Posted on 09/18/2010 8:26:32 PM PDT by markomalley
Come on, Dr. E.
So it’s a collection of quotes from 2 other Catholics, and a couple of those posters quoted are not making the claims that are attributed to one poster.
I suppose I could start putting up on my homepage a lot of the outrageous things that have been posted about Catholic beliefs on these threads by the FReformed group.
But it would take too much time and I don’t have much time left to fritter away.
The claim you have made that “Rome doesn’t have faith in the word of God” does not have credibility.
Put up whatever you want. Protestants might be criticizing Rome, but they're not criticizing the word of God, which is what those posters were doing.
Get the difference?
Yes, I get the difference, Dr. E.
The whole Catholic Church is not responsible for all that individual Catholics post on this forum.
Do you get that difference?
Yes. That is a Catholic teaching: a good Catholic will be seen through to salvation by the Mother Church. He also said, "with fear and trembling work out your salvation. For it is God who worketh in you, both to will and to accomplish, according to his good will" (Phil. 2:12f), something no Calvinist can comprehend.
The Church also teaches that we all, if we make it at all, will be taekn to heeven and live in our bodies, as we "put on incorruption", just like St. Paul teaches in 1 Cor 15. I explained it once, I believe, in my previous post.
Paul's use of the word “many” contrasts with the one
He uses "all" in the sense of "many" because in v 18 he says "all" and in the next verse he repeats the same though and says "many":
[18] Therefore, as by the offence of one, unto all men to condemnation; so also by the justice of one, unto all men to justification of life. [19] For as by the disobedience of one man, many were made sinners; so also by the obedience of one, many shall be made just. (Rm 5)
Mary did not need to be specially exempted; St. Paul never condemned absolutely all as sinners. That is one of his talmusdisms, teachign by exagerration.
What did she mediate?
As she prays for us, Mary participates in the work of the Church mediating grace (compare 1 Timothy 2:1, where Timothy is asked to do the same thing). All grace, nevertheless comes through Christ to Whom both Mary and I, and you, pray. There is no contradiction here (see the rest of 1 Timothy 2:1-5).
Eve was created perfect, Mary wasn't,
Says you.
Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all
One type does not negate another. In Rav. 12 Mary is the mother of all who "obey the commandments of Christ". She is certainly mother of St. John.
Gack... *Mother Church*?????
There is no such thing as the *Mother Church*.
WE are the church. All believers become part of the church when they believe. It's not something you get salvation THROUGH.
Salvation comes through Jesus Christ and Him alone. Anyone who appeals to anything besides Jesus Himself alone, is in a world of hurt. If you think the *Mother Church* is going to save you, you're in for a very unpleasant surprise.
And that is still contrary to what Paul wrote. He said those resurrected ones would be resurrected with spirit bodies as in vs. 42 bearing the image of the Christ who also was raised or resurrected with a spirit body. Paul then explains why they are raised with spirit bodies,
‘Flesh and blood cannot inherit God's Kingdom’.
“He uses “all” in the sense of “many” because in v 18 he says “all” and in the next verse he repeats the same though and says “many”:
Uhhh...No. In vs. 19 Paul speaks of two groups, one that was constituted sinners by Adams disobedience and 2, those, who by the obedience of Christ, were constituted just.
One group to the exclusion of the other, the rest of mankind as Thayer’s lexicon comments on “the many” in these vss.
In vss. 18, 19 Paul is not just repeating himself but expresses a slightly different aspect of his argument.
In vs. 18 Paul says a decision, a judgment is made for acquittal from condemnation,
While in vs. 19 Paul uses the word kathistemi (made or constituted) instead of eis (result or intent) as in vs. 18.
Thus in vs. 19 those many are considered righteous.
Thus Paul doesn't equate “all” with “many” nor was he a Talmudist. He had a grasp of the Greek language that is missed in your quotes and comments.
I said Eve was created perfect, Mary wasn't, and yes says me. No where is Mary called sinless, perfect, etc. If such a Scripture exists, show me. I'll wait.
Nor is she called a mediator of any kind. I Tim.2:5 says who is the mediator, Christ, not Mary.
“One type does not negate another. In Rav. 12 Mary is the mother of all who “obey the commandments of Christ”.
The events of Rev. 12 do not fit Mary. It is a vision. Mary was not taken into the wilderness for 1260 days, no river was sent to drown either Mary or her child, Mary is no where called the heavenly representative of the whole church, etc.
Mary was is not the mother of all Christians and is nowhere so termed.
The key phrase in your comments is “The Church also teaches...”, which explains your comments and misunderstanding of the Scriptures.
As God wills.
lol. Gack. Very good. 8~)
There is no such thing as the *Mother Church*.
WE are the church. All believers become part of the church when they believe. It's not something you get salvation THROUGH.
Salvation comes through Jesus Christ and Him alone. Anyone who appeals to anything besides Jesus Himself alone, is in a world of hurt. If you think the *Mother Church* is going to save you, you're in for a very unpleasant surprise.
Many will say "Lord, Lord," but He will not know them. Probably because they've spent all their time hunting up dead saints and facing the ground in veneration of Mary.
Jesus Christ and Him alone
But He is not alone. He is with His Church.
No it is not. Mary received, and all of us who are to be saved shall receive the glorofied body, exctly as St. Paul writes.
Thus Paul doesn't equate “all” with “many”
Let's see. In Adam all sinned:
[12] Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.
In Adam many sinned
[19] For as by the disobedience of one man, many were made sinners
What is the difference again?
No where is Mary called sinless, perfect, etc.
She is called "full of grace" in Luke 1:28. But the point is that St. Paul did not condemn Mary or anyone in particular in Romans 5.
I Tim.2:5 says who is the mediator, Christ, not Mary.
But 1 Tim 1:1-5 puts St. Timothy in the same position Mary is, intercessing for Jesus.
The events of Rev. 12 do not fit Mary
Sure they do: she is identified as the mother of Christ.
The key phrase in your comments is “The Church also teaches...”
Yes. You claimed that what the Church teaches contradicts what St. Paul wrote. I showed you that it doesn't by making reference to what the Church teaches and what St. Paul writes. Did I misunderstand your assertion?
If you have a question I will explain.
Mary was NEVER involved with the church after Christ's death. The expression merely underscores the idolatry inherent in Roman superstitions.
It follows from the fact that Mary adopted the "disciple Jesus loved" at the foot of the Cross.
Do Roman Catholics read their Bibles or just believe what they're told without thinking?
Mary did not adopt John. Jesus told them to look out for each other. But did Mary take John into her house, or did John take Mary into his house?
The latter. John was told to look after Mary and bring her into "his own home."
Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home. Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home." -- John 19:26-27"When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!
Mary is not your mother, my mother nor the church's mother.
Neither is there anything in that passage that indicates that it should be read as anything other than Jesus providing for her after His death, as the responsibility of the oldest son.
It was not meant as a parable, nor is there any indication of a secondary spiritual meaning.
Of course, any one can read anything they want into any passage to support their own church doctrine, but that’s what happens when one doesn’t take the Word of God to be authoritative.
Scripture was not given to us just to provide support for any extra-Biblical teachings any religion dreams up.
It was not meant as a parable, nor is there any indication of a secondary spiritual meaning.
Of course, any one can read anything they want into any passage to support their own church doctrine, but that’s what happens when one doesn’t take the Word of God to be authoritative.
AMEN!
Mary sinless?
“She is called “full of grace” in Luke 1:28.”
But the Greek word translated “grace’ or “favor” has nothing to do with sinlessness.
“But the point is that St. Paul did not condemn Mary or anyone in particular in Romans 5.”
No, he simply explains how man came to be in sin.
“But 1 Tim 1:1-5 puts St. Timothy in the same position Mary is, intercessing for Jesus.”
Offering prayers, supplications, petitions, intercessions, etc. does not make either Timothy or Mary a mediator, a go-between. Christ is that and is fully up to the task.
The events of Rev. 12 do not fit Mary
“Sure they do: she is identified as the mother of Christ.”
The woman of Rev. 12 is un-named and she gives birth in heaven, Mary gave birth on earth, the two women are not the same at all for all the reasons I previously gave.
“Let's see. In Adam all sinned:
[12] Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.
In Adam many sinned
[19] For as by the disobedience of one man, many were made sinners
What is the difference again?”
Was my previous explanation too difficult for you?
The key phrase in your comments is “The Church also teaches...
“Yes. You claimed that what the Church teaches contradicts what St. Paul wrote. I showed you that it doesn't by making reference to what the Church teaches and what St. Paul writes. Did I misunderstand your assertion?”
I don't think you misunderstood, I don't think you understood what i said in any way.
As the Catholic Encyclopedia writes of the Catholic Churce’s teaching on Mary:
“The belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is founded on the apocryphal treatise De Obitu S. Dominae, bearing the name of St. John, which belongs however to the fourth or fifth century. It is also found in the book De Transitu Virginis, falsely ascribed to St. Melito of Sardis, and in a spurious letter attributed to St. Denis the Areopagite.”
Based on falsehoods and spurious documents, not Scripture.
Shall I ask whether Peter and Paul were able to take their corporeal bodies into heaven since you said you and I might be able to do so?
"20Then Jesus entered a house, and again a crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not even able to eat. 21When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, "He is out of his mind." 22And the teachers of the law who came down from Jerusalem said, "He is possessed by Beelzebub! By the prince of demons he is driving out demons."
Also we see in Mark 6:1-6, Jesus gets no respect from his own family, hometown and relatives.
Mark 6:1-6
1Jesus left there and went to his hometown, accompanied by his disciples.
2When the Sabbath came, he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were amazed. "Where did this man get these things?" they asked. "What's this wisdom that has been given him, that he even does miracles!
3Isn't this the carpenter? Isn't this Mary's son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren't his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him.
4Jesus said to them, "Only in his hometown, among his relatives and in his own house is a prophet without honor."
5He could not do any miracles there, except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them. 6And he was amazed at their lack of faith.
SO it doesn't sound like Mary and Joseph knew quite yet what to think or do about him. It seems remarkable, yet even with his divine, miraculous beginnings, his own family had to learn to trust in him, too. So Mary, with all she eventually does with him in his ministry, sure doesn't sound to me like she was all holy and gung-ho when he was first staring out. Where was her faith then? It had to grow just like we all do.
However, your both contentions are scripturally incorrect.
Mary was NEVER involved with the church after Christ's death
All these [the Holy Apostles] were persevering with one mind in prayer with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren (Acts 1:14)the dragon was angry against the woman: and went to make war with the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ (Rev. 12:17)
The latter. John was told to look after Mary and bring her into "his own home."
First, what home they lived in does not negate the words of Christ "Woman, behold thy son. [...] Behold thy mother" (John 19:26-27). When two people become son and mother is is ordinarily said that the mother adopts the son, who, of course, takes care after her. Second, there is no "home" in the original text; St. John took her "to his own" which indicates the wider character of the adoption thna just an economic arrangement.
[26] When Jesus therefore had seen his mother and the disciple standing whom he loved, he saith to his mother: Woman, behold thy son. [27] After that, he saith to the disciple: Behold thy mother. And from that hour, the disciple took her to his own. (John 19)
However, you can believe whatever you want, "doctor". I am here to discuss what the Catholics believe and explain the scripture to you. You don't have to listen.
John 19:26-27 is indeed not a parable. It is a historical fact. Were it a mere economic arrangement Jesus would probably have done it ahead of the time of His death, and would have chosen someone more economically stable than a teenager. Nor is it a one-way arrangement as the text makes clear: it is mutual. However, if you wish to ignore the last words of Christ because the Catholics hear and understand them spiritually, you are free to do so. You are Protestant; your ilk fought hard to interpret the Bible however they want to interpret it. The question was, what do the Catholics believe. We believe, John 19:26-27 indicates spiritual unity that exists beween Mary the Mother of God and the Catholic Church of the same God.
So what remains in question?
the Greek word translated “grace’ or “favor” has nothing to do with sinlessness
The Church teaches that grace displaces sin.
he [St. Paul] simply explains [in Rom. 5]how man came to be in sin
Exactly. Has nothing to do with anyone in particular, certainly not with a woman whose life was one miracle after another.
The woman of Rev. 12 is un-named and she gives birth in heaven
But she gives birth to Christ, and toward the end of the chapter is described as the mother of all who keep His testimony and obey God. So, however poeticized the account in Rev 12 is, it is sufficient ground by itself to call Mary the Mother of the Holy Church
Was my previous explanation too difficult for you?
It did not explain anything and you referred to a different verse. Please explain why do you think verses 12 and 19 refer to different things. I understand that the language is different. Please explain what the difference signifies.
Shall I ask whether Peter and Paul were able to take their corporeal bodies into heaven since you said you and I might be able to do so?
You, I, St. Peter ans St. Paul will receive our bodies at the second coming of Christ. Mary however received her glorified body following her death. There is a difference; but the difference does not amount to a contradiction with what St. Paul wrote.
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.