Skip to comments.Pope Francis: self-help courses can turn Catholics into Pelagians
Posted on 03/28/2013 5:58:16 AM PDT by markomalley
click here to read article
Well, Paul, I didnt recognize you! But no, the Apostle Paul saw the need for groups, etc.
Wow, how many errors can you pack into one paragraph? You don't understand either semi-Pelagianism or Catholicism.
"Prevenient" grace is not the same thing as "common" grace. "Prevenient" comes from the Latin meaning "coming before". It is the grace which precedes justification.
Semi-Pelagians taught that the initiative in the ordo salutis belongs to man; that a "good thought" or "good movement" in a man could begin the process of justification. The doctrine of prevenient grace directly opposes this by insisting the the initiative always belongs with God.
The Catholic church condemned semi-Pelagianism at the Council of II Orange, whose canons were given dogmatic force by a later Papal degree. Those canons retain their dogmatic force today.
“”Prevenient” grace is not the same thing as “common” grace. “Prevenient” comes from the Latin meaning “coming before”. It is the grace which precedes justification.”
Unfortunately, going through so many different versions of the Catholic conception of “grace” is irrelevant to what the scriptures teach, which are much simpler.
Catholics do not believe that salvation is by grace alone, and therefore argue that their salvation hinges on their obedience to Rome and their own good works. (They even believe that baptism confers “grace,” giving them the ability to believe, which is an act of man and not of God alone.) This is, in other words, a choice they are making, on whether or not they wish to be justified by God, albeit, they claim they do so in cooperation with God. But if it is not all of grace, then it must be all of man. There is no middle-ground where the grace of God is insufficient to save a man.
Rom 11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
Whenever God intends to give His grace to a man, it is described as a complete work.
Rom 8:29-30 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. (30) Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
Notice the order of the words. Those whom He predestinates, are to be conformed to the image of His Son. It is not, those who, working with God, and are baptized, conform themselves to His Son and are then predestinated. It is the exact opposite.
Then he says, those whom God predestinates, He calls, and those He calls He justifies, and those He justifies He glorifies. No where is anyone receiving a call, and then answering it of his own free-will, and then being predestinated as a result.
Act 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.
Again, they believed because they were ordained. They did not get “ordained” because they believed.
There is also no failure here in God’s determination to have His elect.
Those whom God draws, come to Jesus without fail:
Joh_6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
No one can take them out of His hand:
Joh 10:29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand.
Not even in the heights of delusion by false-Christs working with devils, they cannot be lost.
Mat 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
If it were possible means that it is not possible, though if salvation hinged on the man, it is always possible.
It is impossible, however, for someone to come to Christ or remain in Him who has not been drawn by the Father.
Joh 10:26-27 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. (27) My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
They do not believe because they are not His sheep. It is not, they do not believe, and therefore God shall not let them become His sheep.
It happens again here, in response to the Jews murmering in disbelief of Christ’s sayings.
Joh 6:42-44 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven? (43) Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves. (44) No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
He repeats the fact that they do not believe BECAUSE they were not drawn by the Father:
Joh 6:64-65 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. (65) And he said, THEREFORE said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
Salvation, then, is the complete work of God, who has mercy on whom He will have mercy, so that it is not him that runneth, or him that willeth, but on God who shows mercy.
Rom 9:14-25 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. (15) For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. (16) So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. (17) For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. (18) Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. (19) Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? (20) Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? (21) Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? (22) What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: (23) And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, (24) Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? (25) As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.
Eph 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: (9) Not of works, lest any man should boast.
All the Roman notions of grace and salvation, therefore, have no basis in the scripture.
People can believe whatever they want, but if they want to criticize something, they should know whereof they speak.
Oh, and the tax rate should be about 10%...!
Catholic respect for Mary is dulia/hyperdulia, not latria - the latter of which is reserved for God alone.
Ligouri was writing at a time when Marian devotion was under attack. If you read his “Glories of Mary” thoroughly, it is abundantly clear that Mary is “only a pure creature” who “receives whatever she obtains as a pure favor from God.” Further, “Jesus... has supreme dominion over all, and also over Mary.”
Catholic dogma on Mary contains four elements: Divine Motherhood, Perpetual Virginity, Immaculate Conception and the Assumption.
“Catholic respect for Mary is dulia/hyperdulia, not latria - the latter of which is reserved for God alone.
Ligouri was writing at a time when Marian devotion was under attack. If you read his Glories of Mary thoroughly, it is abundantly clear that Mary is only a pure creature who receives whatever she obtains as a pure favor from God. Further, Jesus... has supreme dominion over all, and also over Mary.
Catholic dogma on Mary contains four elements: Divine Motherhood, Perpetual Virginity, Immaculate Conception and the Assumption.”
None of which is supported in the scripture. Thus the Catholic retort that they do not deify Mary is in vain. Because they deify her as something more than man, and give her all sorts of devotion and place her on the way to salvation as a mediatrix, which is really through Christ only, and then protest “But we don’t think she is GOD! Just the MOTHER OF God, all-Holy ever-virgin seat of wisdom perpetual virgin whose prayers can deliver us from DEATH.”
Either salvation is ALL of God, or it is NOT. The Romans cannot make up their mind and pretend they can have it both ways.
Catholics do not believe that salvation is by grace alone,
and therefore argue that their salvation hinges on their obedience to Rome and their own good works.
Grossly oversimplified. But, yes, we do believe that James 2 and Matthew 25 are Scripture, and we do take them seriously, rather than trying to pretend they don't apply to us.
(They even believe that baptism confers grace,
Paul said that everyone who is baptized into Christ has put on Christ. Sounds like grace to me.
giving them the ability to believe, which is an act of man and not of God alone.)
Trent is crystal clear that faith precedes baptism in adults. That's why they profess their faith before they are baptized; look at the liturgy sometime. Duh! Do I really need to post quotes from magisterial documents declaring that faith is a gift of God??
Both you and Dutchboy hate a caricature you've been taught to hate, and have no understanding of the reality.
Really? You don't believe that the being Mary bore is Eternally God (that's what "Divine Motherhood" means, BTW)? Then you reject Christianity itself.
What isn't found in the Bible is the idea that all Christian doctrine is found in the Bible.
Either salvation is ALL of God, or it is NOT.
What also isn't found in Scripture is this kind of Ockhamite "either/or" nominalism. God involves people in his plan of salvation at every stage. He's God, he's sovereign, he makes the rules, and he gets to do that.
The "group" to which I refer is the demand for centralized organization, authority of Rome. That does not exist in the Scriptures. There were hundreds of separate, independent gatherings, congregations, assemblies meeting all over the world by the end of the first century. Paul saw no one group as superior or controlling the believers. He had little regard for reputations and apparently neither did God Himself (Gal. 2:6).
So, gathering together with other believers and attending to the teaching of the apostles, fellowship, breaking of bread, and prayer is not the same thing as needing a "group" (Acts 2:42).
You may wish to take a good Non-party theology course sometime. Rome has re-entered its Semi-Pelagian world whole hog.
Perhaps you did not catch the import of the title of this thread...even Francis can tell that Catholics can become Pelagians. I was simply noting that the tendency for them to do this has expressed itself already. That is, we can see in his organization what he fears is coming.
One big problem is there are conflicting descriptions of that "reality" spoken of.
It's not such a nice and tidy bundle as advertised.
When people here opposing works-based plans of salvation are themselves condemned as not knowing what is what, who can blame them for allegedly getting it wrong? Who made it complicated?
When looking at discussions of the information, there seems to be always dispute over definition of terms, application, etc. People like Augustine and John Cassian can be seen to argue different aspects of the same theological considerations, with those aspects logically at odds with one another at times.
According to the established traditional view among scholars, Cassian is the most prominent of the representatives of the monastic movement in southern Gaul who, in about 425 gave expression to the soteriological view that much later was called Semipelagianism. This emphasized the role of free will in that the first steps of salvation are in the power of the individual, without the need for divine grace. His thought has been described as a "middle way" between Pelagianism, which taught that the will alone was sufficient to live a sinless life, and the view of Augustine of Hippo, which emphasizes original sin and the absolute need for grace.
For instance, Owen Chadwick stated that Cassian held that man can come to God without the intervention of divine grace first; and B.B. Warfield called Cassian the leader of the monastics in southern Gaul who asserted that men begin their turning to God and that God assists that beginning.
The ideas expressed by Cassian to which critics have pointed as examples of his alleged Semipelagianism are found in his Conferences, in book 3, the Conference of Abbot Paphnutius; book 5, the Conference of Abbot Serapion; and most especially in book 13, the Third Conference of Abbot Chaeremon.
The view that Cassian propounded Semipelagianism has been disputed. Lauren Pristas, writes: "For Cassian, salvation is, from beginning to end, the effect of God's grace. It is fully divine. Salvation, however, is salvation of a rational creature who has sinned through free choice. Therefore, salvation necessarily includes both free human consent in grace and the gradual rehabilitation in grace of the faculty of free choice. Thus Cassian insists salvation is also fully human. His thought, however, is not Semi-Pelagian, nor do readers who submit to the whole corpus emerge Semi-Pelagians." And Augustine Casiday states that "for Cassian ... although sparks of goodwill may exist (which are not directly caused by God), they are totally inadequate and only direct divine intervention can ensure our spiritual progress".
The Latin Church condemned Semipelagianism in the local Council of Orange in 529, but recognizes Cassian himself as a saint. It did not endorse Augustine entirely and, while later Catholic theologians accepted Augustine's authority, they interpreted his views in the light of writers such as Cassian.
So go ahead, do the Roman Catholic thing if you must, pretending that no one can understand, but members of that club (regardless of the fact the information is open to all).
I'm not so convinced the complaint frequently expressed by FRomans here is all that justified, for over a span of many years, I've seen things argued by them one way...then another. It's like sitting on a water-bed... sit on one side, up goes the other. Then when that bulge becomes rhetorically embarrasing, then go sit on the lump. Then pretend there are no lumps or bulges wherever one sits...
The above quotations sure has Lauren Pristas appearing to have things both ways, while she hold forth some disagreement with others over Cassain, but I do enjoy (and will quote again) Augustine Casiday stating that "for Cassian ... although sparks of goodwill may exist (which are not directly caused by God), they are totally inadequate and only direct divine intervention can ensure our spiritual progress".
Sounds downright Calvinistic. Or should I say, many today whom identify more with Calvinists than Roman Catholicism in general, today much lean towards incorporating the type of outlook as is in bold above. So I must ask you...if there is confusion over theological issues, who created such confusions in the first place?
It's no wonder other approaches towards description were implemented. If you look carefully, Calvinism and it's decendants, does go back towards Augustine (in some regards) and before him Cassius, but go further towards discrediting man being able to earn his own way along the road of grace towards greater understanding and submission to the Holy Spirit than seemingly does Roman Catholicism today...stipulating that the only things within a person which can even respond to Him and grow towards being more fully in accord with Him, is what He Himself both awakens and instills within a soul, in the first place. Yet this does not preclude some cooperation from man entirely, with it being more a matter of what one yield themselves to.
The hundreds of separate bodies such as you mention to not appear in the New Testament, which has a definite hierarchy, starting with Jesus calling of the 12 and extending to his dispatch of the 70. Paul was very exercised by those who challenge his authority as apostle and instructed Timothy how to behave as a bishop. The very purpose of the canon of the New Testament is to limit the disparity of what was taught,which is to say, it is the book of THE Church. I say this leaving aside the matter of authority of the bishop of Rome.
"There is one holy Catholic and apostolic church, outside of which there is no salvation...it is altogether necessary for salvation for every creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." Boniface VIII.
A caricature? Since you are now reading minds, a little self-examination ought to be no problem, at all. Check your sign-on to a monstrous lie.
Begging your pardon, I must object to the inclusion and use of the words "all" and "no" in the above statement.
To put it another way...it is in my opinion, overstating the case, thus not all that helpful overall.
Otherwise, you can be precise enough at times and places, more generally, by which I mean since you've been contributing here. I thank you for that.
You might consider that others must be factored in. The Greeks gave Pelagius a welcome, and have never been comfortable with Augustine, yet to call them pelagian is totally simplistic. IAC. no western synod every went totally with Augustine of the matter of grace, because his theology was shaped by his own path to acceptance of the Gospel.
Whoa, talk about eisegesis. May wish to read the Book instead of the Party commentaries. Is this why Paul had to spank Peter, (?the first "bishop" of Rome) publicly? Sounds like someone nominated the wrong guy. The believers in Christ, alone, will stick to Paul's teaching about the Gospel (14 of the 27 letters/books) and leave Rome to play by itself.
Do not try to minimize the amount of idolatry encouraged by the RCC. Marian devotion ought always to be under attack, because no such thing is taught by the Scriptures. Yet, Rome continues to push this kind of demonic veneration even with statues:
"A mysterious 'presence' of the transcendent Prototype seems as it were to be transferred to the sacred image...The devout contemplation of such an image thus appears as a real and concrete path of PURIFICATION of the soul of the believer...because the image itself, blessed by the priest...can in a certain sense, by analogy with the sacraments, ACTUALLY be a channel of divine grace." JPII.
Really? Channeling grace? Does this stuff not sound suspciously like idolatry? If not, someone's eyes are blinded. Wake up folks.
Ive read the Book, and why do you assume you dont read through a lens? You follow your own tradition of interpretation. Luther et al. looked the Bible with the eye of a philologist, and assuming the literal word would tell them more than was there. But it was not as though that had the first drafts of the Evangelists in front of them, and they, not being thorough historians or travelers , misunderstood much of the Biblical world. Like reading Homer and knowing little of the late Bronze age.
WHAT "other factors"???
You provide some comments including "yet to call them pelagian is totally simplistic" when I was pointing towards the confusion over what does or does not constitute semi-pelagianism, as example of how difficult it can be to pin things down. By which I mean, your response comes across as retrograde & superficial (retrograde for the semi-pelagian direction is already going AWAY from more basic Pelagianism) or else just some form of obsfucation.
You can drag my own comments off into the bushes if you like, but excuse me when I don't much assist in that effort, or instead try to drag 'em back out...
If the trouble with Augustine (according to you) is because his theology is viewed as being "shaped by his own path to acceptance of the Gospel", as you put it, what then of Paul?
He was taught by no man, not learning the Gospel at the feet of other Apostles. But then again, Augustine doesn't comport well with Paul at every juncture, either. Nor does RCC teachings in some aspects, for that matter. Try Romans 7. To which I would wish to add as comparison to verse 17
Like I said, it is more what we yield ourselves to... what we go along with. It needn't be overly burdensome (He can make the difficult work easier for us, when the going gets tough)
One notable difference the RCC seems to have settled upon, is there is more emphasis on response and works, all along, even from the very beginning of one's "response" or acceptance, except when there isn't, later on down the line in one's Christian walk, when it's finally realized our own efforts don't amount to much, and guys like Ratzinger can be quoted as saying "it's all by grace" at certain juncture. I posted a quote from that man before saying as much, but cannot recall for the moment the precise context. sorry about that...
I was otherwise pointing towards how much of a complex, confusing mess man makes of the Gospel. But you want me to look elsewhere, and factor in some other, that makes things even murkier???
How about us sticking to how the "response" that is said to be required, can often turn into that same [needed] response to Him, to be confused with just following along and doing whatever one is told, no questions asked, fully allowing at times, the identity of the church itself to be confused with the Lord Himself..for that is the way Catholicism (and many others, it should be added) seem to prefer it, when they can get away with it!
A simple antidote I've offered on this forum before; We are not Him and He is not us.
You are welcome to your own salvation, however you accept that may have arrived, be described or can be obtained, but I cannot and will not surrender a single item that I have myself recieved from the Lord more simply & directly.
I know the sound of His voice. Following, or responding perfectly (or even listening perfectly, always) I cannot claim. If that changes, I'll be sure to let ya'll know.
Again, Catholics do not “deify” Mary, which means “to worship as a god.” Veneration is not deification.
The word “idolatry” means “worship of idols” - which Catholics do not practice. In Catholic tradition, sacred images are meant to inspire reflection on the nature of the person or event depicted - not to be worshiped in themselves.
It’s a fairly simple concept that Catholics seem to have no trouble grasping.
Attempting to sanitize the amalgamation of Idolatry, Superstition, False Doctrine over the “Mother of God” won’t work here. We read the Scriptures. Your organization has wrongly elevated and venerated Mary to the point of demonic error.
Do you believe in the doctrine of the Incarnation? I mean as defined by the first four Church councils and which were also held by Luther and Calvin to be true. Or do you not think they read the Scriptures, too?
The term mother of God, or more precisely, theotokos, which means God-bearer, was conferred on Mary to elevate Jesus as God and Man. The alternative view was—and is— Jesus as a super prophet, but not a divine being.
Recognizing that Jesus was God incarnate, the Man-Messiah, fully human/fully God, hypostatic union of the theanthropic person, has little to do with the Roman errors that detract from the real Gospel. Venerating Mary (to the point of idolatry), sacerdotalism, indulgences, purgatory, absolution, and all of the other baggage profferred by Rome simply attempts to obscure salvation by grace, through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works, lest any one boast. Sound familiar?
“Grossly oversimplified. But, yes, we do believe that James 2 and Matthew 25 are Scripture, and we do take them seriously, rather than trying to pretend they don’t apply to us.”
“Grossly oversimplified” for the religion that lives on equivocation, which denies a thing and then affirms it. But I also believe in James 2 and Matthew 25, and do not grossly separate them from the whole of the Bible. The scriptures cannot be broken, and therefore when James says:
Jas 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
And when Paul says:
Rom 4:2-7 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. (3) For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. (4) Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. (5) But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. (6) Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, (7) Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
When they say these things, this is not an indication of a fight between two Apostles. Rather, when James speaks of justification, he does not speak on its causes, but on its effects, as a living faith is that faith which produces fruit, whereas dead faith leaves no mark of difference on the damned. James also states, “For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all” (James 2:10). So then, what does the law profit someone, when any sin whatsoever, no matter how obedient one is on some other matter, renders you guilty of the whole as if you were the worst reprobate? But we are wretched sinners, and there is nothing good in us that is from us. And so we spend more time in the utmost disobedience than we ever do in obedience. Salvation, then, must be by grace through faith, and not of ourselves, which is why Cornelius and his family in Acts are justified and baptized by the Holy Spirit prior to even water baptism, and why the Thief on the cross can die having no good works under his name, except the mercy of God who saves.
And what is grace, actually? Is it an inanimate object that you can receive by staring at a statue of Mary?
God’s grace is utterly sovereign, and is not moved by man.
Rom 9:11-16 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) (12) It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. (13) As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. (14) What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. (15) For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. (16) So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
He will have mercy on whom He will have mercy, PRIOR to there being any good and evil in the man. It is God who predestinates whom He will, and whom He predestinates He calls, and who He calls He justifies, and who He justifies He glorifies:
Rom 8:30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
So the whole work of salvation belongs to God, and has nothing to do with man. So that even faith and works must bow to the sovereign will of God, for by grace are men brought to Christ, not by flesh and blood, but by divine revelation, by grace are men revealed that God is God, and by grace do men produce fruits.
Mat_16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
Joh_15:16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.
Joh 6:64-65 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. (65) And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
“Paul said that everyone who is baptized into Christ has put on Christ. Sounds like grace to me.”
Cornelius was baptized by the Holy Spirit, prior to water baptism:
Act 10:44-47 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. (45) And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. (46) For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, (47) Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
It is the Baptism of the Spirit which is superior to that of water, which is only the symbol of a spiritual reality already existent.
Mar_1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.
Your carnal works have no effect on the sovereignty of God and His Spirit. All salvation and worship springs from the Spiritual, for God is Spirit and desires worshippers who believe in Him in Spirit and in Truth.
“Really? You don’t believe that the being Mary bore is Eternally God (that’s what “Divine Motherhood” means, BTW)? Then you reject Christianity itself.”
Of course I believe it. I just don’t follow the Roman false-logic which demands that this makes her the Divine Goddess, whom is the mediatrix between man and Christ, and Christ the mediator between God and man.
“What also isn’t found in Scripture is this kind of Ockhamite “either/or” nominalism. “
Rom_11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
It stands to follow, then, that the works of Mary and the acts of idolatrous veneration of her can add nothing to the work of God. In fact, to do so is to take away from God, and setup a rival deity. For who is it that we are commanded to pray to in the scripture? To God. Who is it are we to ask for mercy? From God. What can Mary offer in “mercy” when she is a person as we are, who is not even a deity who can hear the billions of Roman prayers across the world?
You are entitled to your opinion, but the veneration of Mary has everything to go with God’s most gracious gift, which is Jesus the son of God, born of a Virgin. She was the means by which God entered history.
Augustine stated the definition of a Pelagian and a Semi-Pelagian very well in his Treatise on the Predestination of the Saints. :
But these brethren of ours, about whom and on whose behalf we are now discoursing, say, perhaps, that the Pelagians are refuted by this apostolical testimony in which it is said that we are chosen in Christ and predestinated before the foundation of the world, in order that we should be holy and immaculate in His sight in love. For they think that "having received God's commands we are of ourselves by the choice of our free will made holy and immaculate in His sight in love; and since God foresaw that this would be the case," they say, "He therefore chose and predestinated us in Christ before the foundation of the world." Although the apostle says that it was not because He foreknew that we should be such, but in order that we might be such by the same election of His grace, by which He showed us favour in His beloved Son. When, therefore, He predestinated us, He foreknew His own work by which He makes us holy and immaculate. Whence the Pelagian error is rightly refuted by this testimony. "But we say," say they, "that God did not foreknow anything as ours except that faith by which we begin to believe, and that He chose and predestinated us before the foundation of the world, in order that we might be holy and immaculate by His grace and by His work." But let them also hear in this testimony the words where he says, "We have obtained a lot, being predestinated according to His purpose who worketh all things." [Eph. 1.11.] He, therefore, work-eth the beginning of our belief who worketh all things; because faith itself does not precede that calling of which it is said: "For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance;" [Rom. 11.29.] and of which it is said: "Not of works, but of Him that calleth" [Rom. 9.12.] (although He might have said, "of Him that believeth"); and the election which the Lord signified when He said: "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you." [John 15.16.] For He chose us, not because we believed, but that we might believe, lest we should be said first to have chosen Him, and so His word be false (which be it far from us to think possible), "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you." Neither are we called because we believed, but that we may believe; and by that calling which is without repentance it is effected and carried through that we should believe. But all the many things which we have said concerning this matter need not be repeated.
As Dutchboy rightfully points out, the Church is steeped in Semi-Pelagianism (as well as most of Protestantism).
WE WERE ELECTED AND PREDESTINATED, NOT BECAUSE WE WERE GOING TO BE HOLY, BUT IN ORDER THAT WE MIGHT BE SO.-AUGUSTINE
“As Dutchboy rightfully points out, the Church is steeped in Semi-Pelagianism (as well as most of Protestantism).”
I suspect that is the reason why the church in America is so utterly ineffectual.
Its a fairly simple concept that Catholics seem to have no trouble grasping.
Naw, it's not all that simple...Because we hear what you say and then we see what you do...And they are not the same...
And again, this
"A mysterious 'presence' of the transcendent Prototype seems as it were to be transferred to the sacred image...The devout contemplation of such an image thus appears as a real and concrete path of PURIFICATION of the soul of the believer...because the image itself, blessed by the priest...can in a certain sense, by analogy with the sacraments, ACTUALLY be a channel of divine grace." JPII.
This is not simple reflection as you would have us believe...We see what you do...
Jesus was not born as a human for the role of a God...He was as you say a prophet, a preacher, a priest and a human...Elizabeth did NOT say the mother of God...She said the mother of my Lord...
Mary was not, is not and never will be the mother of God...
Anyone who knows the bible already knows that Jesus was God and man...No one needs to invent a word to add to it to let us know that Jesus was God and man...Especially while adding the word gives a false notion that Mary was God's mother...
We already know that Mary was Jesus' mother and we already know that Jesus is God...And yet we know that Mary was not the mother of God...God was not created in Mary's womb...The 2nd part of the Trinity was not created in Mary's womb...He already WAS...
Unless you are a parishioner at St. Paschal Baylon in Thousand Oaks, CA, or Our Lady of Malibu, you don’t “see” what I do.
Both Catholics and Protestants agree that our fellowship with God is in the one same Holy Spirit.
Each believer has been anointed with spiritual gifts, but not all believers have the same spiritual gifts.
All believers are priests before God the Father through faith in Christ and anointed by God the Holy Spirit.
It is true that if a believer only seeks sanctification through “self-help” courses, while in fellowship with God through faith in Christ, being sanctified by God the Holy Spirit in the human spirit of the believer, that believer will continue to grow in faith as a work of God. Learning independent of the work of God the Holy Spirit in us is simply academics and may lead to Pelagianism.
Still there is nothing wrong in a believer continually learning through faith in Christ as we are commanded to never cease praying.
It also is true that if one only learns, but never works his spiritual gifts through faith in Christ, then without works he is dead or simply separated from fully exercising what God has provided.
I am cautious in reading the article how some worldly priests might confuse the Pope’s direction as promoting a worldly religion, mistaking ritualism and mysticism with the actual spiritual walk of a believer using his spiritual gifts. It also tends to promote the false notion that other believers are not priests before God in this Church Age and must seek other men other than themselves through faith in Christ to walk in fellowship with Him and to fulfill His Plan for each of us. In this sense, should a priest confuse his role as a worldly power broker, instead of exercising the spiritual gift given him by God, not by any man, then he will slip out of fellowship, scarring his soul, at living a religious ritual in arrogance, instead of through faith in Christ.
Okay, that is one of the most stunted views of God's activity that I have come across. If this is the party line, no wonder the Roman cult is disheveled. "God entered history" through Mary? You are not serious.
God created the heavens and earth by the word of His power, from an act of His will. There was no universe before He acted and He is acting at all moments to sustain the universe. Should He take His mind off this whole enterprise, it would not grind to a halt...it would not exist. To say He entered history through Mary makes Him a bit player in a cheap school play...and this is precisely the way the RCC treats Him. The Roman organization is pre-eminent; God enters through a woman? Please.
Mary is just a human pawn in His hands the way Isaiah, or Moses was. She was given a role and nothing more. She was favored to be the bearer of Jesus entering physically when it came time to provide the Lamb of God, but He had "entered" a billion times before in other forms. He was likely the angel who wrestled with Jacob. He was likely the form which Moses saw walk in front of him. He was likely the One speaking with Adam (Let US make man in our image). After all, no man has seen the Father and lived, right?
The idolatry of the RCC is destructive and wrongheaded, but it is just another expression of the errors of Rome. This thread originally began with the problem of Semi-Pelagianism, a clear error widely held by the RCC today, irrespective of what they claim is official doctrine. Much of so-called Protestantism suffers from it, also. Read Iscool's & HarleyD's posts. They nail it.
“Mary was a pawn. Well that is the most stunted description of human being that I have ever seen, but it fits Calvins lower opinion of human nature. It is so low it reminds me of the Mesopotamian of man as the slave of the gods. When the Lord emptied himself of his divinity and took the form of a slave, he did not diminish Mary but exaulted her. To her as to the Father he gave the obedience owed her. Irenaeus—writing long before Constabntine—described her as the New Eve, and I hope you do not disregard Scripture by forgetting that looked upon her as a daughter. Eve disobeyed and with her humanity fell but not into the same pit as Lucifer but to a place where Jesus might descend to claim them to himself. And First of all, the maid of Galilee.
And that statement is a rather weird statement to make. I would suspect that RobbyS would agree that God doesn't "enter" history. He is the Alpha and Omaga...the first and the last. He is history (to paraphrase Indiana Jones) as well as our future.
The veneration of Mary is simply another excuse for worshipping someone other than God. Bowing in front of statues, lighting candles to images, praying to other things than God, etc. are forbidden time and again by the scriptures. The veneration of Mary is not any difference than veneration of Baal.
Indeed, when God became man, taking the form of a slave, he did indeed enter history. History is the tale of mankind, and by becoming man, he —Jesus—became part of history. His birth was a historical event, everything he did as babe, boy, and man were events in history, and he changed it forever. Two persons are named in the Apostles creed,Mary and Pontius Pilate. Each was an instrument of our deliverance: Mary, because of her faith, her humillty and her obedience ; Pilate, because of his cowardice.
Gee, you caught me on that "lower opinion of human nature." Perhaps I should have kept it where Paul's & David's opinion landed...
"There is none righteous, not even one (not even Mary);
There is none who understands (not even Mary)
There is none who seeks for God (not even Mary);
All have turned aside, together they have become useless (even Mary)
There is none who does good (not even Mary)
There is NOT EVEN ONE (not even Dutchboy88)."
There is no justification for venerating any human being. Every one of the elect is just as much a "saint" as any other, since true holiness is not a product of human effort, but a gift from God.
"More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing knowledge of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord; for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish in order that I amay gain Christ, and may be found in Him, NOT HAVING A RIGHTEOUSNESS OF MY OWN DERIVED FROM THE LAW (obedience), but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which COMES FROM GOD on the basis of faith." Phil 3
Preach it, bro.
>> The veneration of Mary is not any difference than veneration of Baal.
Showing respect for Mary, the mother of Christ, is no different than showing respect for the cult god of fertility?
And we're suppose to believe this is "showing respect". I'm sure this was the same rational the Israelites duped themselves into thinking that was used during Ahab's time when Baal worship was the king's choice.
Exo 20:3 "You shall have no other gods before me.
Exo 20:4 "You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
Exo 20:5 You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me,
There’s “self help,” and then there’s self help ;-)
>> You even invent doctrine that has no evidence in scripture supporting her.
>> You, you, you...
I’ve done all these things?
>> And we’re suppose to believe this is “showing respect”.
I’m not reading the worshiper’s mind regarding the relationship between the Old and New Testaments.
Exodus 20:2-5 is about serving other gods. Mary, who was not a god, but eventually the mother of Christ, was not the problem being addressed.
My soul magnifies the Lord,
And my spirit rejoices in God my Savior.
For He has regarded the low estate of His handmaiden,
For behold, henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
For He who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is His name. And His mercy is on those who fear Him from generation to generation.
He has shown strength with His arm:
He has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.
He has put down the mighty from their thrones,
and exalted those of low degree.
He has filled the hungry with good things;
and the rich He has sent empty away.
He has helped His servant Israel, in remembrance of His mercy;
As He spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to His posterity forever.
Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit.
As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen
Magníficat ánima mea Dóminum,
et exsultávit spíritus meus
in Deo salvatóre meo,
quia respéxit humilitátem
Ecce enim ex hoc beátam
me dicent omnes generatiónes,
quia fecit mihi magna,
qui potens est,
et sanctum nomen eius,
et misericórdia eius in progénies
et progénies timéntibus eum.
Fecit poténtiam in bráchio suo,
dispérsit supérbos mente cordis sui;
depósuit poténtes de sede
et exaltávit húmiles.
Esuriéntes implévit bonis
et dívites dimísit inánes.
Suscépit Ísrael púerum suum,
sicut locútus est ad patres nostros,
Ábraham et sémini eius in sæcula.
Glória Patri et Fílio
et Spirítui Sancto.
Sicut erat in princípio,
et nunc et semper,
et in sæcula sæculórum.
She became the Mother of God, in which work so many and such great good things are bestowed on her as pass man’s understanding. For on this there follows all honor, all blessedness, and her unique place in the whole of mankind, among which she has no equal, namely, that she had a child by the Father in heaven, and such a Child . . . Hence men have crowded all her glory into a single word, calling her the Mother of God . . . None can say of her nor announce to her greater things, even though he had as many tongues as the earth possesses flowers and blades of grass: the sky, stars; and the sea, grains of sand. It needs to be pondered in the heart what it means to be the Mother of God.
(Commentary on the Magnificat, 1521; in Luther’s Works, Pelikan et al, vol. 21, 326)
What is your old screen name?