Posted on 05/12/2008 8:08:07 PM PDT by annalex
Yes, you're expressing yourself clearer now. I agree that Hades, i.e., hell, underworld, grave, is the common grave of all deceased. But they will not be resurrected from the grave until Jesus comes again (explained in most of the books of the New Testament in terms everyone can understand!) As for the "church," while referenced as "the body of Christ, the Bride of Christ, etc. and etc., the "church" is the "assembly of called out ones," the members: and they can and do "err." Even Popes "err." History is the evidence here. Your explanation that since the church is the body of Christ, and Christ is the truth, it will never "err," is a straw man waiting to be knocked down :-)
Artists all seem to have a vivid imagination. The colors are nice, but I sure don't agree with what is expressed therein. Liberties always seem to be taken with things said in the scriptures...reference that picture you sent.
Right on, Iscool.
OK...I understand what you are saying...I however, disagree at this point...
I don't see where our wisdom has anything to do with it...God says so Himself...I mean, how can you argue with this scripture???
1Co 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
I know for a 'fact' that God lives, and lives within me...My flesh doesn't seem to know it...And even when my mind occassionally tries to convince me otherwise, my spirit/God's Spirit immediately does a body slam on my flesh...If I relied on my wisdom, I would likely not be a Christian...
Jesus came to earth through Mary, period. That was her ‘job’ and nothing else. She birthed him, raised him, and that’s it. She doesn’t have any special grace to be our co-redemtrix or anything else. She was an obedient young woman whom God blessed with the birth of our Lord. For that alone she should be recognized.
Aren’t these verses prophecy and indicate Israel, not Mary????
I believe these verses are prophetic and talk about the nation of Israel, NOT Mary.
The indicate the remnant, imho.
Amen, Iscool. There are none so blind who cannot, or will not, see.
EXACTLY
This is a very good passage to reference, it gets to the heart of what I’m saying, thanks. I’ll have to think about it for a while to give an adequate response.
There are no scriptures that even hint that she remained a virgin.
The scripture is silent on whether she did. "Brothers" are used loosely throughout the scripture (like with anything I say, if you want to drill to the specifics I am ready). Matthew 1:25 does not say anything about their relations after the birth of Jesus. The doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary comes from the Holy Tradition -- after all, people were alive who knew her personally enough to pass on the knowledge that she never remarried and had no other children. There are also powerful arguments from reason, -- if you want to go into them just ask. The issue is, there is no contradiction that you can find in the scripture to the doctrine.
The Word of God takes precedence over other authoritative sources of truth
Where the Holy Scripture allows for several interpretations, or where it is silent, the Holy Tradition of the Church dictates the truth. Your quotes to not controvert that. There are plenty of verses that praise the scripture, call it inspired by God, suggest that we study it and argue based on it, explain that it is given for all eternity, etc. but there is no verse that says what you imply: that the scripture is perspicuous or alone sufficient for all spiritual matters, or overrides legitimate authority of the Church.
The supremacy of Christ is essential
No one said anything against the supremacy of Christ. You are, agian, arguing against a straw argument.
In elevating the role of Mary beyond what the Bible says, this doctrine fails to measure up to the standard of searching scripture to see if these things are so.
First, the Bible says a whole lot about her, including her veneration being approved and expanded to all saints by Christ (Luke 11:27-28). Second, no, if the sripture does not contradict something and the Church offers it for the benefit of the faithful, then by definition searching the scripture is not any kind of standard -- you cannot search for what is not there.
The intimacy of spiritual union with Christ is greater than the physical union of Mary or anyone else who knew Christ during His first advent
You know that how? It is not the point anyway: the point is that Christ chose to redeem us through His incarnation, and to be a baby born of the particular woman. If that woman were inimportant, she would not be named, her words would not be recorded, her presence at the foot of the Cross and her adoption of the disciple, her presence at Pentecost -- would not be necessary to record.
It is possible for churches to sin and err
The Church is a body of Christ, so no. It is possible for individual clergy to sin and err, yes. This is why we have confessions for them as well, as well as the apparatus of the clergy to communicate with us as necessary.
No amount of symbolism can explain away her identification as the physiological mother of Christ.
I see its opposite in the passage directly treating this issue in the Letter of James. Ephesians 2 does not say "faith alone": it teaches grace alone, which is the Catholic teaching. So does Romans 3:24.
This is not a very reasonable attitude: St. John Chrysostom read and wrote in the same language in which the scripture was written, lived in a culture that changed little since 1c, and dedicated his life to the study of the scripture and the stewardship of his flock. No current writer can do the same.
The difference is that Peter spoke of Christ being of divine nature in a way that was unique to Christ, while Martha and Nathaniel did not indicate the Jesus was a son of God like no other. There is little in the actual text that says so, but we trust that Christ detected the conviction in Peter that wasn't with Martha (who was, St. John writes, confused) or with Nathaniel (who was startled by Jesus's clairvoyance).
I am simply explaining what the Church believes the gates of hell are. Since you are not Catholic, you are likely to disagree with Catholicism on many more subjects than this one. The icon is, of course, Orthodox and the composition and the meaning of it comes from the Early Church.
I wonder if your husband would introduce you thus:
— Hi, Joe. This is my wife Mary. My son was born through her. She birthed him, raised him, and that’s her job, nothign else. She is obedient and I blessed her by getting her pregnant with Johnny. Please do not recognize her other than for that. — You can return to your desk now, dear.
You can believe what you want, but I don’t think Israel is the mother of Christ writhing in labor pains.
Many current writers can read and write in the Koine Greek that the Scriptures were written in, dedicate their life to the study of the Scriptures, and pastor a chuch. The only thing difference is that they live today, not back in the time of Chrysostom. A close friend of mine, when I asked to see his bible, handed it to me and I saw that there wasn't a single English word in it! Yet as he read from it he translated it into English.
The difference is that Peter spoke of Christ being of divine nature in a way that was unique to Christ, while Martha and Nathaniel did not indicate the Jesus was a son of God like no other. There is little in the actual text that says so, but we trust that Christ detected the conviction in Peter that wasn't with Martha (who was, St. John writes, confused) or with Nathaniel (who was startled by Jesus's clairvoyance).
You're correct in that there is little if anything in the text that warrents what you just said above.
That’s exactly what it is. Most people realize that these are prophetic verses that have nothing to do with Mary.
I never had any children from my present husband. Sorry. Catholics have exalted Mary to way beyond what she herself would even want. She was a humble and obedient servant, but many put her above her Son. And please, don’t say they don’t do that because we can see it more and more all the time. She would be appalled at the way many Catholics put her on a pedestal, one she would really hate. It’s one thing to love her and the role she played in the birth of our Lord, but it’s getting ridiculous to see the way many Catholics have lifted her status to co-redeemer, etc.
Yes, I understand your idea. But that picture is not all that early. It's from the medievil era. I was born and raised a Catholic, attended Catholic schools up to the 12 grade, and in my last two years of high school was being groomed for the priesthood by a priest I thought highly of. I evidently didn't choose that career and with the encouragement of that priest studied religious history and the Scriptures. You would probably think it sad that I read myself right out of the Catholic church. That happened when I was 38 years old. I've actually have more faith in the workings of God and His Christ than I had during my membership in the Catholic denomination of Christianity, thanks to that priest. And yes, I do disagree with the RCC on a few topics; important topics wherein I think they have left what God said in their dust of their building up their organization, the papacy. Scripture teachings were soundly changed very early in the church, and eventually became dogmas one had to believe to be saved...that is what makes me sad for Catholicism.
That is critical - they have not made that culture and mentality their own. I, of course, also read modern scholars of the scripture, but I will take the patristic interpretation over theirs any time.
I cannot imagine what would make you think you were in a position to draw such a conclusion.
If you find veneration of Mary ridiculous, start your own church, and leave the Catholic Church alone. There are many things I find ridiculous that others are doing, but I do not make it my business to harass them for it.
Catholicism is not a denomination.
The actual execution that I showed is even modern. The iconographic type is Orthodox, but Catholic artists also used it, and there is nothing un-Catholic about the theology therein. So, it predates 1054, the year of the Easter schism. That makes it early medieval. Prior to the Iconoclasm virtually no icon has survived, so I cannot point to this icon prior to 7c.
As to the theology, what is it exactly that you disagree with, that Christ conquered death, or redeemed the ancients, or what?
It is very sad that you left the Church that Christ founded for modern charlatans. You should come back.
Well, annalex, I don’t think I’ll be starting any churches (LOL). Too bad the Romans can’t take any criticism. You guys can dish it out but you aren’t so good at taking it.
And why not? All of us have our own thoughts on this subject and if Mary was the humble servant we all know she was, her humility itself would never be happy on that pedestal.
“it is ridiculous how you put Mary on a pedestal” is not criticism, it is angry feet-stomping. I handle criticism all day here without complaint, and enjoy it.
Am I stomping my foot? Oh, dear. Since I’m diabetic and have no feeling in my feet, I wasn’t aware of that. Hmmm.
Not all Catholics harass those who reject the RCC's dogma, but they certainly don't have a problem condemning those who do reject it. Can you understand how offensive the RCC is to those Christians who don't accept its authority? And, if you can, do you believe you are as sensitive to them as you expect people who reject the RCC should be towards Catholics?
I don’t mind robust debate at all. I dish it out to Protestants in spades and enjoy defending my Church. But quality of the posts matter; making a dozen bland repetitive one-liner posts that say nothing for me to sink my Catholic big teeth into is boring, the worst offense a forum member can commit. But, they bump the thread, so thanks. I just don’t want those ballast posts people to expect an answer every time.
It is not about feeling hurt at all. I am a big boy, and my Church has lived through bigger foes than you guys, and we are doing just fine.
There were several thoughtful, well argumented, clear, critical of Catholicism posts here, and did you see me complain at all? I answered them and asked for more.
God, that’s three “at all” in as many paragraphs. Now I am shamed.
I am still uncertain of this, so please explain it to me: does the RCC teach that people be saved even if they reject the RCC, and if so, does the RCC make that teaching as clear as can be in your opinion?
Far be it for me to deny you your opportunity to be puffed up with knowledge, but in this case I think the self-congratulation is a bit premature.
The analogy fits well indeed for this particular dispute. You guys weep and wail when we cite a doctrine not primarily derived from the Scripture, because of your doctrine giving final authority to Scripture. But when we point out your doctrine is similarly extaneous to Scripture, you maintain it really IS there, but only to those who have some metaphysical decoder ring, which all your members have, even though they constantly get different answers from the same code phrases.
If that's doesn't describe the self-satisfied "generation" denouncing both Christ and John the Baptist, I don't know what does. Particularly when, in keeping with the analogy, the one thing your doctrine IS good at producing is a multiplicity of "children."
“My soul doth magnify the Lord. And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid; for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. Because he that is mighty, hath done great things to me; and holy is his name.”
False modesty is not modesty.
Far be it for me to deny you your opportunity to be puffed up with knowledge, but in this case I think the self-congratulation is a bit premature.
The analogy fits well indeed for this particular dispute. You guys weep and wail when we cite a doctrine not primarily derived from the Scripture, because of your doctrine giving final authority to Scripture. But when we point out your doctrine is similarly extaneous to Scripture, you maintain it really IS there, but only to those who have some metaphysical decoder ring, which all your members have, even though they constantly get different answers from the same code phrases.
If that's doesn't describe the self-satisfied "generation" denouncing both Christ and John the Baptist, I don't know what does. Particularly when, in keeping with the analogy, the one thing your doctrine IS good at producing is a multiplicity of "children."
Granted, but that is why they read about the culture and seek to understand it. One does not need to be a Catholic to understand the culture and thinking process of those who lived then.
It most certainly is, by all definitions! It is one of the denominations of Christianity, period - regardless of your thinking.
What you quoted:
Eph 3:4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
What Paul REALLY said:
(as I wrote afore in few words, Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
You are wrong.
That depends on the level of understanding they had informing that rejection.
... if so, does the RCC make that teaching as clear as can be in your opinion?
Yes.
But that doesn't mean anti-Catholics can't muddy the waters by making false accusations about what Catholics believe and practice.
If you reject the Catholic Church you reject Christ, so no, you cannot be saved in that frame of mind. But of course, you can be converted to Christ and His Church as late as in the moment of your death, or else you may only know Christ through the means and graces available to you, which are not Catholic, yet never reject His Church actively.
It is not as simple as saying that non-Catholics cannot be saved. It is a complex teaching that is easy to misunderstand. Yes, that and every other teaching of the Church should be taught with brutal clarity and it not always is.
In the sense in which it was proclaimed originally, extra Ecclesiam nulla salus holds. But there is hope for non-Catholics and even for non-Christians, of conversion.
True, but it helps.
On another subject, How Catholicism Is Different - THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ISN'T JUST ANOTHER "DENOMINATION"
Do you think Christ and Christ’s body i.e. the Church are distinct entitities?
Ask Jesus to be your Savior...He'll give you the 'decoder ring' too...
Do you realize therefore that if someone is aware of the concept of the Assumption of Mary and doubts its truth, that person is not a Christian according to the RCC (Munificentissimus Deus)?
Been there. Done that.
Doesn't work
...as the multiplicity of Protestant denominations amply proves.
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.