Posted on 04/27/2008 6:33:53 PM PDT by markomalley
“Well, the Pope can declare anything he wants, but only Catholics believe it is true or infallible. Protestants just kind of smile, nod, and roll our eyes.”
You are so right about the Pope and the Catholic’s belief in his infallibility in matters of faith, moral teachings and doctrine. I respect your right to smile, nod and roll your eyes.
That’s why there is a seemingly unbrigeable chasm between the teachings of the Catholic and any other church. Sadly enough it cannot be any other way — if I were to cease to believe in the Pope’s infallibility then I should also stop believing, or at least doubt, in the teachings of my Church which would then oblige me to seek membership in another church.
I definitely do not feel the need to do so and therefore remain happily stuck in my own rut.
And just which of those describe the "Father" whom Jesus called "my Father"???
Jesus was telling Mary he had bigger fish to fry and that her concerns were overridden.
In addition to telling her that she was wrong.
That does not make Joseph not A father to him.
So then how many "fathers" did Jesus have??? His own words acknowledge that He only had one -- "my Father". He didn't say: "my heavenly Father" or "my other father" -- He said "my Father" -- that's all.
He fed him, he clothed him
Good Samaritans do that as well -- so should they expect to be called "fathers".
he took care of his mother.
So did John after his crucifixion -- so did that make John his "father" too.
So no, Mary was not a liar. Jesus reminded her he had another more important parent whose business he had to be about. He was not calling her a liar. He was correcting her priorities.
He was correcting her prefabrication along with her priorities, and doing so as kindly but straight-forwardly as was necessary -- but she still didn't get it -- nor did Joseph.
The saints here are the “first fruits” - those who rose when Jesus died on the cross at the 9th hour. They were not previously “sinless.” See Matthew 27:52
The second and third arguments are related. Mary needed Jesus as her savior. His death on the Cross saved her, as it saves us, but its saving effects were applied to her (unlike to us) at the moment of her conception. (Keep in mind that the Crucifixion is an eternal event and that the appropriation of salvation through Christ’s death isn’t impeded by time or space.)
Medieval theologians developed an analogy to explain how and why Mary needed Jesus as her savior. A man (each of us) is walking along a forest path, unaware of a large pit a few paces directly ahead of him. He falls headlong into the pit and is immersed in the mud (original sin) it contains. He cries out for help, and his rescuer (the Lord Jesus) lowers a rope down to him and hauls him back up to safety. The man says to his rescuer, "Thank you for saving me," recalling the words of the psalmist: The Lord "stooped toward me and heard my cry. He drew me out of the pit of destruction, out of the mud of the swamp; he set my feet upon a crag" (Psalm 40:2-4).
A woman (Mary), approaches the same pit, but as she began to fall into the pit her rescuer reaches out and stops her from falling in. She cries out, "Thank you for saving me" (Luke 1:47). Like this woman, Mary was no less "saved" than any other human being has been saved. She was just saved anticipatorily, before contracting original sin. Each of us is permitted to become dirtied with original sin, but she was not. God hates sin, so this was a far better way.
Sorry, as long as you’re putting this up for discussion…this is conjecture and hogwash which has no support from the biblical text nor from the teachings of Jesus who said no one comes to the Father but through me.
Paul’s statements in Romans chapters 3 and 5 (no one is righteous; no one seeks God; no one does good; all have sinned) should not be taken in a crassly literal and universal sense--if they are, irreconcilable contradictions will arise. Consider Luke 1:6. Common sense tells us whole groups of people are exempt from Paul’s statement that "all have sinned." Aborted infants cannot sin, nor can young children or severely retarded people. But Paul didn’t mention such obvious exceptions. He was writing to adults in our state of life.
If certain groups are exempt from the "all have sinned" rubric, then these verses can’t be used to argue against Mary’s Immaculate Conception, since hers would be an exceptional case too, one not needing mention given the purpose of Paul’s discussion and his intended audience.
Paul or any of the writers of the Bible were not addressing children. Consider the culture of the time. Jesus said “to such as these children belong the kingdom of heaven.” (Matt 19:14)
Types… Mary’s Immaculate Conception is foreshadowed in Genesis 1, where God creates the universe in an immaculate state, free from any blemish or stain of sin or imperfection. This is borne out by the repeated mention in Genesis 1 of God beholding his creations and saying they were "very good."
Who created Lucifer the devil? The study of “types” is valid though it cannot be used to create things that the Bible specifically speaks against.
The study of the Prodigal son is a good example as it refers to the son who went away and fell under the influence of Gentile culture and then one day realized who he was (remembering his roots in Israel) and began the journey home to his father’s house. You can assemble so many verses from the bible to make them say something they do not say that it is ridiculous as this whole maryology thing. I’m sorry – it is just not supported by good theology.
The whole of the Bible - Old and New Testament is about Israel, the 12 sons of Jacob. They are The House of Judah and the House of Joseph. Together they make the House of Israel. The old testament is about their beginnings, their journeys, their wars and struggles and their separation. Ephraim scattered to the North and West and Judah taken captive to Babylon. (no, the 10 tribes never went anywhere near Babylon) The bible describes the great day coming when the two houses or two sticks (twelve tribes) will again come from the four corners of the earth and unite as brothers, one “stick” in the hand of the Son of Man. Ez 37:15 -28.
Coming soon to a theater near you!
That's alright, it took me three posts to get where I am with that discussion, and I already knew they were different things. With that in mind, would you reconsider this statement of yours:
"It seems to me, that in the desperate rush to condemn the Catholic Church, many Protestants zoom in on the whole Mary thing and exaggerate and distort the teachings in order to confirm the entire basis for Protestantism, which is that the Catholic Church is false. For that reason, Protestants seem to need to believe in the most ridiculous exaggerations of Catholic teaching."
I think it is helpful if one can admit making a mistake with a broad over-generalization, it keeps the water of discussion/argument pure.
You go to amazing lengths to completely ignore my point.
Did you play with matches in an old barn half filled with hay and firecrackers as a kid?
Sometimes you seem like the sibling who’s an artist at getting all his siblings in trouble and at each other’s throats and then when Dad shows up on the scene . . . he’s the picture of solicitous nurturing and caring with bandaids & splints for all.
LOL.
Please forgive my verbosity, but it's a labor of love :)
"Not even one."
That verse is a citation from Psalm 14. Better go back and read it in context, the way Paul understood it, because when you do, all the errors of the reformation come crashing down.
Feel free to share “the way Paul understood it”. It appears you have a particular perspective on it. I’d like to hear it.
Scripture is the ultimate foundation for all of those things, but let's see ... prayer to Mary can be proven to exist around AD 200, the first known (unambiguous) dissent to the Perpetual Virginity happened at the end of the 4th Century (and was slapped down as heretical by both the Pope of Rome and St. Jerome), St. Augustine exempts Mary from his discussion of original sin just after AD 400, around the same time St. Ephrem's Nisibene Hymns describe Mary as sinless, etc.
The Assumption of Mary was celebrated liturgically in Palestine by about AD 500, but the belief itself is older.
The idea that Catholic/Orthodox Marian belief sprung into existence in the Middle Ages is definitely false.
Paul knew his Scripture, and he didn't tear out one verse from the Old Testament and try to make it mean something other than what it meant in the original context. Ever.
From Psalm 14, what gives you the idea that there are exceptions?
That much of that bashing is based on perceived Catholic beliefs which may not be correct interpretations of Catholic doctrine is also evident, even from the FR threads.
I don't dispute these statements. In this case, however, the Catholic dogma presented doesn't appear to be in question.
'So, I stick with my assertion that many Protestants bash Catholicism based on distorted or exaggerated interpretations of Catholic belief.
So in this particular case, are 'the many Protestants' able to dispute this dogma without it being seen as 'bashing' in your opinion?
“Sons of men” in the bible is written in a different language. In most cases, what is meant is children, or at least offspring, and in that sense could refer to both genders. In Psalm 33, the construction is probably used to emphasize that they are merely sons of men, as opposed to a son of God. But I wouldn’t defend that point too vigorously.
In St. Leo’s case, he is not meaning to reference offspring (and Latin did have better gender-neutral terms for offspring), but appears to use “sons of men” because it is simply more gender-specific than simply than “men.”
As for the title, “Ark of the New Covenant,” Christ is the Ark of the New Covenant.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.