when the church taught that you could give money to have your sins forgiven? Would you have supported that too?
The Church didn’t teach you could give money to have sins forgiven. It did for a time allow virtuous alms giving for remission of time in purgatory still due for one’s own truly repented sins or for the temporal punishment due to your loved ones who repented.Don’t we have a duty to call out teachings that contradict the Gospel of Christ, like for example, Mary as ‘co redemptrix’. Holy Scripture clearly states that there is only one mediator between God and man, the Lord Jesus Christ, and only one Name by which we can be saved. What about when the church taught that you could give money to have your sins forgiven? Would you have supported that too?
The Catholic Church sold indulgences in the late medieval period, and their sale motivated Martin Luther to present his "95 Theses. An indulgence was a payment to the Catholic Church that purchased an exemption from punishment for some types of sins. This is actually blasphemy, because the only possible payment for the forgiveness of sins is the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.The Church didn’t teach you could give money to have sins forgiven. It did for a time allow virtuous alms giving for remission of time in purgatory still due for one’s own truly repented sins or for the temporal punishment due to your loved ones who repented.
They can put me on a negative list, mental or otherwise. The truth is still the truth.I don’t think I would come out too strongly against the Co-Redemptrix title if I were you. Granted, I don’t think you would officially get in trouble, but other Catholics might put you on a negative (mental) list.
A “duty” assigned by whom? A duty assigned to whom?Don’t we have a duty to call out teachings that contradict the Gospel of Christ, like for example, Mary as ‘co redemptrix’. Holy Scripture clearly states that there is only one mediator between God and man, the Lord Jesus Christ, and only one Name by which we can be saved. What about when the church taught that you could give money to have your sins forgiven? Would you have supported that too?
You stated money was given for forgiveness of sins.The Catholic Church sold indulgences in the late medieval period, and their sale motivated Martin Luther to present his "95 Theses. An indulgence was a payment to the Catholic Church that purchased an exemption from punishment for some types of sins. This is actually blasphemy, because the only possible payment for the forgiveness of sins is the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Zeno, if true - and there is a debate whether this really occurred or not, but let’s just say it did, it reflects the behavior of a sinful man in Germany, near Luther. The Church never approved of his doing so. It was never a practice, let alone doctrine of the Catholic Church.The Catholic Church sold indulgences in the late medieval period, and their sale motivated Martin Luther to present his "95 Theses. .
True this. Amen ! Of course this is very Catholic.Salvation exists in no one else, ***for there is no other name under heaven ***given to men by which we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12)
We all cooperate in Christ’s finished work on the cross. Every time we pray for one another, we co-mediate, petitioning Christ for one another.To consider Mary as co redemptrix is idolatrous and contrary to the teachings of Christ.
in my own experience, I recall many years ago saying that I wasn’t a big fan of the book “Pierced by a sword” and its sequels. This didn’t go over too well with the people I was speaking to, who who were pretty diehard fans.They can put me on a negative list, mental or otherwise. The truth is still the truth.
There is a BIG difference between mediation and redemption! The idea that Mary is co-REDEMPTRIX is blasphemy.True this. Amen ! Of course this is very Catholic.
We all cooperate in Christ’s finished work on the cross. Every time we pray for one another, we co-mediate, petitioning Christ for one another.
Jesus Christ and St. Paul (God’s inerrant Word) says that we should pray for one another. In doing so we “ask” for his favor in some way. We intercede.
The Church teaches the same about Mary and all the Saints in heaven. Keep in mind that it’s only through Christ that they can hear our prayers (see Rev 5:8 and Rev 8:3).
I have no idea what you mean.A “duty” assigned by whom? A duty assigned to whom?
It would help if you could cite sources - not Scripture quotes, but the book or website that taught ****you ****that a given verse applies, in that specific way, to a given situation, and that other possible bible quotes don’t apply. That would place your disagreement in context so it can be better understood.
I wish it were just the sinfulness of a rogue priest. Historical evidence suggests otherwise unfortunately. The Council of Trent described the abuses as ‘widespread’ so I am pretty sure it happened. Even The Catholic Encyclopedia makes such statements as: “the practice was fraught with grave danger, and soon became a fruitful source of evil…a means of raising money…indulgences were employed by mercenary ecclesiastics as a means of pecuniary gain… .abuses were widespread”!Zeno, if true - and there is a debate whether this really occurred or not, but let’s just say it did, it reflects the behavior of a sinful man in Germany, near Luther. The Church never approved of his doing so. It was never a practice, let alone doctrine of the Catholic Church.
And if locally true, Luther was quite right to call this person out on it.
But again, don’t confuse the sinfulness of a man, to the teaching of the Church.
It’s really no different than if a priest today said that the use of contraception was permissible. It’s not and the Church doesn’t teach it. In fact, similarly, the Church is quite against it.
The Church is full of sinners. It’s best to acknowledge such and to understand that Christ’s promise to lead the Church to all truth, doesn’t protect the Church from sinful men. Christ’s promise is to lead the Church to ALL truth in faith and morals.
One of the abuses was that some who sold indulgences to sinners were great sinners themselves. About 1450, Thomas Gascoigne, Chancellor of Oxford University, complained that the indulgence sellers would wander over the land and issue a letter of pardon, sometimes for the payment of two pence, sometimes for a glass of beer, for the hire of a harlot, or for carnal love.. I haven’t read the books you mention so I cannot comment on them.but when it comes to Mary being seen as a co-redemptrix with Christ, that is surely a more serious matter than disliking a book. A blasphemous, idolatrous belief will put you on the wide path to hell, and surely we have a duty to each other to prevent false teachings taking root?in my own experience, I recall many years ago saying that I wasn’t a big fan of the book “Pierced by a sword” and its sequels. This didn’t go over too well with the people I was speaking to, who who were pretty diehard fans.
I didn’t get martyred or anything (obviously) but I don’t it was worth it because I don’t see any good coming from it (and my listeners just became all the more convinced of their own rightness).
Having gone through the Catholic Encyclopedia myself, I fail to find what you describe.Even The Catholic Encyclopedia makes such statements as: “the practice was fraught with grave danger, and soon became a fruitful source of evil…a means of raising money…indulgences were employed by mercenary ecclesiastics as a means of pecuniary gain… .abuses were widespread”!
There is an online source atcatholicity.com/encyclopedia/i/indulgences.htmlHaving gone through the Catholic Encyclopedia myself, I fail to find what you describe.
Perhaps you could provide a source?
Good day ZenoI wish it were just the sinfulness of a rogue priest. Historical evidence suggests otherwise unfortunately. The Council of Trent described the abuses as ‘widespread’ so I am pretty sure it happened. Even The Catholic Encyclopedia makes such statements as: “the practice was fraught with grave danger, and soon became a fruitful source of evil…a means of raising money…indulgences were employed by mercenary ecclesiastics as a means of pecuniary gain… .abuses were widespread”!
I would have supported Luther if I’d been around then. He apparently didn’t want to leave the church, but to reform it, and it surely needed reforming.Code:One of the abuses was that some who sold indulgences to sinners were great sinners themselves. About 1450, Thomas Gascoigne, Chancellor of Oxford University, complained that the indulgence sellers would wander over the land and issue a letter of pardon, sometimes for the payment of two pence, sometimes for a glass of beer, for the hire of a harlot, or for carnal love.
Great question. It is the word “equally” from Lateran IV and also the phrase “as from one principle” which is Lyons II or Florence or both which are the big problems. There is a venerable Orthodox teaching that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and “rests” in the Son. Even “proceeds from the Father through the Son” has been found acceptable in Orthodoxy. It is the idea of the Father and the Son together eternally generating the Spirit that is problematic. I would recommend Chapter 4 of “In the Image and Likeness of God” by Lossky as the best discussion of the Orthodox position.Do you disagree with the RCC teaching of the HS from the Father and the Son period, or from the Father and the Son “equally”? Is the Orthodox teaching that there is **some **procession from the Son, but less in some way than from the Father? (Forgive any carelessness in my wording about such as the Trinity).
This is really an issue of language. Well, language is always an issue inasmuch as we cannot use it perfectly, but this is an extreme case.I have no idea what you mean.
What source, book/website could be more authoritative than the revealed word of God in Holy Scripture?
Where in the Bible would you find a quote to contradict that there is any other name by which we could be saved? You couldn’t, because it doesn’t exist! Why are you making complicated what is simple? That Jesus Christ is the only name by which man can be saved is a ***given *********for all Christians, of all denominations!
Can you elaborate on that? Debated by whom?Zeno, if true - and there is a debate whether this really occurred or not,