I hope everyone likes the picture that I have posted for all to see. Mary, our "CO-REDEMPTRIX" is gracing this post for you.
This is what the Roman Catholic Church believes. Forget praying to Jesus (1Tim. 2:5-For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus). Now you just tell people to pray to Mary who was a sinner and needed a savior like everyone else and you're in.
That alone is grounds for a cult. It takes the complete focus away from Christ, the blood and the Cross.
Mind you, I do not have any disrespect for Mary herself, just the the Whore of Revelation (Roman Catholic Church) that have used her as their poster child.
Mary was blessed among women and was a special vehicle that God used to bring His Son to this earth. Forget worshiping the vehicle and start worshiping the savior.
Oh, and by the way. "Anonymous, you are a good copy-er and paste-r." It is a shame that you don't have a name.
63 comments:
1) Demonstrate to us that you have the first clue what we mean by co-redemptrix.
2) Show us where any official Catholic Church document says she is co-redemptrix.
3) Show me in the Bible where it says to pray *to* Jesus.
4) Prove to me I don't pray to the Father through Jesus Christ, in the power of the Holy Spirit.
5) Show me where we tell people to pray to "just" Mary.
6) Thankfully, we at least agree that Mary needed a Savior.
7) Nope. No disrespect for Mary here (other than calling her an automobile). Just her Son, whose Bride you call a whore.
8) Prove to me I don't worship the Savior, and that I worship Mary. Gosh, you seem to know a lot about me.
9) The initial list you posted was copy and pasted. Guess that makes you a good copy and paster too.
10) I presume Dead Theologian is your given name. Not an anonymous pseudonym or anything.
Catholics do not worship Mary. That is a lie that you keep repeating. It's not hard to look this stuff up. What kind of a person are you that would keep repeating a lie? What a horrible, twisted, angry person you must be. I feel sorry for your mother, knowing that she raised her son to be a liar.
You not only are a liar but you call God a liar and that is blasphemy. God himself said that the gates of Hell would not prevail against his Church. You say that the Church went off the rails, which is another lie you tell. God said he would send the Holy Spirit to guide His Church into ALL truth. Again, you deny God’s word, repeating your lies against His Church.
I know a lot of people are going to accuse me of being un-Christian. Too bad. DT is a liar and that’s a fact.
Rather than serving Christ, you are serving the prince of lies. Christ prayed in John 17 that we may all be one as the Father and the Son are one. Do you think the Father and Son argue over theology? Who gave your heroes the right to split off and form a new church, making Christ a fool for having prayed this to the Father? Who?
So, Sport, since you admire a cutter and paster, here is my challenge to you: why don’t you go cut yourself some quotes from the early church fathers that support your theology or prove that your lies are true and paste them on your pretty, little blog here. If the Church was as you practice, you should be able to find tons of information in the first 5 centuries to support your position and prove me wrong.
I’ll be waiting…..
John J. Simmins, no longer anonymous.
I'm a long time Presbyterian (current member of PCUSA) and even I know that Mary as co-redemptrix is not official Catholic dogma. And to the extent it is discussed it is more along the lines of Mary's free choice of saying yes to God via the grace she received from Christ and not any special effort or talent she possessed by herself.
Jon: thanks for putting a word in. It's always great to see fair-minded and well-informed people among the opposition. :-)
John J. Simmins: I do think that you're speaking somewhat against charity here. Calling people names is very seldom the best way to bring them to the truth. And yelling at troublemakers just makes them feel more important.
Dead Theologians: you say that we take away the focus from Christ, His blood, and the Cross. I find this assertion strange, since we believe that at every mass we are present at Calvary, and that Christ is physically present in the Eucharist, whereby He gives us His body and blood to eat and drink.
In fact, if you look at the order of the mass, you'll notice that Mary is mentioned only three or four times, depending on which Eucharistic Prayer the priest uses. The prayers frequently name Jesus as our Lord and Savior, Who has set us free from sin and death. At every mass, the priest proclaims, "Through him, with him, and in him, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, all glory and honor is yours, almighty Father, for ever and ever."
Similarly, if you took the time to look through the Divine Office--the offical prayer of the church--you'd find that it largely consists of psalms, and that the other prayers are focused almost entirely on God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Mary is mentioned only occasionally.
You may still argue that Catholics give too much honor to Mary. It's an issue on which reasonable people can and do differ. But you should try to argue against what we actually do and believe--not what you've just heard rumors about.
I apologize for my rude Catholic brethren and stand with the polite ones.
The whole issue of Mary has been dealt with very competently by a variety of writers. catholic.com would be a good place to begin. the New Advent site witht the Catholic encyclopedia articles on Mary would be useful.
All the other objections have been answered as well in various places, catholic.com one of the best. Scott Hahn has done some great books on all of it.
I think it is possible to have rational objections to the Church, grounded upon fundamental disagreements and scriptural concerns, but you are making charges that have been answered repeatedly in many different forums, many publicly available. Boettner's work has been refuted. The Reformers' objections have been answered or no longer apply.
Go on ahead and read around the Catholic net a little. I think you could still criticize, but these criticisms do not hold water.
I suppose that I need to choose what questions/comments I am going to answer.
Mr. Simmins, I am sorry that you need to call names. I would have been honored to carry on a rational discussion with you off list so that we could have gone in depth.
Mr. Henry and others,
In 1891 Pope Leo XII declared:
"From what great treasure of all graces the Lord has brought, nothing according to the will of God comes to us EXCEPT THROUGH MARY."
Of course this was spoken ex cathedra (from the chair of the Pope) which is infalliable and without error.
Pope Benedict XV called Mary "the MEDIATRIX OF GOD." Also ex cathedra.
Pope Pius IX said in 1870:
"I alone, despite my unworthiness, am successor to the apostles and Vicar to Christ. I ALONE have the mission to guide and direct the ship of Peter. I AM THE WAY, THE TRUTH, AND THE LIFE. THEY WHO ARE WITH ME ARE WITH THE CHURCH. THEY WHO ARE NOT WITH ME ARE OUT OF THE CHURCH."
Vatican Council II in the 1960's declared:
"This sacred synod teaches that THE CHURCH IS NECESSARY FOR SALVATION. WHOEVER, THEREFORE, KNOWING THE CATHOLIC CHURCH WAS MADE NECESSARY BY GOD THROUGH JESUS CHRIST, WOULD REFUSE TO ENTER HER, OR REMAIN IN HER, COULD NOT BE SAVED...FOR IT IS THROUGH THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ALONE, WHICH IS THE ALL-EMBRACING MEANS OF SALVATION, THAT THE FULLNESS OF THE MEANS OF SALVATION CAN BE OBTAINED."
"The Most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin."
-- Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus (1854)
In the end, tradition, early church fathers/leaders, mystics, martyrs, nuns, monks, preachers, councils are nothing compared to Scripture.
We have to have a plumb line or ruler to measure what we believe by. If not, then anything goes
DT
Caspar,
I will honestly give it a try at the website that you mentioned. If someone, like yourself, and unlike Mr. Henry and Mr. Simmins, would be willing to converse, I would be more than happy to exchange.
As a theologian and professor of Apologetics and Church History I DO NOT claim to be voice of authority. But if huge discrepancies come out, I will speak out. I think we have to.
DT
Dead Theologians, what the former anonymous had done is really quite logical. You see, from his point of view, you have lied and blasphemed. As a lair is soemone who lies, and a blasphemer someone who blasphemes, it then follows that, from his point of view, you are a liar and a blasphemer.
I do, however, acknowledge that the comment does seem to have been written while Mr. Simmins was rather upset, but considering that you have pretty much completely ignored his extensive, if copy and pasted, arguments, (and subsequently the points made in Mr. Simmin's heated post,) he has reason to be upset.
I would be more than happy to make those same points as made by Mr. Simmons in his heated comments in an even tone as as politely as possible if that would cause you to respond to them, though rewriting the copy and pasted stuff would take quite awhile.
Sincerely in Christ,
Hidden One
You might want to read more of the documents of Vatican II. In Lumen Gentium, the Council declares: "Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience."
The key distinction is between those who KNOW that the Catholic Church was instituted by Christ, and those who do not. To knowingly reject the Church and sacraments that Christ instituted would be a terrible sin. But there are many people who do not know that the Church was instituted by Christ--some because they have never heard of it, some because they have never heard good enough arguments to realize the truth of its claims. The Church's position is that such people will not be held accountable for something they could not help.
In fact, Lumen Gentium has this to say about Protestants: "The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour."
Hidden One,
I am not going to converse with Mr. Henry or Mr. Simmins nor will I go over their points. They are without support and totally subjective. It matters none to me if they call me a liar or blasphemer. God is to be feared, not man.
I will be glad to converse with you if you wish to comment on my earlier post.
DT
bridgemarie,
"The key distinction is between those who KNOW that the Catholic Church was instituted by Christ, and those who do not. To knowingly reject the Church and sacraments that Christ instituted would be a terrible sin."
Are you saying that I or others have to acknowledge that the RCC is the true church and if we don't we are not saved or can be saved?
Also, please understand that just because someone partakes of the sacraments does not mean that an inward change (salvation) has happened. That would be tightroping works salvation.
DT
Greetings DT and visiting Catholics.
I think many of you have greatly misunderstood DT. You are understandably angered because of the attacks on your belief system. Many of you try to make DT understand your point by referring to Church patriarchs statements. Yet their statements have no weight in this argument. It is on Scripture alone that DT builds his foundation. If you wish to silence him on Catholicism, silence him with Scripture. If you can prove him wrong with Scripture and that your patriarchs haven't violated Scripture by their statements, then he will give. Considering some of the remarks made by your Popes in years past, you have already lost the battle with Scripture. Let the Word of God be your basis in all things, not traditions and books. Prove that your religion is right in accordance to Scripture, and you will have won the battle. But since many statements have been made (also ex cathedra) in contradiction to Scripture and degrading Jesus Christ, you've already lost this war.
As a person who spent 38 years in the RCC, went to a Catholic university, was on parish council, considered the priesthood until I was saved 10 years ago, I will offer some points of reference.
One, the teachings of the RCC are in direct conflict with the gospel of the Bible. 1 John 5:13 utterly destroys the anathemas still in force that say no one can say with certainty his fate upon death, under penalty of "being cursed and anathema." John says he has written so "that you may know you have eternal life." That alone should settle the argument but there is more.
RCC doctrine says that tradition has an equal footing with the word of God, that they are equal. Can't find that one it the Bible. Three, please read the history of how Mary was declared without sin, how the pope was determined to be infallable, how Mary was determined to be "assumed" into heaven.
Fourth, look at the supposed conversion of Constantine; the notorious Bishop of Hippo who brought so much of the sacraments and extrabiblical books into the RCC bible; his approach to those who refused to submit to the "church"; look at the Crusades and Inquisition and compare to Christ's words, "My kingdom is not of this earth." Look at the actions of supposed vicars of Christ in the slaughter of those opposed to RCC; examine the Popes named "Innocent" for an example of the carnage and sin, even minting coins to celebrate the death of tens of thousands who clung to the true gospel. Not a pretty history, and certainly not walking like Christ.
Fifth, look at the RCC "ten commandments." Now, if history proves right, the Jews had the commandments at least 1800 years before the establishment of the RCC. Why do they have a different 10 than the Bible?
I could go on and on but the Mary as coredemptrix is becoming increasingly noticeable in Vatican writings, heavily promoted by EWTN and programs such as "Life on the Rock," and will soon be proposed as RCC doctrine. I still have many priest and Bishop friends in the RCC so this comes as no surprise to me.
RCC presents "another gospel". That is very clear from its Catholic Catechism and from the proceedings of the Council of Trent, I and II,as well as reaffirmed by subsequent popes. Nothing has changed.
New Catechism (1994)
"Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation .... Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the [Roman Catholic] Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and MEDIATRIX." C. C. C. #969
I've read a lot of comments about the RCC being the one and only true church, which I'm sure would elicit more than a few chuckles from the Eastern Orthodox Church which makes the same dubious claim. They would remind Rome that they are nothing more than a schism from the EOC. 1054 ring a bell?
Newcenturion,
Good point. Reminds me of the papal schizm.
DT
I have been writing a series on the RCC at my blog. I am a former altar boy, seminarian, etc. etc.
The RCC is the tip of the babylonian iceberg.
There is no Scriptural support for roman doctrine and dogma.
The rcc is not the true church. Indeed it never was.
Read a good church history, especially on the first five centuries. You can weep as you read of the descent into the abyss the "visible church" took.
It is empirical Rome in priest's robes.
I constantly skirmish with a sedevacantist group who hate the novus ordo catholics as much, as they hate protestants and jews.
Here is a link to their pathetic blog:
http://forchrist-contramundum.blogspot.com/
The traditionalists like the tridentine and sedevacantists are theological fascists. The novus ordo are new age, socialists and liberals.
They both worship the goddess, the queen of heaven.
Here are a couple of interesting links re: Mary-olatry
http://www.wff.org/MayCrowning.html
http://campus.udayton.edu/mary//resources/mayhymns.htm
Brings back not so fond memories. :-)
Info on the Rcc; their hymns, and the myth of Peter residng in Rome as the first pope.
http://www.homestead.com/MidiHymns/MidiIndex.html
http://www.giveshare.org/churchhistory/peterinrome/index.html
Here are three links to my blog re: romanism.
http://jeremiahsquestion.blogspot.com/2007/04/all-roads-lead-to-rome-introduction-and.html
http://jeremiahsquestion.blogspot.com/2007/04/oh-timothy.html
http://jeremiahsquestion.blogspot.com/2007/04/sola-scriptura-traditions-of-rome-vsthe.html
I am just about ready to post on transubstantiation and the fable of the "real presence" in the wafer.
Keep contending!!! The Truth needs to be published.
Are you saying that I or others have to acknowledge that the RCC is the true church and if we don't we are not saved or can be saved?
If you *knew* the Catholic Church was instituted by Christ and did not acknowledge it, you would not be saved. Similarly, if you were culpably ignorant--if you realized that there was something to the Catholic claims and willfully blinded yourself to them--you would not be saved.
If you did *not* know Catholic Church was instituted by Christ, and were *not* willfully ignorant, then you could be saved through your baptism and your faith in Jesus Christ. The Catholic Church does not believe that God damns people for ignorance.
Also, please understand that just because someone partakes of the sacraments does not mean that an inward change (salvation) has happened. That would be tightroping works salvation.
Would it shock you terribly if I agreed with you? The Church does not believe that the Sacraments are magic charms. For one, the proper intent is necessary: a man who takes his wedding vows while intending to cheat on his wife does not make a true vow of fidelity, and so the marriage is considered invalid--that is, no sacramentally binding marriage takes place. Similarly, if someone confesses his sins while not repenting and planning to sin again, he is not absolved.
Furthermore, while a valid sacrament always makes its graces available to anyone who receives it, the degree to which someone benefits depends on his interior disposition. If someone who has committed serious sin and not repented of it receives Communion, not only will he not receive the graces of the sacrament, but he actually commits another sin. As Paul says, "Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord" (1 Cor. 11:27).
BTW, the entire Catechism of the Catholic Church is online here. It's probably the best source for looking up the Church's position on any issue, and if you want to get into doing apologetics against Catholics, you really ought to take a look at it.
approvedworkman: I'm not sure how the foolishness of sedevacantists disproves the Catholic Church. If you want to attack Papists, you might try going after some who actually follow the Pope. :-)
And frankly, I find the history of the Catholic Church to be a lot *less* disheartening than the history of the Israelites, whom we all agree were God's chosen people. The sins that have been committed by Catholics of course grieve me deeply, but I do not think they disprove the church's claims any more than David's adultery with Bathsheba meant he was not the annointed king of Israel. (And though they haven't been around as long, Protestants have done their fair share of cruelty and persecution. We are none of us in a position to throw stones.)
I do not defend any bloodshed on either side.
The sedevacantists don't believe your pope is the pope. As far as I am concerned there is no difference between either of you no matter who is the pope.
As for Israel their story is part of the canon. Rome's story is just part of the sad history of mankind.
Anyway:
John 4:
22You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews.
Romans 9:
1I am speaking the truth in Christ--I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit-- 2that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers,my kinsmen according to the flesh. 4They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. 5To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.
Romans 11:
1I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin. 2God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew. Do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he appeals to God against Israel? 3"Lord, they have killed your prophets, they have demolished your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life." 4But what is God's reply to him? "I have kept for myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal." 5So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace
and
28As regards the gospel, they are enemies of God for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. 29For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.
This has yet to be fulfilled in its entirety.
No mention of Rome here, except in the title of the letter. This is not the RCC.
Brigidmarie
Could you please explain to me how the RCC, which history records is a schism of the Eastern Orthodox Church, is the one true church? It was Rome who accepted the filioque clause which altered the Nicene Creed without the agreement of the other patriarchs and it was the crusaders under Rome who sacked Constantinopole in 1204. Rome is nothing more than a break away church and is in as much error in its convictions that it is the sole body of Christ on this earth as is the EOC.
Dear fellow christians,
I am a member of the Syrian Orthodox Church. Though I used to attend the church regularly, I was not religious, and didn't care much about faith. Like many others, I was mostly concerned about myself. But I came in contact with some believers and now I believe in God who sent his only begotten Son to save us.
But I also heard a lot of criticism from these believers about our church which mostly originated from ignorance. I believe that our church is not perfect in doctrine, but we should remember that nobody is perfect.
In my opinion, a lot of the comments in this site are about 'others'. I believe, as Paul said, Jesus Christ came to save sinners, of whom 'I' am chief. If I believe in Jesus and I love him. If I really believe in Him and love him, I would obey Him (as He said). My point is let us concentrate on how far away we are from how God want us to live, rather than trying to correct others. Lets try to love others the way He did. Lets forgive others the way He did.
If we dont do that and spend our time in judging others, you all should know how He would judge us. Judgement belongs to Him only.
May God bless you all.
Abraham
DT,
Ex Cathedra is not applicable to every single papal document on faith and morals, but rather applies only when the Pope very specifically invokes it. You can see this formulation used in the declaration on the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception for instances of actual exercises of papal infallibility:
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9ineff.htm
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12MUNIF.HTM
I am not expecting you to accept these because of the papal definition--I am offering them to you as examples of a pope actually speaking ex cathedra. For a discussion of what infallibility is, its limits, and when it applies, please see: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm
Mary as mediatrix has not yet been defined by the popes as dogma, nor does this appear to be anywhere near occuring. For an exposition on this, I would recommend Dr. Scott Hahn's "Hail, Holy Queen".
I will try to show up semi-regularly to discuss the faith. The sooner all Christians present a united front, the better.
caspar
ex cathedra cannot be found in scripture.
Jesus did not give the church, or a man, auhtority to "create" (make up) doctrine.
Dear Dead:
Did you come up with this language?- "Mary was blessed among women and was a special vehicle that God used to bring His Son to this earth."
This is REPULSIVE heresy.
The notion of Mary as a "vehicle" for the incarnation was officially denounced as anti Scriptural heresy at the Council of Ephesus in 381. This is what Christians condemn as "Nestorianism": the refusal to acknowledge the Christian doctrine that Christ, having become incarnate in the Virgin's womb and "of" her body, is fully God and fully man. As we know from I John 4, to deny that Christ has come in the flesh by means of His human incarnation in the womb of His mother is tantamount to "the spirit of antichrist."
The angel said to Mary, "you will conceive," not "you will carry"!
Careful-
mm,
Is this your generosity and charity with love coming through?
Actually, I did not come up with this specific phrase. I have read it before and am quoting others who have made this comment.
I think that this really does not deserve any more comment. Since the RCC believes that Mary herself was born with the stain of original sin that presents a herculean problem in comparison to my choice of words.
DT
Dear Dead,
I think you mean to say "withOUT the stain of original sin," yes?
MM,
You are correct. I meant to write...
"Since the RCC believes that Mary herself was born without the stain of original sin that presents a herculean problem in comparison to my choice of words."
Is this your view and if so how do you support this?
DT
Dead,
The Church's understanding of Mary's preservation from sin by the grace of God hearkens back to Old Testament teaching. Absolute sanctity was required of the place where God's presence would dwell (recall the absolute sanctity of the Holy of Holies in the Temple, the absolute sanctity of the Ark of the Covenant, etc.)
Since Christians believe that God dwelt bodily in Mary's womb in the conception and incarnation of Christ Jesus, it follows that we also believe that Mary would be preserved (by God's grace, not by her power) in absolute sanctity for His presence.
All the best to you.
All “theories” on Mary’s sinless perfection, (as well as her perpetual virginity), are pure extrapolation
Luke 1:
46And Mary said,
"My soul magnifies the Lord,
47and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
48for he has looked on the humble estate of his servant.
For behold, from now on all generations will call me blessed;
49for he who is mighty has done great things for me,
and holy is his name.
Hebrews 4:
14Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. 15For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.
Mary used the words ”God my Savior”
Did she see the need for a savior, or was it that she did not know that she was born without sin? If she had never done anything sinful, would she not have known it?
The verse from Hebrews says that Jesus was sinless and perfect. This would be due to the fact that He is the perfect and flawless God of the universe. Sinless perfection requires that one be deity. Is Mary deity? If so, then she is worthy to be worshipped.
Romans 8:
3For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh,
2 Cor 5:
21For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
The verse from Hebrews 4 says that he was tempted in every way as we are. This is possible because Romans 8 tells us that He was made in the likeness of sinful flesh. He dwelt in fleshly body. Flesh is always capable of succumbing to temptation unless of course it is inhabited by the God of all creation. He was also made to be sin itself, by the Father.
So much for the misinterpreted OT doctrine of the sanctity of God’s dwelling place. The glory of God is that he dwelt in sinful flesh in order that He might take it to the cross, put it to death and then through His resurrection, we overcome it in this life, and dwell in incorruptibility in eternity.
The presence of God sanctifies the temple, not the other way around.
The Holy of holies and the temple itself were not sanctified until the presence of God was established there. 2 Chron 5:1-14
So Mary could have only been perfected after the conception of Christ, not before. Actually she could have only been perfected after His death and resurrection. There is no scriptural evidence that she herself ever claimed such perfection, or that Jesus and the apostles recognized such sinless perfection in her. Neo –pelagianism is the hallmark of Roman Catholicism; that somehow she was a “worthy vessel” thus compelling God to select her.
Mary was as much a part of the old man as anybody, until the “new man” put the old to death, by becoming one of fallen man and going to the cross. She needed regeneration as much as you or I.
As for anonymous who says that the rcc does not worship Mary, I refer you to this sight.
http://campus.udayton.edu/mary//resources/mayhymns.htm#2
I remember the “May Crownings” where the statue of the goddess was coronated with a wreath of flowers. It still is done today.
One last thought, DT did not come close to espousing nestorian heresy.
You are right she conceived, therefore...........
In order for God to come in the likeness of sinful flesh He had to unite with sinful flesh. That truly blows thet theory of a sinless Mary out of the water.
No wonder Rome despises sola scriptura. The scriptures disprove all of their traditions and dogma.
Bring on the popes and the church fathers!
Approved.
You suggest:
"You are right she conceived, therefore...........
In order for God to come in the likeness of sinful flesh He had to unite with sinful flesh."
On the contrary. Christians believe that Jesus Christ, being God Himself, is completely without sin. Your suggestion also presumes that sin is somehow "natural" to humanity, such that to be fully human somehow necessitates the presence of sin. But this is all wrong. Sin is an aberration and distortion of perfect humanity; it is a fact of human nature after the Fall, but sin itself is not intrinsic to the human creature. We were not made to sin, but to fellowship with God, and indeed the original creation was formed without sin.
Jesus Christ is the only true Human, BECAUSE He alone is without sin and perfectly united to the Father.
I suggest that you begin to reference some of the orginal source RC material, such as the RC Catechism, to support your claims. The Vatican web site is also an excellent resource. Otherwise your assertions will remain highly questionable against the the Church's actual statements, as contained in the original doctrinal sources.
Best!
I believe that I said several times that Jesus Christ is sinless, as He is fully God.
Yes Jesus is a sinless man also.
However, God's plan is not to "fix" fallen man.(back to pelagianism)
The fall was complete and utterly devastating.
Sin did not "distort" humanity. It brought death into the world. The first Adam is dead, and has been judged at the cross. He no longer exists as God' image and likeness. Jesus Christ is now the image of God and only those currently in Christ both living and departed exist in the image and likeness of God. He is not the God of the dead but of the living.
Colossians 1:
15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were created through him and for him. 17And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. 19For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, 20and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.
John 14:
8Philip said to him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us." 9Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? 10Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me?
Romans 5:
12Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned--
and:
18Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. 19For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous. 20 Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
The first Adam is dead.
The second Adam is the new creation, and God's image is found there alone.
This is why you must reckon yourself to be dead, be born again, and become a new creature.
Regardless of how the original creation was made, it is passing away. Those in the first Adam do not seek God or do good. Sin is sin,and it exists. Jesus came to bring us through that death and into new life.
Jesus came in the likeness of the first Adam to put man,sin and even death and Hades to death. This is why death and hades are thrown into the lake of fire after Satan and the beast, and before all who are facing the white throne judgement are thrown in.
He then became the second Adam by rising from the dead which is why Revealation says "blessed are those who partake of the frist resurrection as the second resurrection has no power over them."
Rev 20:1-15
All this aside, you did not respond to anything else I wrote.
I will only debate from Scripture. Perhaps you should read them and not the magesterial catechism of Rome.
mm
One more thought.
You said;
"Approved
You suggest:
'You are right she conceived, therefore...........
In order for God to come in the likeness of sinful flesh He had to unite with sinful flesh.'
You then said;
"On the contrary. Christians believe that Jesus Christ, being God Himself, is completely without sin."
As I stated,Jesus is both fully God, and fully man, and sinless.
Paul says in Romans 8 which I cited that he came in the likeness of "sinful flesh" and in 2 Cor 5, also cited, that he was made to be sin who knew no sin.
How you came to the assumpion that I was saying Jesus sinned is beyond me. Was Paul saying that also? Read for comprehension please.
Approved,
I will attempt once more to respond to the essence of your argument, for the sake of precision.
You suggest that Christ redeems humanity by uniting Himself with sinful human flesh. Christian orthodoxy has held that God fully unites Himself with humanity in Jesus. This does NOT mean that Christ took on our sin nature in the Incarnation. God takes no part in sin.
Furthermore, it is not necessary that Christ take on our sin nature in order to be fully united with humanity. This is because sin is not intrinsic to humanity. Rather, sin is properly alien to humanity, though we were all distorted by sin at the Fall.
And for the record, I humbly suggest that if you knew how much time I spend reading Scripture, even you might be impressed :)
Best!
mm
The point is I don't "suggest" anything. (Nice rhetorical spin though)
What does Paul mean then? He is the one doing the original "suggesting".
You are extremely close to gnostic teaching.
If you read the Bible as much as you claim, then you would respond from it.
Approved,
I resist throwing Scriptural proof texts around in arguments. Applying texts that are ultimately authoritative is not very helpful to discourse- especially when we are not discussing the interpretation of texts, but rather the nature of the doctrine of the Incarnation.
Gnosticism denies that Christ has come in the flesh. I am in no way denying this. I am promoting the historically orthodox position that while God unites Himself fully to humanity in Christ, He does NOT thereby take on a sin nature. Christian doctrine has never accepted what you propose in this regard.
The gospel message states:
God created man and man sinned;
As descendants of Adam, we all have his sin nature, i.e., we have all sinned;
The penalty of sin is death;
Christ was born of a virgin, i.e., without the sin nature of Adam;
He lived a sinless life, died and rose again;
By conquering death and the grave, He paid the price for all sin so that anyone who accepts and believes on Him might live.
The early Church Father Athanasius was very helpful on this point- see De Incarnatione Verbi Dei in particular.
All the best to you.
Approved, PS: ... but if you still want a proof text on point, Hebrews 4 is the place to go. Here, Christ is our High Priest by identifying completely with humanity- and yet is without sin.
"Christ was born of a virgin, i.e., without the sin nature of Adam;
He lived a sinless life, died and rose again;"
Exactly my point. However he came in the likeness of sinful flesh i.e. the corruptible human body to put it to death.
Now Mary lived in sinful flesh. You claim she was sinless and that would put her in the same level as God. Since she is obviously not "God", she cannot be sinless. This also refutes the foolish doctrine of the assumption.Her body decayd along with everyone else's
"As descendants of Adam, we all have his sin nature, i.e., we have all sinned;"
This includes Mary, a descendant of Adam.
As for the "proof text" argument;ity is an avoidance tactic. All that matters is what Scripture says. Dogma and tradition are not co-equal with God's Word, unless they agree 100% with the Word. Therefore the "doctrine of the Incarnation" is found only the Scriptures.
Men do not need to tweak what God has already revealed. Nice try at avoiding the question again.
The difference here is you defend a theological system, and I refer to the text. That is a huge chasm, as most of the system you defend contradicts, alters, and/or ignores the Scriptures.
Athanasius, as well as all the church fathers, did not write the infallible inerrant Word. This is the argument of Rome, the emergent movement, and all liberal theologies. Without the authoritative Word we have spiritual anarchy, i.e. experiential, subjective,and/or collective dogma.
The real battle is that all the apostate sytems deny God's sovereignty, and the Word's authority, as they have to in order to function.
Please try to forgo quoting commentary and go to the Word please.
mm
If you go back about 9 comments, I not only cited Hebrews 4, but also 2 Cor 5, and Romans 8. He took on the likeness of sinful flesh, and He was made to be sin itself, yet all without sinning. His position as God would have something to do with that. Do you even read my comments?
MM,
The thing that bothers me about some of these comment that you are making is the extreme subjective view of doctrine with a minuscule amount of scriptural support. In the end, councils, catechisms, and proclamations mean nothing in comparison to scripture.
What is your plumb line? What is your measuring tool? If it is Scripture plus tradition and councils, then we have nothing else to discuss. Scripture has to be the only source of our doctrine.
DT
Dear Dead,
Indeed, Scripture IS the source of the Church's doctrines! - it is when Scripture is interpreted authoritatively by the Church, "the pillar and ground of the truth," (I Timothy 3:15) that Christians get a binding doctrine.
I know of no doctrines of the Catholic Church that lack a Scriptural foundation.
Approved, sorry, I have to confess that I overlook many of your comments. - blogging in haste :) I would know better how to address some of your claims if you referred to the original Catholic sources, since honestly, it appears to me that a lot of your contentions are aimed at a fantasy about what the Catholic Church actually stands for.
Again, all the best to you both.
"I know of no doctrines of the Catholic Church that lack a Scriptural foundation."
Pick one:
Transubstantiation,Peter as first
pope in a papal lineage, the pope as infallible when speaking ex cathedra, the holy sacrifice of the mass, the assumption,the immaculate conception,perpetual virginity,
a separate clergy, veneration of relics praying to the "dead" saints and/or Mary, 7 sacraments, etc etc etc
I Tim 3:15 says the church supports the Truth. It dos not say that the Truth originates from the Church as the source, nor does it say that the church itself is Truth.
The RCC has failed to correctly exegete Scripture, therefore its doctrines are unscriptural. What the rcc has done is created dogma, and then either perverted or ignored Scripture depending on the desired end.
I have no fantasy I do know RCC doctrine and dogma. I am a former seminarian, altar boy, very well read and researched, etc.
When one studies the Scriptures, and the light is turned on, the arrors of Roman dogma are glaringly apparent.
I would not go back to my "holy mother" (again where is that in scripture?) if you paid me.
"Indeed, Scripture IS the source of the Church's doctrines! - it is when Scripture is interpreted authoritatively by the Church,"
One question;
who is the church? The magesterium, a separate clergy, or the saints,i.e all who are truly born again?
The scripture has authority under the triune God and over the church. The church has none of the authority Rome claims.
Approved,
Ah- you are a former Catholic seminarian? I think I now understand better where you are coming from. This is a very personal matter for you, which I really sympathize with. You must have quite a story.
Ok, here goes, in generous reliance on the Church's tradition of taking Scripture at its word:
Transubstantiation: "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him." John 6: 54-55.
Peter as first pope in a papal lineage: "Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter,and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." Matthew 16:17-19
Also: "But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers." Luke 22:31-33
Also: (With Jesus having established that He is the Shepherd of His flock, He hands His office of shepherding to Peter) The third time he said to him, "Simon son of John, do you love me?" Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, "Do you love me?" He said, "Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you." Jesus said, "Feed my sheep." John 21:17 etc.
The pope is infallible when speaking ex cathedra: Given Peter's primacy and the idea of a continuing apostolic 'seat' as described in Acts 1:20, the doctrine of the binding nature of Peter's teachings and the binding nature of his successor's teachings is derived from Jesus' presuming that the 'seat' of Moses in the Old Covenant is infallible: "Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: "The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you..." Matthew 23:1-3.
The holy Sacrifice of the Mass: "And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me." In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you." Luke 22:18-20 (Christ's references to His body being given for the sake of sinners is corroborated by Paul's description of Christ our 'propitiation' in Romans 3; the same language is echoed in I Johan 2 and 4. Likewise, Christ explicitly describes His blood as a covenantal offering or sacrifice. Thus, given that the Last Supper typifies Christ's Sacrifice, the Church understands that its own Eucharist re-presents the once for all sacrifice that purchased our salvation.)
The Assumption and Immaculate Conception: "And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women." Luke 1:28. (both of these doctrines proceed from the doctrine of Mary's preservation from original sin. The doctrine of Mary's sinlessness is derived from the Old Testament understanding of the utter sanctity of God's dwelling place, and from the angellic greeting which proclaims Mary as uniquely 'favored' and uniquely 'with' God, as in a manner only possible for those unsullied by original sin.
Perpetual virginity:
"Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus." Matthew 1:24-25
The Greek form of 'knew her not' here- eginwsken- is imperfect, meaning that the verb denotes continuing action without termination; in other words, the sense of the language is of Joseph 'never knowing' his wife. Also, the doctrine also proceeds from the Old Testament understanding of God's vessels being totally consecrated to Him alone.
A separate clergy: I dont know what you mean here.
Veneration of the relics/remains of deceased heroes of the faith, and invoking the saints as our companions in prayer:
A) The saints are our witnesses who have preceded us into the heavenly presence of God: "Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us..." Hebrews 12:1
B) Those who have entered already into the joy of the Lord's presence have been entrusted with the continuing work of God's Kingdom through their heveanly prayers and praises: "His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord." Matthew 25:21.
C) The saints and martyrs are concerned with the affairs of the Church in the world: "And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held: And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?" (Revelation 6:9-11)
D) The same grace that was given to our forbears for particular situations can be invoked for our own times of need: "And when the sons of the prophets which were to view at Jericho saw him, they said, The spirit of Elijah doth rest on Elisha. And they came to meet him, and bowed themselves to the ground before him." II Kings 2:15.
7 sacraments: I assume you accept Baptism and Eucharist here. Every one of the seven sacraments is presented in Scripture as an action that Jesus either a) directly commanded or b) participated in, or, the apostles directly commanded it:
A) Marriage: Wedding at Cana, John 2.
B) Confession: Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much. James 5:16. Also, "And when Jesus had said this to the apostles, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained." John 20:22-24
C) Unction: "And the apostles went out, and preached that men should repent. And they cast out many devils, and anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them." Mark 6:12-14. Also, "Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord." James 5:14.
D) Confirmation: See every passage having to do with believers' receiving the infilling of the Holy Spirit for ministry- Ezekiel 26:25-27, Joel 3:1-2, Luke 12:12, John 3:5-8 and 7:37-39 and 16:7-15, Acts 1:8, John 20:22, Acts 2, etc.
E) Ordination: "Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by...the laying on of the hands of the bishops." 1 Timothy 4:13-15 .
Whew! ... It's a lot of Scripture, no? :)
"Whew! ... It's a lot of Scripture, no? :)"
Yes, it is a lot of Scripture, and every bit of it misinterpreted. I have heard these over and over more times than I want to count. Rome is consistent, but so are the Mormons and the Jehovah’s Witness folk. Consistency does not equal accuracy.
Now to respond to your points:
1. "Ok, here goes, in generous reliance on the Church's tradition of taking Scripture at its word:"
No offense but all these Scriptures are yanked out of their immediate context, and so also the greater context of the Bible.
Scripture exegetes Scripture. Man made dogma is "I"segetical.
2. "Transubstantiation: "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him." John 6: 54-55."
I was just going to post on my blog about this.
The context of John 6 is the feeding of the five thousand. John 6:1-25
The message is the same as Deut 8:3
Man does not live by bread alone. Jesus quotes this to Satan in the wilderness also. Matthew 4:1-4
Interesting that Jesus fed the five thousand "in the wilderness" so to speak. Manna was given in the wilderness, and Jesus was tempted in the wilderness.
"In the beginning was the Word....",
"The Word became flesh", John 1:1
and v 14.
If Jesus is the Word, and He is, and we are told to eat His flesh, then we are in reality eating the Word. The Scriptures are the Word which reveal the WORD. Jesus and the Scriptures cannot be separated.
The Father testifies about the Son in the Word. John 5:37-47; Luke 24:25-27, also back to John 6:45
Jesus, the WORD, speaks and fulfills the Word. Matthew 5:17-18
John 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life,. the FLESH is of no avail. The Words I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.
What is the point of consuming of literal flesh? No point at all. Jesus is speaking about the Word and since He is the Word made flesh, we are to feed on Him, i.e. the Word. He never meant the spiritual cannibalism that Rome preaches. This episode took place a full year before the last Passover. So the "eucharist" was not yet instituted. He was not speaking about "this is my body", and even that has nothing to do with the literal transformation into flesh and blood.. More on that at another time.
They ate manna in the desert, Jesus fed the 5000 in the desert, and Jesus refused to turn stones into bread to satisfy His hunger. All of this so that we would know,” that man does not live by bread alone but by every Word that proceeds from the mouth of God”. The Scriptures proceed from God’s mouth and so does Jesus. 2 Tim 3:16-17;Mark 9:7.
I find it interesting that when Jesus asks the 12 if they are going to reject Him also, Peter responds with:
“"Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, “ John 6:68
He didn’t say “If we leave you whose flesh will we eat?"
Jesus is the WORD of life who speaks the Words of life. Feed on the Word of Life.
Anyway there is no direct statement in Scripture which says that there is a literal transforming of the bread and wine into the flesh and blood of Christ. The rcc does not know what the Body of Christ actually is.Rome bings the dcotrine to Scripture and then proof-texts it.
I will respond to the rest in my next comment.
Approved,
With all due respect, I have enjoyed our conversation, but I will not be responding to your comments any longer on this thread. As our conversation clearly shows, we tend to select Scriptural proof texts according to the prior commitments that we bring to the discussion.
I am determined to obey the Church in its time-honored interpretation of God's Word as handed down from the disciples themselves. You are determined not to. I know that you have your reasons. You will be in my prayers! I look forward to future conversations :) However, at some point conversation needs to cease where the will refuses to budge.
Hard to face the Truth, eh?
You aren't interested in conversation. You think that you can parrot the roman party-line and that is the final word?
What is wrong with the papists?They can't pick up a Bible and read it for themselves.
RCC doctrine is not Scripture.
We fellowship with one another in the Word. This will not happen in a church building, sitting in pews, staring at the back of each other's heads. I minister in a building btw.
Did the priest tell you not to continue here? Disprove what I wrote.
The rcc does not represent the "time-honored traditions" of Jesus and the apostles. It never did.
It is sad to see someone this deceived.
BTW you know nothing about me and my seminary days, so don't try and analyze it. The Lord took me out of darkness into His marvelous light. That is all that happened. He is good!
(FYI, I don't proof-text.)
Final comments on transubstantiation:
Matthew 26:
26Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, "Take, eat; this is my body." 27And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you, 28for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom."
If this is the literal body and blood then I would ask;
What did Jesus mean when He said "I will not drink AGAIN of THIS fruit
of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Kingdom" ?
Apparently he had participated in the drinking of the cup, denoted by the words "AGAIN", and "THIS", meaning this particular cup that He just given them. He then said that He would drink it new again in His Kingdom, sometime in the future.
So did Jesus eat and drink His own body and blood? Is he going to again? This is not only cannibalism, but cannibalism of the most pereverted kind.
The sum of my previous comments on this matter is simply that God gave His Word in covenant to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. God fed the Hebrews in the wilderness with manna, Jesus refused to create bread from stones, (which is a demonstration that He took His Father at His Word), and Jesus fed the 5000, to show us that we live by the Word of God alone.
God gives His Word, and He keeps His Word. In order to keep His Word he had to feed, i.e. take care of the promised descendants of Abraham, this includes Christ. So we are fed in order that we will know that it is His word that sustains us;if He had not made a covenantal promise to Abraham, He would be under no obligation to provide.
Do I see the white flag of surrender on the horizon from the papists on the DT blog? Surely, MM you cannot give up now. Considering the length and sarcasm of your former comments, you shouldn't weary of this discussion now. Approved is 100% correct to say that we fellowship with one another in Scripture. Sola Scriptura! That is the one thing the RCC has never been able to come to terms with. Why? Because their doctrine is not based on Scripture alone. That is why you must end this conversation because Scripture is not your basis. You use Scripture to back your points (incorrectly at that), but not your religion. As Protestants, we stand for Scripture alone. Everything else falls to the wayside. Prove us wrong with Scripture, and we will recant. Since there is no chance of that, we will never recant! You had best raise the white flag now because we live, breathe, and worship on Scripture alone.
Two points quickly:
First, ex cathedra is very explicitly scriptural, but the most obvious formulation by Christ is actually in reference to the teachings of the Pharisees (Matt. 23). This discussion is continued by Approved and I in another thread.
Secondly, forgive me if this is answered by another somewhere else in the thread--I skimmed--but Mary was indeed very clear on her need for a savior. She required one, as we all did. She was spared from sin by her Son's sacrifice, an interesting question of timing that can best be answered by saying that God knew what he was doing, who he was preparing, and for what. By the grace of Christ's sacrifice was his mother rendered sinless.
This is gone into in the papal document I linked to on the matter of the Immaculate Conception.
Another quick note in response to the cannibalism charge--it is his Body. It is his Blood. And there is a significant difference between the consumption of the little finger of a man and participation in a sacrament. This is a vital point which must be understood thoroughly, but is all too rarely appreciated in this debate.
In fact, I recall reading somewhere that it was this very same misunderstanding that led to some of the Roman persecutions of Christians--that they were under the impression the Christians were guilty of cannibalism. http://vivisimo.com/search?query=Romans+Christians+charges+of+cannibalism&v%3Aproject=vivisimo-com&v%3Asources=Web&x=0&y=0
And the teaching of the Real Presence is traceable from the Scriptures through the early Christians up to the present day.
http://www.catholic.com/library/Real_Presence.asp
None of this is obligatory reading--it would be hypocritical of me to expect that!--but I do like to cite sources to back up my claims. Please do examine them if you have the inclination.
Caspar
First of all Matthew 23 is Jesus' refutation of the Talmudic (also midrash/mishna) teachings which are in essence the rabbinical commentary on the actual Scriptures. Jesus always calls us back to the Torah.
Matthew 23:
"1Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, 2"The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat, 3so practice and observe whatever they tell you--but not what they do. For they preach, but do not practice. 4They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear,and lay them on people's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger. 5They do all their deeds to be seen by others. For they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long, 6and they love the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues 7and greetings in the marketplaces and being called rabbi by others."
This is your support claim for "ex cathedra" a doctrine totally foreign to Jesus and the Apostles.
While this is an accurate description of how rcc leadership actually wotks Jesus said "do as they teach not as they do."
Jesus follows with this:
"8But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers. 9And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. 10Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Christ. 11The greatest among you shall be your servant. 12Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted."
This is hardly supportive of the teachings of the papists. The rcc heirarchy does not and never has sat in Moses' seat. Since Jesus fulfills the law and the prophets and Moses wrote about Jesus, Moses' seat only exists today in talmudic rabbinicalism which we do not practice. John 5:37-47;Luke 24:25-27;Matthew 5:17-18
As in the case of John the Baptist, Jesus increases and Moses decreases. Moses lead them up to the Jordan but only Joshua, i.e. Yeshua/Jesus takes them into the promised land.The Law and the Prophets point the way.
Joshua 3:12-17 and 4:1-10
Matthew 3:13-17
The Law still stands but now He fulfills the Law on behalf of all who are in Him.
As for Mary:
Here are three RCC websites which address the issue. Draw your own conclusions.
http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/marymenu.htm
http://www.wf-f.org/MayCrowning.html
http://campus.udayton.edu/mary//resources/mayhymns.htm
This is the most telling quote from the EWTN site re:the "assumption"
"A Pope is not required to specify precisely where in the sources of revelation he finds a given doctrine. Yet, those documents often do review various things that at least in a way seem to support the teaching. We see an example of this in the Bull Ineffabilis Deus in which Pius IX defined the Immaculate Conception."
Need we say more??
Here is a link to a pagan/wiccan oriented website. Scroll down to the fourth prayer.
http://www.egreenway.com/meditation/goddess1.htm
Finally there is no Scripture that backs up transubstantiation.
John 6 is about the feeding of 5000, the manna, and the true bread from heaven which is the Word.
The "last supper" events show us Jesus establishing the fellowship of the Body of Christ. WE are His Body not the wafer!
Paul wrote when we eat the bread and drink the cup we proclaim His death until he comes in glory. 1 Cor 11:17-34
He was admonishing the Corinthian church as they would come to their celebration of the "Lord's death" gorge themselves, and get drunk. The whole point of the passage is a correction. They must eat before they come and let everyone participate.
Verse 29 points back to verses 20-22. "Discerning the Body" means literally, treating your brothers and sisters as members.
1 Cor 10:14-17 is written in the " greater context" of Paul admonishing against participating in idolatry.
Our participation in the Body and the Blood is manifest through our eating the elements of bread and wine.We are showing in whom we believe. When we eat the bread we show we are members of His body, and when we drink the cup we show that we are participants in the "new covenant" Together we partake of both and show that we are participants in the death that we proclaim. All the Scripture must be viewed in light of each other, not ripped from the Bible to "prove" a pre-determined man-made doctrine.
As for Rome's persecution of the early church,
Rome persecutd Christians in the first three centuries as it was;
1. politically expedient
2. the early church was mistrusted, as pagan society in Rome had no understanding of the church and its practices.
3.They were therefore easy targets to blame for everything, (much the same as the jews.)
By the 4th and 5th centuries Rome and the church completed an unholy union, and the Holy Roman Empire/Catholic Church was born.
Hegel's dialectic
thesis+antithesis=synthesis
The "chruch" then began to function as empirical Rome did; men assuming the titles of "your holiness' and "your excellency"
living like emperors, the church adopting the practices of persecution and pogroms against the jews and alleged heretics, all easy targets, and eventually they murdered the true people of God, i.e. anyone who proclaimed the Truth of the word.
Rome is an abomination, whether the kinder/gentler socialist liberal "novus ordo", or the medievel/fascist traditionalists.
Peruse this site for a good example of the sedevacantist neanderthals;
http://forchrist-contramundum.blogspot.com/
It is obvious why Rome fights so hard against sola scriptura, as papal bull(good word) and dogma do not square with the Word.
JSU,
No, there is no white flag here. There IS great joy and contentment and love for Christ's Church!- But thanks for filling me in on your personal credo :)
I, for myself, stand on Christ alone.
MM,
You may claim to stand on Christ alone, but you do it apart from Scripture. If Christ is separated from His very own Word and teachings, then what Christ do you have?
JSU,
I do not want to nit-pick with such a worthy interlocutor, but where in the world do you get the idea that I relate to Christ my Savior apart from Scripture?
MM,
Why could you not say that you stand on Scripture alone? You said you stand on Christ alone. Are you able to agree with me and say that you make Scripture your only theological foundation? Yet you cannot say that because then you must find a rebuttal for Approved's last 4 comments. The RCC is incapable of abiding by Scripture alone because they do not make it their sole authority. Make Scripture alone your basis and we will have a common ground to work with. Otherwise, Scripture should not be a part of any discussion in defense of the RCC.
JSU,
I would never say that I stand on Scripture alone, because Scripture does not atone for my sins, nor can it mediate my life to God. Christ alone saves me and takes me to the Father. That's why I worship Him- the one to whom Scripture only testifies. Christ alone is my theological foundation, and there can be none other. (I Cor 3:11) Scripture is valuable only because it testifies to Him. (John 5:39) Christ is the revelation of the Father, the Word who is become flesh. Scripture is the descriptive account of that final revelation, the person of Jesus Christ.
Christ promised that He would send the Spirit upon His disciples. The Spirit then led the disciples and the early Christian community in the production of the sacred Canon of Scripture for the binding guidance of the Church. Here again, I would never confess "Scripture alone" because this statement is not historically true- Scripture comes from the Holy Spirit through the Church; in a crude manner of putting it, Scripture is the Church's product. The only reason you and I have a Bible in our hands today is because the earliest community of Christians gathered together in prayer and formed texts to preserve their confessions and worship.
Scripture is the speech of God, as it is preserved in writing under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The Church continually transmits and preserves the authoritative Word of God, as it was entrusted to the apostles by Christ. Having been given by God to testify to Christ, the two forms of God's revelation- Scripture and the witness of the Church- are inseperable.
May God bless your day!
Scripture was written by men who were sovereignly chosen by God. It wasn't happenstance.
What about the Old Testament Scripture written by Hebrews?
The church had already been putting the books into a canon long before Constantine. It wasn't done in a day.
The Scriptures are the voice of God.
They are authored by God, their content is Christ, and they are revealed/interpreted by the Holy Spirit.
They are not the "product" of the church. They come from God.
"Christ is the revelation of the Father, the Word who is become flesh. Scripture is the descriptive account of that final revelation, the person of Jesus Christ."
Of all the comments you have left on this blogsite, this is the only accurate one you have yet made.
Jesus as Word, and the Scriptures as Word are inseparable.
The "witness" of Rome is not Scripture, therefore it's witness is not the Christ of the Word.
You can only know Jesus through the Scriptures revealed by the Spirit.
In your haste to denounce sola scriptura you forget sola fide, solus Christus,soli Deo gloria,sola gratia.
That is theological foundation.
The church has no authority over the Word, as the church did not write it.
Another thought:
It is obvious to me that the emerging church/post-modern movement, and the RCC are one and the same.The only diffremce being that their "magesterium" takes on a different form.
Both claim Jesus is Lord, neither will go to the Scriptures to define what Jesus they mean.
Approved,
I'm sorry, but I will not be responding to you. Best-
I don't care if you respond to me or not. I will comment as I am lead to.
You think way too much of yourself.
People who think salvation starts and ends with the Bible have stopped listening. This is the flaw of fundamentalism. God continues to speak to us and inspire us. It didn't end with Revelation. That was merely the end of the beginning. God continues to reveal himself to us through his Church.
To claim that the Bible is the only source because you claim that the Bible says that it is the only source is circular logic...fundamentally (pun intended) flawed.
RCs realize we don't need to be born again...we got it right the first time.
Post a Comment