First, I again commend you for your attitude towards these ideas that are likely new to you. I will try my best to explain all of this to you. Mary does not forgive sins in the sense that a priest could because we don't see Mary. The only reason a priest has been given this power from Christ is that He meant to continue on His ministry of Reconciliation to men in time (see 2 Cor 5:17-20). Through "us", Paul says, God pleads for us to return to Him. Thus, the priest is the hands and voice of Christ. It is important to understand that Catholics (and I think Orthodox) view the Church as the "continuation of the Incarnation". Thus, we see Christ through the actions of the priest during the sacraments. He forgives us, heals us, and offers Himself totally to us during the Eucharist. Thus, Mary doesn't forgive sins as a priest would - because we don't see her.
As to "middlemen", this is God's choosing. He allows us to participate in His work (as I explained during the cookie example). God does not create life directly, but allows His creatures to (He acts indirectly through them, of course). God acts indirectly through our actions to bring other people to Christ - so we can be co-redemptive in our actions. All of this is an expression of love, FK. When you love someone, you share yourself with the other. Thus, God, also, shares in His Divine self with His creation, allowing us to be secondary causes and to continue Christ's ministry of bringing the Kingdom of God to all men throughout the world. Thus, "middlemen" is the wrong way of looking at it. Look at it more like the happy child who is getting to do something with their beloved parent.
By "scripture" do you mean the Bible?
Yes. The Infancy Gospel of James is not Scripture because the early Church either didn't think it was written by an Apostle, or they found things in there that were not "Apostolic" in teaching. This doesn't mean there is nothing of use in that writing.
Infallible teaching is not "based" on Scripture, but is based on the Apostle's teachings - they first came orally. Then, some of the Apostles wrote letters and narratives. These were accepted by the Church as being in line with what they had ALREADY LEARNED. Later, some men wrote down the oral traditions (like infant Baptism) as coming from the Apostles also. This was accepted by the Church and later declared infallibly suited for belief among Catholics under the guidance of the Spirit. The Scripture and this Tradition CANNOT disagree. They work together.
Try not to get confused with Ecclesiastical tradition - such as Catholic priests must be celebate, and Apostolic Tradition - such as infant baptism. The former is a discipline that is subject to change based on the laws of the Church of the time and culture to better support the children of the Church. The latter is considered a revealed truth of God, just as Scripture was.
I know that at least some tradition is not really "based" in scripture, such as infant baptism.
What came first, the oral teachings of the Apostles during the first 20-30 years or the Scripture writings? Think about this for awhile...
If Mary is the woman in 15, then who is the woman in 16? Are you saying that God switches from Mary to Eve in one verse? In that case, who is Adam really supposed to be in 17? :)
Eve is the representive of women in the world, just as Adam is for men. Note in verse 15, it says that "the woman" (singular) will have enmity between "you (serpent) and "her" offspring. This is certainly not refering to Eve, because Eve had JUST SINNED! How can Eve have enmity between herself and Satan? I doubt she remained sinless, either. However, the Church has ALWAYS considered Mary sinless. Also, the Church sees Mary as a symbol of the Church - thus, Mary's offspring, Jesus, would deal Satan a fatal blow (upon the head) while Satan would deal a blow to Christ, but not fatal. This can also apply to the Church - those Baptized into her continue to fight against Satan's "offspring". The Church Fathers have seen this verse as refering to either the Church or Mary, but NEVER Eve! Verse 16, of course, is to Eve and her descendants, who will undergo painful childbirth and be subject to men. Considering this has been a valid interpretation of the Church for a long time, this ceratinly is reasonable - and quite in line with Christ's use of the word "woman" throughout the Gospel of John ("woman" would be an unusual name to call His mother, unless it had some other spiritual meaning. Again, the Church, after years of contemplation, picked up on this).
Regards
First, I again commend you for your attitude towards these ideas that are likely new to you. I will try my best to explain all of this to you. Mary does not forgive sins in the sense that a priest could because we don't see Mary. The only reason a priest has been given this power from Christ is that He meant to continue on His ministry of Reconciliation to men in time (see 2 Cor 5:17-20). Through "us", Paul says, God pleads for us to return to Him. Thus, the priest is the hands and voice of Christ.
Thank you very much for the kind words, and for your questions about our beliefs. I appreciate your answer, and I've noticed that there have been several times when we both look at a certain passage and I see it as being directed toward all believers, and you may see it as being directed to the clergy. This is a perfect example. It seems to me that the key here is, who is "us" or "we"?
2 Cor. 5:17-21 : 17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come! 18 All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: 19 that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. 20 We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God. 21 God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
If in this passage "we" and "us only refer to the clergy, consider what that means for the layman. First, the ministry of reconciliation is only for the clergy because it was given to only "us", the clergy. Paul is specifically EXCLUDING all other believers in this whole passage.
Second, this is bolstered by the fact that the message of reconciliation was ONLY given to the clergy. Other believers cannot have the message from God or His word, they must get it from the one and only source, the Church.
Third, only the clergy are Christ's ambassadors. Laymen are unfit. This is so because of the key word "therefore" in v. 20. That relates to the exclusive giving of the message of reconciliation to the clergy.
Fourth, only the clergy can become the "righteousness of God". Laymen cannot become the righteousness of God, because the "we" and "us" only referred to clergy. The only time Paul references "the world" is in v. 19. All other times he says "we" or "us", so it must be exclusive. Either Paul means only clergy and no one else, or he means all believers, and no one else.
I still admit that I don't get the exact relationship with Mary. You said in the earlier post that Mary was the "co-metiatrix of Christ's graces". That appears to be a unique title. :) It's funny, I believe I heard on the news earlier that the author of the famous book "God Is My Co-Pilot" croaked. Concerning people, red flags always go up for me whenever I hear co-"anything" associated with God.
God does not create life directly, but allows His creatures to (He acts indirectly through them, of course).
Here is the famous "abortion" passage, and BTW I am very thankful to Catholics for the great work you all do in this area :) :
Ps. 139:13-16 : 13 For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. 14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. 15 My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, 16 your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be. (emphasis added)
(I had to throw in 16, just for fun :) But, does it really sound like David is talking about a cooperative effort here, especially in 13? Does it occur to David to refer to his parents as secondary causes? Or, does it appear that David is giving God full credit for being the only cause of his existence?
God acts indirectly through our actions to bring other people to Christ - so we can be co-redemptive in our actions.
Co-redemptive? I just can't accept this. God might use me as I would use a hammer to pound a nail. Since God loves me, He lets me experience being a very "happy hammer" if He saves someone after I have spoken to Him. But, I did not swing myself, and the nail (IN THIS EXAMPLE! :) did not get driven because of me.
Infallible teaching is not "based" on Scripture, but is based on the Apostle's teachings - they first came orally. Then, some of the Apostles wrote letters and narratives. These were accepted by the Church as being in line with what they had ALREADY LEARNED. Later, some men wrote down the oral traditions (like infant Baptism) as coming from the Apostles also. This was accepted by the Church and later declared infallibly suited for belief among Catholics under the guidance of the Spirit. The Scripture and this Tradition CANNOT disagree. They work together.
I thank you and appreciate your explanation, but the reason I copied the entire paragraph is that it jumped right out at me that there is one thing missing. :)
(A man with free will can reject any "guidance", right?)
---------------
Thanks for the difference between Ecclesiastical Tradition and Apostolic Tradition. I do need to be reminded. :)
What came first, the oral teachings of the Apostles during the first 20-30 years or the Scripture writings?
Sure, the oral teachings had to come first for the NT. I think I was thinking of all the teachings that has been declared infallible across time, including the one about Mary in 1854. I'm asking the following because I don't know, :) are you saying that each and every Tradition that has been declared infallible by the Church over the last 2000 years has also been declared to have been taught by the Apostles during their time on earth?
... Note in verse 15 [Gen. 3:15], it says that "the woman" (singular) will have enmity between "you (serpent) and "her" offspring. This is certainly not referring to Eve, because Eve had JUST SINNED! How can Eve have enmity between herself and Satan? I doubt she remained sinless, either.
My version actually has the enmity being between Eve and Satan, AND SEPARATELY, between their respective offspring. In 15 God says "And I will put enmity...", future tense. So what if Eve just sinned? Why can't Eve have enmity for satan, after all this she had a pretty good reason to, didn't she? :) If you asked me today if there was enmity between myself and satan, I would say absolutely 'YES'. Under your view, then, there was only enmity between satan and Jesus? satan didn't hate the rest of us? My experience has been different. :) Perhaps this is God saving Eve right here, to make her hate evil.
Verse 16, of course, is to Eve and her descendants, who will undergo painful childbirth and be subject to men. Considering this has been a valid interpretation of the Church for a long time, this certainly is reasonable - and quite in line with Christ's use of the word "woman" throughout the Gospel of John ("woman" would be an unusual name to call His mother, unless it had some other spiritual meaning. Again, the Church, after years of contemplation, picked up on this).
Well, how unusual could it be if one verse ago, "woman" meant His mother?! :) Seriously, I see some pretty sophisticated gymnastics going on here with the Fathers. In my Bible, the term Jesus used for His mother in John was "dear woman", a common term of respect.
In a literary sense, one big thing that bothers me with all of these many examples is that meanings are changed within one clearly defined thought. In 12, "the man", Adam, speaks directly about Eve, "the woman". In 13, God speaks directly to Eve, "the woman". In 14, God then speaks to the serpent and references "the woman" in 15. Then, in 16, it is specifically noted that God is now speaking TO "the woman" again. Then, in 17, God then turns and speaks to "the man", Adam. It's all in the same thought. How could only verse 15 break this train of thought? How could the same word have such completely different meanings for one and only one verse in a long chain of usage?