[quote]Sloth wrote:
But, let’s take the eucharist for just a minute. The teaching was so ‘hard’ that disciples left him. So, today’s protestant objection isn’t new.
John 6 (yes, we do read the bible, too).
[/i]“Stop grumbling among yourselves,” Jesus answered. “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me. No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life. I am the bread of life. Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”
Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 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. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever."[/i]
Now, many disciples leave after this. Others are grumbling and in doubt.
[i]On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”
Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit[e] and they are life. Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him.”
From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.[/i]
[/quote]
The funny thing is Luther knew and admitted the Eucharist (by authorized Priests) is the actual Blood and Body of Christ. So did the other Protestants, however they knew that if it was not from an authorized Priest, it was not the actual blood and body, but a figure of the sacrifice not the actual sacrifice. This turned into that all communion was just a figure or symbol of the sacrifice and not the actual bloodless sacrifice.
Katz, to me this is a big deal. To raise Mary up to be the same as God is not ok. Mary is human and has sin. She needs a savior as much as all of us. Jesus is the only human who was without sin. Do I think that people can come to Jesus through the Catholic Church? Yes I do.[/quote]
I hope sir you quip, as what you have said is extreme heretics to do in the Catholic Church. One that will get you excommunicated for disobeying the first commandment. Please tell me you do not believe the Catholic Church adores or latria of St. Mary.
Mary was human, that does not mean she is with sin, after all Gabriel claimed she was Full of Grace, or was he just lying to her and flattering her in an attempt to persuade her to be G-d’s Mother.
Yes, she needs a savior, how would being sinless be equivalent to her not needing a savior. I do not remember the Bible saying Jesus is the only person without Sin. The Catholic Church is the only way as long as you believe in the Bible.[/quote]
First, your last sentence. Jesus says, “I am the way, the truth, and the life, and no one shall come unto the Father except through me.” The Catholic Church does not save you, only the blood of Jesus Christ.
[/quote]
Stop twisting my words. I never said the Church saves you, the Holy Ghost does which is in the Catholic Church. However, only the Catholic Church has corporal authority to give the Blood and Body of Jesus Christ, as well as authority to absolve sins.
[quote]
Second, the idea of Mary being without sin says that she is righteous in her own being, so she does not need a Savior so being equal with Jesus.[/quote]
No it does not say anything about her being righteous in her own being. Were Adam and Eve righteous in their own being, they were born without sin? Where they righteous because they walked with G-d, until they distance themselves from G-d by disobeying Him?
[quote]
This is what this doctrine tells us of Mary having no Sin.[/quote]
The doctrine does not do that, you are taking doctrine that you have never read and assuming it says something. Maybe you should read the doctrine, understand the logic behind it because your assumptions are far off and not close to being correct.
[quote]
If Mary has sin then she needs Grace to be saved.[/quote]
Yes, we never denied this? What does this claim try to prove, she was full of grace, because the Lord is with her.
If anything it proves she was without sin and blemish since she was full of grace, there was no lack of grace inside her. The Lord was with her, are you saying G-d cannot do this or something?
That G-d cannot wipe Original Sin away? I am sure you reject the teachings of baptism as well.
We are saved by more than faith, we are saved by works as well.
I do not care that you are denying that Mary was favored by G-d or not, I am more flustered that you seem to be saying G-d cannot do something. She is human, that does not mean that G-d let her be born into slavery like the rest of us, especially since she was to raise our Messiah, and then bow down before Him in worship or latria. She is the new Eve, and her son is the new Adam, both again born without Sin, but this time they did not sin as they were all their days with the Lord. However, if Mary left the presence of the Lord, she would then be in sin, but she was never without the Lord.
[quote]
The Bible states that Jesus is the lamb who was slain. In the Old Testament an Unblemished Lamb was used to attone for sin. Unblemished means with out sin. Sin is the blemish on all humans.[/quote]
Yes, but you forget that just because Jesus was an unblemished lamb did not mean that much (many unblemished lambs were slain but that did not save anyone), but because he was the Perfect Unblemished Lamb, did it mean something.
God-Man, God who came down and sacrificed His own begotten son, for those that he adopted, both giving Oath to make himself the last slain sacrifice for all and enduring torture for his loved brothers and sister to die and raise on the third day.
Jesus is not just some unblemished lamb, unblemished lambs do not do much without other factors. [/quote]
The Bible itself shows that All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. “All have sinned.” This includes Mary. She can not be sinless. Can God do these things if he wants to yes, but what would the purpose be of Mary being sinless. This was not a teaching of the early church and as you said was not brought about until 1865.[/quote]
There is oral tradition. And like I said, maybe read the doctrine so you understand. I sent you a link that explains the doctrine in short.
That is like saying that Abraham is merely a vessel which G-d brought a covenant to the world. Mary was more than a vessel, she is G-d’s mother, love thy neighbor! People are not merely anything, I am sure Jesus would really appreciate someone saying his mother was merely a vessel for his use. She deserves respect, she is not worshiped with the Godhead, if someone does or says they are, that is blasphemy and violation of the first commandment. In past, it would punished by penance of bread and water for years on end, as it should be because worshiping Mary as we worship the Godhead is far from okay.
There is no proof Mary died, physical or otherwise. I believe there is another person in the Bible that was taken up to Heaven without dying a physical death.
[quote]
We are not saved by our works, it is by our works that people can see our faith.
I hope I am not twisting your words again. That is not my intentions.[/quote]
No, we are not saved by anything but Jesus. You have to have a relationship with Jesus, and the only way to have a relationship with Jesus is by having faith and doing works.[/quote]
I hope you are right that Mary is not to be worshipped. I have heard a rummor going around that the Vatican is actually thinking about giving Mary the title of Diety. Hypothetical, if the Pope was to come out and make this a doctine of the Roman Catholic Church what would you say about it?[/quote]
It is not true, that has been a rumor documented for quite sometime.
I’d kill him myself for blaspheme (kidding, those Swiss guys are pretty tough to get around), it would not be accepted as infallible because it does not go with Tradition. That is part of the infallibility, not everything the Pope says is infallible.
Basically the jist is that if he is not
in council, and
making declaration that go along with tradition, then it is not infallible.
As well Bishops are infallible if they are teaching from doctrine in a prepared state (doesn’t include off comments).
This is like we would not consider the Pope infallible on the issue of Jesus if he said Jesus was merely a moral teacher. He would clearly be committing blaspheme and probably be put into the looney bin for saying such things.[/quote]
So Mary has been thought to have no sin since her birth by the Church? I think the Pope that added this doctrine is incorrect and was outside of tradition.
The part about Mary getting the title of diety, all it takes is a little time and after a while the entire Roman Catholic Chruch will consider it as tradition. Yes there might be some backlash at the start, but it will be accepted after time. The same thing with Mary being without sin. The Protestant churches denounced this as heresy, but over time the Roman Catholic Chruch accepted it as doctrine and tradition.
I am glad you follow the Pope and what he says. I see why you all say what you do, but you refuse to see how we feel about the subject. We put forth the most authoritative source on the subject, The Bible, and you say your oral tradition and doctrine superceeds The Bible. I personally have an issue with this and many others on this website.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
But, let’s take the eucharist for just a minute. The teaching was so ‘hard’ that disciples left him. So, today’s protestant objection isn’t new.
John 6 (yes, we do read the bible, too).
[/i]“Stop grumbling among yourselves,” Jesus answered. “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me. No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life. I am the bread of life. Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”
Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 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. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever."[/i]
Now, many disciples leave after this. Others are grumbling and in doubt.
[i]On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”
Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit[e] and they are life. Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him.”
From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.[/i]
[/quote]
The funny thing is Luther knew and admitted the Eucharist (by authorized Priests) is the actual Blood and Body of Christ. So did the other Protestants, however they knew that if it was not from an authorized Priest, it was not the actual blood and body, but a figure of the sacrifice not the actual sacrifice. This turned into that all communion was just a figure or symbol of the sacrifice and not the actual bloodless sacrifice.[/quote]
So who gives the priest authorization? I will assume the Pope is the one who gives the authorization. Transubstantiation is another doctrine that started well after the resurrection of Christ. Around 1100-1200 AD. I personally really do not side on either, because I have taken Communion at a Catholic church, and was caught, but it was different. I acutally enjoy the Catholic Communion. It is more reverent, IMO, than the one that my Church does. It is more individual and holy. The only issue I have is that Jesus states at the Last Supper to “do this in remembrance of me.” This is the most important part of Communion. The other stuff does not save you. Communion in and of itself does not save you either. Same thing with Baptism, but I guess that is going to be another section of this thread.
This is what I am having issues with. Putting Mary on a pedistal that she was better than us. I understand the issue with Mary interceeding for you so that is why you pray to her. I alright with going to the priest for confession but then take it to the High Priest in Jesus Christ. These are just my thoughts. I do not understand why you need to go to Mary for help. [/quote]
Why wouldn’t you ask someone to pray for you? You don’t request prayers for you and your family? You don’t pray for others?
[/quote]
I stated that I could understand going to a priest to pray for me. Mary is not omnipresent or omniscent so she can not hear everyones prayer. I do not want to get into whether she is dead just like everyother human or not, but she can not hear everyone’s prayer. God is the only diety that has that ability. God is also the only diety that can listen to our hearts. I pray in my heart to God. I also pray out loud, but Mary can not hear me. Only God can. I will ask for my brothers and sisters to pray for me, and then I will take my petition directly to God.
This is what I am having issues with. Putting Mary on a pedistal that she was better than us. I understand the issue with Mary interceeding for you so that is why you pray to her. I alright with going to the priest for confession but then take it to the High Priest in Jesus Christ. These are just my thoughts. I do not understand why you need to go to Mary for help. [/quote]
Why wouldn’t you ask someone to pray for you? You don’t request prayers for you and your family? You don’t pray for others?
[/quote]
I stated that I could understand going to a priest to pray for me. Mary is not omnipresent or omniscent so she can not hear everyones prayer.[/quote]
We don’t believe so either. We do believe she can hear our prayers because God allows it. And even hearing all of our prayers, does not make for omnipresence or omniscience, anyways. Such is the knowledge of knowing where the tiniest constituent of matter has been, is, and ever will be, in all of creation.
Let me just cut to the chase for a minute. Have you ever lost a loved one? Do you visit their grave site? Do you let them know you miss them?
Katz, to me this is a big deal. To raise Mary up to be the same as God is not ok. Mary is human and has sin. She needs a savior as much as all of us. Jesus is the only human who was without sin. Do I think that people can come to Jesus through the Catholic Church? Yes I do.[/quote]
I hope sir you quip, as what you have said is extreme heretics to do in the Catholic Church. One that will get you excommunicated for disobeying the first commandment. Please tell me you do not believe the Catholic Church adores or latria of St. Mary.
Mary was human, that does not mean she is with sin, after all Gabriel claimed she was Full of Grace, or was he just lying to her and flattering her in an attempt to persuade her to be G-d’s Mother.
Yes, she needs a savior, how would being sinless be equivalent to her not needing a savior. I do not remember the Bible saying Jesus is the only person without Sin. The Catholic Church is the only way as long as you believe in the Bible.[/quote]
First, your last sentence. Jesus says, “I am the way, the truth, and the life, and no one shall come unto the Father except through me.” The Catholic Church does not save you, only the blood of Jesus Christ.
[/quote]
Stop twisting my words. I never said the Church saves you, the Holy Ghost does which is in the Catholic Church. However, only the Catholic Church has corporal authority to give the Blood and Body of Jesus Christ, as well as authority to absolve sins.
[quote]
Second, the idea of Mary being without sin says that she is righteous in her own being, so she does not need a Savior so being equal with Jesus.[/quote]
No it does not say anything about her being righteous in her own being. Were Adam and Eve righteous in their own being, they were born without sin? Where they righteous because they walked with G-d, until they distance themselves from G-d by disobeying Him?
[quote]
This is what this doctrine tells us of Mary having no Sin.[/quote]
The doctrine does not do that, you are taking doctrine that you have never read and assuming it says something. Maybe you should read the doctrine, understand the logic behind it because your assumptions are far off and not close to being correct.
[quote]
If Mary has sin then she needs Grace to be saved.[/quote]
Yes, we never denied this? What does this claim try to prove, she was full of grace, because the Lord is with her.
If anything it proves she was without sin and blemish since she was full of grace, there was no lack of grace inside her. The Lord was with her, are you saying G-d cannot do this or something?
That G-d cannot wipe Original Sin away? I am sure you reject the teachings of baptism as well.
We are saved by more than faith, we are saved by works as well.
I do not care that you are denying that Mary was favored by G-d or not, I am more flustered that you seem to be saying G-d cannot do something. She is human, that does not mean that G-d let her be born into slavery like the rest of us, especially since she was to raise our Messiah, and then bow down before Him in worship or latria. She is the new Eve, and her son is the new Adam, both again born without Sin, but this time they did not sin as they were all their days with the Lord. However, if Mary left the presence of the Lord, she would then be in sin, but she was never without the Lord.
[quote]
The Bible states that Jesus is the lamb who was slain. In the Old Testament an Unblemished Lamb was used to attone for sin. Unblemished means with out sin. Sin is the blemish on all humans.[/quote]
Yes, but you forget that just because Jesus was an unblemished lamb did not mean that much (many unblemished lambs were slain but that did not save anyone), but because he was the Perfect Unblemished Lamb, did it mean something.
God-Man, God who came down and sacrificed His own begotten son, for those that he adopted, both giving Oath to make himself the last slain sacrifice for all and enduring torture for his loved brothers and sister to die and raise on the third day.
Jesus is not just some unblemished lamb, unblemished lambs do not do much without other factors. [/quote]
The Bible itself shows that All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. “All have sinned.” This includes Mary. She can not be sinless. Can God do these things if he wants to yes, but what would the purpose be of Mary being sinless. This was not a teaching of the early church and as you said was not brought about until 1865.[/quote]
There is oral tradition. And like I said, maybe read the doctrine so you understand. I sent you a link that explains the doctrine in short.
That is like saying that Abraham is merely a vessel which G-d brought a covenant to the world. Mary was more than a vessel, she is G-d’s mother, love thy neighbor! People are not merely anything, I am sure Jesus would really appreciate someone saying his mother was merely a vessel for his use. She deserves respect, she is not worshiped with the Godhead, if someone does or says they are, that is blasphemy and violation of the first commandment. In past, it would punished by penance of bread and water for years on end, as it should be because worshiping Mary as we worship the Godhead is far from okay.
There is no proof Mary died, physical or otherwise. I believe there is another person in the Bible that was taken up to Heaven without dying a physical death.
It is not outside tradition. Otherwise the doctrine would not have been considered infallible. Doctrine has to be tested, through different measures, to become infallible. You have to look at oral tradition, doctors, early Church fathers, &c.
The heresy of considering Mary a deity is well documented in Mariology, it will never happen since it has been declared heresy. If it did, which it won’t, then it would take a long time, short time makes Catholic tradition not.
Funny Protestants are considered heretics, I am not really worried because most of them consider me a heretic.
[quote]
I am glad you follow the Pope and what he says. I see why you all say what you do, but you refuse to see how we feel about the subject. We put forth the most authoritative source on the subject, The Bible, and you say your oral tradition and doctrine superceeds The Bible. I personally have an issue with this and many others on this website.[/quote]
Hold up hoss, never said that we take oral tradition and doctrine to supersede The Holy Bible. We just do not think that everything in detail was or could be explained in the Bible, I mean look at all the disputes among Protestants. What doctrine and Cannon law does, is explain in detail issues of tradition and Tradition. So that the Church is one.
We hold dear to our Bibles, look at our actions. It is required that during Mass we have three readings of the Bible, along with a response Psalm. So four readings every Mass from the Bible in total. Everyday we have a daily mass, and at least two if not three readings from the Bible, along with a response Psalm. We always have one reading in the Gospel, then usually an old testament that correlates with the reading in the Gospel, and then a teaching that deals with the reading in the Gospel. Plus if you pick a missal up, it is awesomely filled with scripture.
Then on Easter, wow want to ever get sick of hearing the Bible being read, go to a vigil. I mean I have been to some vigils where there were up to twenty to twenty-five different readings from the Bible. Not including the response Psalms and Hymns pulled out of the Bible.
Then you want to talk about following the Bible, the part about prayer with ceasing. The Divine Office*? Yeah! If you use the Divine office, you read & pray 5-6 times a day, and you read several readings, pray several Psalms, sing a Hymn, do a Psalmody, pray a Psalm, a few more response Psalms, more praying of Psalms, another Psalm-prayer, a few more response psalms, read/pray a epistle, read some of the Gospel, have a moment of silence, response psalms, read some more of the Gospel, pray some intercessions, say the Lord’s Prayer, Concluding prayer, and a dismissal prayer.
I recommend all Christians, if they want to increase their reading of the Scriptures and pray without ceasing, to pick up a Divine office, or Breviary (I have never used the latter). As well, praying the Divine office allows one to structure their day, I have found that praying the Divine Office, on top of driving me closer to G-d, it also structures my day and puts my reliance on Him since I am purposely taking a break in the middle of my tasks to go pray. Relying on Him that He will motivate me full strength to get back to work.
DivineOffice.org is a decent site to check out the readings for the day and all kinds of good stuff.
“…We believe Mary was sinless because of the Divine’s nature and will…”
Then, according to Scripture, Mary is no different that all believers.
II Peter 1:3-4
“According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue: Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature…”
It is possible for believers to have a multiplied measure of grace and peace, seeing that god’s divine power has “given” (Gk. dedoremenes, grant generously, bestow freely) them all things necessary for “life and godliness.” Peter wanted believers to enter into all these potential blessings. They have the capability to “live godly in Christ Jesus,” as II Timothy 3:12 describes it. The Lord has “called” (Gk. kalesantos, bid, summon personally, call by name) believers to His own “glory” (Gk. doxes, honor, radiant splendor) and “virture” (Gk. aretes, maniliness, holy excellence), thereby to manifest the divine character of Christ in their lives.
If believers will claim these pecious promises they may, even now, be “partakers” (Gk. koinonoi, sharer, partner) in Christ’s “nature” (Gk. phuseos, genus, lineal descent, nan, constitution).
As belivers we partake of the very nature of God. Our sharing in His nature is another description of the new birth by which we receive the life of God. We share God’s nature in order to conform to God and His holiness (cf. I Cor. 6:19-20; Eph. 4:24).[/quote]
Honestly, I’m not sure what you’re trying to say. It doesn’t seem to have anything to do with what I wrote.[/quote]
What he just said is the entire point of all of history. Adam and Eve were created sinless and had glorious fellowship with God himself. However, after the fall, when God could have with entire justice damned every last specimen of the human race, He instead manifests a plan whereby man (and woman) are elevated to a level of intimate relation with Himself far exceeding the original in the garden. We now partake of the resurrected life of the risen Christ Himself dwelling in our hearts. Once the reality of that is impressed upon the heart and mind, realizing the woeful tragedy of a sacerdotal ceremonial relationship with the bridegroom Christ is simply the natural response. He can correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure that’s what he was driving at.
This is where the roman church is filled with semantic double talk. “oh no, we preach that intimate relationship too only it dies the death of 1000 qualifications once you see all the unbiblical church hoops and levels of spiritual bureaucracy required for you to have it”.
“oh no we don’t worship Mary because we have a different word for it, hyperdulia, as opposed to standard dulia which is for the other saints all of which happens to be totally foreign to the bible, but once you pile all this catholic baggage on your soul what’s one more bizarre word game?” Oh yeah, we forgot about veneration for relics whereby trinkets and artifacts alleged to be directly associated with some or other catholic superstar are not worshiped, oh no, they’re “venerated”. That one is so far out and so clearly idolatry it’s incredible it even needs to be discussed.
“oh no we don’t worship a piece of food, only that monstrance being carried by the guy in the expensive uniform has a piece of food in it that this time we are commanded to worship with full latria, worship designated for God alone as if there were any other kind in the bible, but were not dealing with the bible. We’re dealing with roman tradition where somehow a man walking with a piece of worship worthy food on a pole has found it’s way into the gospel of God. The same God who judged Israel for her dabbling with the asherah pole. But you say this is a different kind of pole so it doesn’t count. The pope said this one has Jesus on top so far from an abominable idol this one holds God himself in the form of a piece of food so we’re good.”
I don’t know of a way to be any kinder about all this and we haven’t even scratched the surface. However, you have genuinely profound and penetrating insights into the roles of family and personal morality in the history and future of this nation. I will continue to look forward to reading them. Regardless of everything I’ve said, I’ll repeat once more that by the breathtaking grace of God I can’t bring myself to believe that it’s impossible for catholics to find enough of the gospel to be called brothers. There may be some wishful thinking in there on my part.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
<<< Let me just cut to the chase for a minute. Have you ever lost a loved one? Do you visit their grave site? Do you let them know you miss them?
[/quote]Yes and no. I do not talk to dead people, they cannot hear me and please don’t tell me that what you do with Mary is the equivalent of that anyway. She is accorded attributes that are true of only God. It is idolatry straight up pure and simple. Don’t you see that this is what happens when you allow men power appropriate to God alone and His word?
It’s sin man. It’s natural. It’s what happens every time man tries to improvise on the Word of God. It’s the church age equivalent of the whole history of the nation of Israel. All they had to do was wink in a direction other than God’s law and off they went after other gods. Over and over and over and it was always the same. They did not keep the law of the Lord before their eyes and by dinner time they were up on the high places with their pagan neighbors. When I look at catholic theology it’s just crystal clear that that’s exactly what it is.
Now some of you guys can understand how tough it was to keep my views on catholicism under my hat. I was really grittin my teeth a few times.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Regarding how the Church regards the Blessed Virgin Mary, <<<>>> that is theologically sophisticated, yet can be read by non-theologians. >>>[/quote]
(holds head in hands with knot in throat) There is no such thing as sophisticated theology regarding Mary the mother of Jesus. None. Relatively speaking she’s barely even mentioned in the new testament. It’s pure speculative philosophy drawn from the minds of men and not from the word of God. This is some dangerous ground you guys are treading on.
No, their Bishop, which over sees the seminary. Which might be the Pope, but the Pope is a Bishop as well.
Well let’s look at this then.
[quote]
The Jews therefore murmured at him, because he had said: I am the living bread which came down from heaven. [42] And they said: Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How then saith he, I came down from heaven? [43] Jesus therefore answered, and said to them: Murmur not among yourselves. [44] No man can come to me, except the Father, who hath sent me, draw him; and I will raise him up in the last day. [45] It is written in the prophets: And they shall all be taught of God. Every one that hath heard of the Father, and hath learned, cometh to me.
[46] Not that any man hath seen the Father; but he who is of God, he hath seen the Father. [47] Amen, amen I say unto you: He that believeth in me, hath everlasting life. [48] I am the bread of life. [49] Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and are dead. [50] This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die.
[51] I am the living bread which came down from heaven. [52] If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. [53] The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? [54] Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. [55] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.
[56] For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. [57] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. [58] As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. [59] This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever. [60] These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum.
[61] Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it? [62] But Jesus, knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you? [63] If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? [64] It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life. [65] But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning, who they were that did not believe, and who he was, that would betray him.
[66] And he said: Therefore did I say to you, that no man can come to me, unless it be given him by my Father. [67] After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him. [68] Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away? [69] And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. [70] And we have believed and have known, that thou art the Christ, the Son of God. [/quote]
The Promise of John 6, clearly stating what the bread and wine is, and that people will have a tough time accepting that we are actually eating human flesh and drinking blood. And, 1 Corinthians 11:23-30, so we get the context of the scripture.
Notice he did not just commemorate, but received the Lord.
[quote]
This is the most important part of Communion. The other stuff does not save you. Communion in and of itself does not save you either. Same thing with Baptism, but I guess that is going to be another section of this thread.[/quote]
What other stuff do you mean? No, but it brings grace, and we are saved through grace. If you read the rest of it, if you do not confess your sins and do penance, communion does nothing, not grace is given unto you.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Regarding how the Church regards the Blessed Virgin Mary, <<<>>> that is theologically sophisticated, yet can be read by non-theologians. >>>[/quote]
(holds head in hands with knot in throat) There is no such thing as sophisticated theology regarding Mary the mother of Jesus. None. Relatively speaking she’s barely even mentioned in the new testament. It’s pure speculative philosophy drawn from the minds of men and not from the word of God. This is some dangerous ground you guys are treading on. [/quote]
By nature…
On Sacred Doctrine, “Since this science is partly speculative and partly practical, it transcends all others speculative and practical.” (Summa Theologica, Prima Pars, Q.1.5)
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Regarding how the Church regards the Blessed Virgin Mary, <<<>>> that is theologically sophisticated, yet can be read by non-theologians. >>>[/quote]
(holds head in hands with knot in throat) There is no such thing as sophisticated theology regarding Mary the mother of Jesus. None. Relatively speaking she’s barely even mentioned in the new testament. It’s pure speculative philosophy drawn from the minds of men and not from the word of God. This is some dangerous ground you guys are treading on. [/quote]
By nature…
On Sacred Doctrine, “Since this science is partly speculative and partly practical, it transcends all others speculative and practical.” (Summa Theologica, Prima Pars, Q.1.5)
It is not pure speculation. [/quote]
Do you remember in the death penalty thread when I told you what a towering intellect Aquinas was, but that he was given to waxing a bit too philosophical a bit too often? This is one of those times. “sacred doctrine” including my own is not science and how does it follow that ANYTHING, merely being comprised of ANY 2 things, dictates it’s transcendence of those 2 or any other things? That is nonsensical philosophically and wholly inaccurate theologically.
Christian doctrine is primarily neither speculative nor practical in it’s discovery. It’s biblical and all speculation and practice are themselves dictated by scripture or we wind up with very nice guys like you quoting Thomas Aquinas as if he were the 4th person in the Godhead and his words were to be taken as authoritatively settling a controversy regardless of what the bible says.
Besides, Chris, my dear friend, how, I beg of thee, is a sophisticated theology of Mary to be drawn from nature even if we conceded Aquinas his points? Peyote? And lots of it? Where are you gonna find data about Mary in nature? Nature IS data about God, but Mary? I just can’t believe none of this strikes you fine people as being more than a bit out there.
“…We believe Mary was sinless because of the Divine’s nature and will…”
Then, according to Scripture, Mary is no different that all believers.
II Peter 1:3-4
“According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue: Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature…”
It is possible for believers to have a multiplied measure of grace and peace, seeing that god’s divine power has “given” (Gk. dedoremenes, grant generously, bestow freely) them all things necessary for “life and godliness.” Peter wanted believers to enter into all these potential blessings. They have the capability to “live godly in Christ Jesus,” as II Timothy 3:12 describes it. The Lord has “called” (Gk. kalesantos, bid, summon personally, call by name) believers to His own “glory” (Gk. doxes, honor, radiant splendor) and “virture” (Gk. aretes, maniliness, holy excellence), thereby to manifest the divine character of Christ in their lives.
If believers will claim these pecious promises they may, even now, be “partakers” (Gk. koinonoi, sharer, partner) in Christ’s “nature” (Gk. phuseos, genus, lineal descent, nan, constitution).
As belivers we partake of the very nature of God. Our sharing in His nature is another description of the new birth by which we receive the life of God. We share God’s nature in order to conform to God and His holiness (cf. I Cor. 6:19-20; Eph. 4:24).[/quote]
Honestly, I’m not sure what you’re trying to say. It doesn’t seem to have anything to do with what I wrote.[/quote]
What he just said is the entire point of all of history. Adam and Eve were created sinless and had glorious fellowship with God himself. However, after the fall, when God could have with entire justice damned every last specimen of the human race, He instead manifests a plan whereby man (and woman) are elevated to a level of intimate relation with Himself far exceeding the original in the garden. We now partake of the resurrected life of the risen Christ Himself dwelling in our hearts. Once the reality of that is impressed upon the heart and mind, realizing the woeful tragedy of a sacerdotal ceremonial relationship with the bridegroom Christ is simply the natural response. He can correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure that’s what he was driving at.
This is where the roman church is filled with semantic double talk. “oh no, we preach that intimate relationship too only it dies the death of 1000 qualifications once you see all the unbiblical church hoops and levels of spiritual bureaucracy required for you to have it”.
“oh no we don’t worship Mary because we have a different word for it, hyperdulia, as opposed to standard dulia which is for the other saints all of which happens to be totally foreign to the bible, but once you pile all this catholic baggage on your soul what’s one more bizarre word game?” Oh yeah, we forgot about veneration for relics whereby trinkets and artifacts alleged to be directly associated with some or other catholic superstar are not worshiped, oh no, they’re “venerated”. That one is so far out and so clearly idolatry it’s incredible it even needs to be discussed.
“oh no we don’t worship a piece of food, only that monstrance being carried by the guy in the expensive uniform has a piece of food in it that this time we are commanded to worship with full latria, worship designated for God alone as if there were any other kind in the bible, but were not dealing with the bible. We’re dealing with roman tradition where somehow a man walking with a piece of worship worthy food on a pole has found it’s way into the gospel of God. The same God who judged Israel for her dabbling with the asherah pole. But you say this is a different kind of pole so it doesn’t count. The pope said this one has Jesus on top so far from an abominable idol this one holds God himself in the form of a piece of food so we’re good.”
I don’t know of a way to be any kinder about all this and we haven’t even scratched the surface. However, you have genuinely profound and penetrating insights into the roles of family and personal morality in the history and future of this nation. I will continue to look forward to reading them. Regardless of everything I’ve said, I’ll repeat once more that by the breathtaking grace of God I can’t bring myself to believe that it’s impossible for catholics to find enough of the gospel to be called brothers. There may be some wishful thinking in there on my part.
[/quote]
Just briefly, it’s excellent you know some of our terms. But, even knowing them, you seem to apply your own definition to them. After all, from your language the unknowing observer would take it that the definition for each is the same, “Worship.” Honoring and respecting, even deeply, our brothers and sisters isn’t idolatry. Let me repeat that, our brothers and sisters. We don’t view a one of them as a God, do not worship them as God, and can say this to our priest without fear of correction. In fact, the opposite is true.
If I held a picture of my dead grandmother to me, perhaps even kissing it before setting it down, I suppose that too is idolatry.
Once the reality of that is impressed upon the heart and mind, realizing the woeful tragedy of a sacerdotal ceremonial relationship with the bridegroom Christ is simply the natural response.[/quote]
If the problem is with a ministerial priesthood, then scripture is easily on our side. We most definitely see a hierarchy of apostles and deacons leading faith communities. If the problem is with ceremony…what do you call baptism? What do you call marriage? Prayers grave side?
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Regarding how the Church regards the Blessed Virgin Mary, <<<>>> that is theologically sophisticated, yet can be read by non-theologians. >>>[/quote]
(holds head in hands with knot in throat) There is no such thing as sophisticated theology regarding Mary the mother of Jesus. None. Relatively speaking she’s barely even mentioned in the new testament. It’s pure speculative philosophy drawn from the minds of men and not from the word of God. This is some dangerous ground you guys are treading on. [/quote]
By nature…
On Sacred Doctrine, “Since this science is partly speculative and partly practical, it transcends all others speculative and practical.” (Summa Theologica, Prima Pars, Q.1.5)
It is not pure speculation. [/quote]
Do you remember in the death penalty thread when I told you what a towering intellect Aquinas was, but that he was given to waxing a bit too philosophical a bit too often? This is one of those times. “sacred doctrine” including my own is not science and how does it follow that ANYTHING, merely being comprised of ANY 2 things, dictates it’s transcendence of those 2 or any other things? That is nonsensical philosophically and wholly inaccurate theologically.
Christian doctrine is primarily neither speculative nor practical in it’s discovery. It’s biblical and all speculation and practice are themselves dictated by scripture or we wind up with very nice guys like you quoting Thomas Aquinas as if he were the 4th person in the Godhead and his words were to be taken as authoritatively settling a controversy regardless of what the bible says.
Besides, Chris, my dear friend, how, I beg of thee, is a sophisticated theology of Mary to be drawn from nature even if we conceded Aquinas his points? Peyote? And lots of it? Where are you gonna find data about Mary in nature? Nature IS data about God, but Mary? I just can’t believe none of this strikes you fine people as being more than a bit out there.[/quote]
Just as Jesus was talked about before they had the Gospels, by word of mouth. Written down, and then turned into doctrine.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
<<< If I held a picture of dead my grandmother to me, perhaps even kissing it before setting it down, I suppose that too is idolatry.[/quote]
If you started praying to her through it and wearing her bones around your neck paying them “veneration” in hopes of response as millions of catholics do with saints and relics then yes that would be idolatry. Actually saints don’t receive veneration they receive “dulia” (spelling?) Relics receive veneration and Mary receives “hyper=dulia” while God including the “host” receive “Latria”. No they are not the same thing as I said. They are a semantic exercise to justify God dishonoring idolatry.
How can you possibly believe the mortally jealous God of the bible would sanction ANY honoring of anybody or anything in ANY way in relation to faith and worship other than himself? Tradition, that’s how. This is what I’m talkin about. The whole mindset that could produce these formulated multi layered theological constructs is utterly foreign to the bible. It just is. How is that even up for discussion? I wouldn’t have as much trouble with Rome if they just abandoned the bible and continued coming up with these weird superstitions.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
<<< If I held a picture of dead my grandmother to me, perhaps even kissing it before setting it down, I suppose that too is idolatry.[/quote]
If you started praying to her through it and wearing her bones around your neck paying them “veneration” in hopes of response as millions of catholics do with saints and relics then yes that would be idolatry. Actually saints don’t receive veneration they receive “dulia” (spelling?) Relics receive veneration and Mary receives “hyper=dulia” while God including the “host” receive “Latria”. No they are not the same thing as I said. They are a semantic exercise to justify God dishonoring idolatry.
How can you possibly believe the mortally jealous God of the bible would sanction ANY honoring of anybody or anything in ANY way in relation to faith and worship other than himself?
Tradition, that’s how. This is what I’m talkin about. The whole mindset that could produce these formulated multi layered theological constructs is utterly foreign to the bible. It just is. How is that even up for discussion? I wouldn’t have as much trouble with Rome if they just abandoned the bible and continued coming up with these weird superstitions. [/quote]
Do you honor the founding fathers? Ever visited one of their memorials?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
<<< Do you honor the founding fathers? Ever visited one of their memorials?
[/quote]
I need some sleep, but I have never prayed to them or expected the slightest effect on my life from any attitude or action in any way related to their dead persons. I don’t ask them anything they are not my friends or brothers and sisters. They are dead to this world and my bible nowhere indicates that the dead, even in Christ are so much as aware of what is happening in this world to say nothing of answering prayers.
Before I go to bed lemme clarify that I never said you worship Mary or saints as God. That’s the point, you worship them as dead people. However you may try to credit God for their fabulous qualities you are still praying to and worshiping them. Worship by any other name is just as idolatrous. I’m not up to the priesthood thing tonight.
