Posted on 07/22/2007 7:40:38 PM PDT by xzins
Wednesday, 11 July 2007
Yesterday's Reuters headline: "The Vatican on Tuesday said Christian denominations outside the Roman Catholic Church were not full churches of Jesus Christ." The actual proclamation, posted on the official Vatican Web site, says that Protestant Churches are really "ecclesial communities" rather than Churches, because they lack apostolic succession, and therefore they "have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery." Furthermore, not even the Eastern Orthodox Churches are real Churches, even though they were explicitly referred to as such in the Vatican document Unitatis Redintegratio (Decree on Ecumenism). The new document explains that they were only called Churches because "the Council wanted to adopt the traditional use of the term." This new clarification, issued officially by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, but in fact strongly supported by Pope Benedict XVI, manages to insult both Protestants and the Orthodox, and it may set ecumenism back a hundred years.
The new document, officially entitled "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church," claims that the positions it takes do not reverse the intent of various Vatican II documents, especially Unitatis Redintegratio, but merely clarify them. In support of this contention, it cites other documents, all issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: Mysterium Ecclesiae (1973), Communionis notio (1992), and Dominus Iesus (2000). The last two of these documents were issued while the current pope, as Cardinal Ratzinger, was prefect of the Congregation. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was born in 1542 with the name Sacred Congregation of the Universal Inquisition, and for centuries it has operated as an extremely conservative force with the Roman Catholic Church, opposing innovation and modernizing tendencies, suppressing dissent, and sometimes, in its first few centuries, persecuting those who believed differently. More recently, the congregation has engaged in the suppression of some of Catholicism's most innovative and committed thinkers, such as Yves Congar, Hans Küng, Charles Curran, Matthew Fox, and Jon Sobrino and other liberation theologians. In light of the history of the Congregation of the Faith, such conservative statements as those released this week are hardly surprising, though they are quite unwelcome.
It is natural for members of various Christian Churches to believe that the institutions to which they belong are the best representatives of Christ's body on earth--otherwise, why wouldn't they join a different Church? It is disingenuous, however, for the leader of a Church that has committed itself "irrevocably" (to use Pope John Paul II's word in Ut Unum Sint [That They May Be One] 3, emphasis original) to ecumenism to claim to be interested in unity while at the same time declaring that all other Christians belong to Churches that are in some way deficient. How different was the attitude of Benedict's predecessors, who wrote, "In subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the [Roman] Catholic Church--for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame" (Unitatis Redintegratio 3). In Benedict's view, at various times in history groups of Christians wandered from the original, pure Roman Catholic Church, and any notion of Christian unity today is predicated on the idea of those groups abandoning their errors and returning to the Roman Catholic fold. The pope's problem seems to be that he is a theologian rather than a historian. Otherwise he could not possibly make such outrageous statements and think that they were compatible with the spirit of ecumenism that his immediate predecessors promoted.
One of the pope's most strident arguments against the validity of other Churches is that they can't trace their bishops' lineages back to the original apostles, as the bishops in the Roman Catholic Church can. There are three problems with this idea.
First, many Protestants deny the importance of apostolic succession as a guarantor of legitimacy. They would argue that faithfulness to the Bible and/or the teachings of Christ is a better measure of authentic Christian faith than the ability to trace one's spiritual ancestry through an ecclesiastical bureaucracy. A peripheral knowledge of the lives of some of the medieval and early modern popes (e.g., Stephen VI, Sergius III, Innocent VIII, Alexander VI) is enough to call the insistence on apostolic succession into serious question. Moreover, the Avignon Papacy and the divided lines of papal claimants in subsequent decades calls into serious question the legitimacy of the whole approach. Perhaps the strongest argument against the necessity of apostolic succession comes from the Apostle Paul, who was an acknowledged apostle despite not having been ordained by one of Jesus' original twelve disciples. In fact, Paul makes much of the fact that his authority came directly from Jesus Christ rather than from one of the apostles (Gal 1:11-12). Apostolic succession was a useful tool for combating incipient heresy and establishing the antiquity of the churches in particular locales, but merely stating that apostolic succession is a necessary prerequisite for being a true church does not make it so.
The second problem with the new document's insistence upon apostolic succession is the fact that at least three other Christian communions have apostolic succession claims that are as valid as that of the Roman Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox Churches, which split from the Roman Catholic Church in 1054, can trace their lineages back to the same apostles that the Roman Catholic Church can, a fact acknowledged by Unitatis Redintegratio 14. The Oriental Orthodox Churches, such as the Coptic and Ethiopic Orthodox Churches, split from the Roman Catholic Church several centuries earlier, but they too can trace their episcopal lineages back to the same apostles claimed by the Roman Catholic Church as its founders. Finally, the Anglican Church, which broke away from the Roman Catholic Church during the reign of King Henry VIII, can likewise trace the lineage of every bishop back through the first archbishop of Canterbury, Augustine. In addition to these three collections of Christian Churches, the Old Catholics and some Methodists also see value in the idea of apostolic succession, and they can trace their episcopal lineages just as far back as Catholic bishops can.
The third problem with the idea of apostolic succession is that the earliest bishops in certain places are simply unknown, and the lists produced in the third and fourth centuries that purported to identify every bishop back to the founding of the church in a particular area were often historically unreliable. Who was the founding bishop of Byzantium? Who brought the gospel to Alexandria? To Edessa? To Antioch? There are lists that give names (e.g., http://www.friesian.com/popes.htm), such as the Apostles Mark (Alexandria), Andrew (Byzantium), and Thaddeus (Armenia), but the association of the apostles with the founding of these churches is legendary, not historical. The most obvious breakdown of historicity in the realm of apostolic succession involves none other than the see occupied by the pope, the bishop of Rome. It is certain that Peter did make his way to Rome before the time of Nero, where he perished, apparently in the Neronian persecution following the Great Fire of Rome, but it is equally certain that the church in Rome predates Peter, as it also predates Paul's arrival there (Paul also apparently died during the Neronian persecution). The Roman Catholic Church may legitimately claim a close association with both Peter and Paul, but it may not legitimately claim that either was the founder of the church there. The fact of the matter is that the gospel reached Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Edessa, and other early centers of Christianity in the hands of unknown, faithful Christians, not apostles, and the legitimacy of the churches established there did not suffer in the least because of it.
All the talk in the new document about apostolic succession is merely a smokescreen, however, for the main point that the Congregation of the Faith and the pope wanted to drive home: recognition of the absolute primacy of the pope. After playing with the words "subsists in" (Lumen Gentium [Dogmatic Constitution on the Church] 8) and "church" (Unitatis Redintegratio 14) in an effort to make them mean something other than what they originally meant, the document gets down to the nitty-gritty. "Since communion with the Catholic Church, the visible head of which is the Bishop of Rome and the Successor of Peter, is not some external complement to a particular Church but rather one of its internal constitutive principles, these venerable Christian communities lack something in their condition as particular churches." From an ecumenical standpoint, this position is a non-starter. Communion with Rome and acknowledging the authority of the pope as bishop of Rome is a far different matter from recognizing the pope as the "visible head" of the entire church, without peer. The pope is an intelligent man, and he knows that discussions with other Churches will make no progress on the basis of this prerequisite, so the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the pope, despite his protestations, has no interest in pursuing ecumenism. Trying to persuade other Christians to become Roman Catholics, which is evidently the pope's approach to other Churches, is not ecumenism, it's proselytism.
Fortunately, this document does not represent the viewpoint of all Catholics, either laypeople or scholars. Many ordinary Catholics would scoff at the idea that other denominations were not legitimate Churches, which just happen to have different ideas about certain topics and different ways of expressing a common Christianity. Similarly, many Catholic scholars are doing impressive work in areas such as theology, history, biblical study, and ethics, work that interacts with ideas produced by non-Catholic scholars. In the classroom and in publications, Catholics and non-Catholics learn from each other, challenge one another, and, perhaps most importantly, respect one another.
How does one define the Church? Christians have many different understandings of the term, and Catholics are divided among themselves, as are non-Catholics. The ecumenical movement is engaged in addressing this issue in thoughtful, meaningful, and respectful ways. Will the narrow-minded view expressed in "Responses" be the death-knell of the ecumenical movement? Hardly. Unity among Christians is too important an idea to be set aside. Will the document set back ecumenical efforts? Perhaps, but Christians committed to Christian unity--Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant alike--will get beyond it. The ecumenical movement is alive and well, and no intemperate pronouncement from the Congregation of the Faith, or the current pope, can restrain it for long. Even if ecumenism, at least as it involves the Roman Catholic Church's connection with other Churches, is temporarily set back a hundred years, that distance can be closed either by changes of heart or changes of leadership.
The bible shows sins of many,including Saint Paul,King David etc...NOT MARY!
“”In Luke, chapter 2 it shows Mary going to the temple to offer a sin sacrifice. Why would she do it if she was wthout sin?””
Can you name Her sin sacrifice? NO.
That was Jewish Law for everyone to follow. This does not make her a sinner
“”Luke 2:48 could show a lack of faith.””
Are you prepared to make that Judgment of the Blessed Mother?
“”Romans 3 says no one is righteous, not one. It doesn’t say no one but Mary is righteous, it says NO ONE.””
Mary was Humble in her obedience, Its easy to see why Jesus Chose Her.
“Because he chose to, because he could. Because it was foretold that he would.”
Where does Scripture say Christ will come into this world through a sinful creature? Nowhere.
Dear Brother,it will please Christ for you to accept His Mother. He created Her for His perfect love.
Through Her obedience She became the cause of Salvation..
As Blessed Saint Irenaues “rightfully” said...
“In accordance with this design, Mary the Virgin is found obedient, saying, ‘Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word.’ But Eve was disobedient; for she did not obey when as yet she was a virgin. And even as she, having indeed a husband, Adam, but being nevertheless as yet a virgin (for in Paradise ‘they were both naked, and were not ashamed,’ inasmuch as they, having been created a short time previously, had no understanding of the procreation of children: for it was necessary that they should first come to adult age, and then multiply from that time onward), having become disobedient, was made the cause of death, both to herself and to the entire human race; so also did Mary, having a man betrothed [to her], and being nevertheless a virgin, by yielding obedience, BECOME THE CAUSE OF SALVATION, both to HERSELF and the WHOLE HUMAN RACE. And on this account does the law term a woman betrothed to a man, the wife of him who had betrothed her, although she was as yet a virgin; thus indicating the back-reference from Mary to Eve, because what is joined together could not otherwise be put asunder than by inversion of the process by which these bonds of union had arisen; s so that the former ties be cancelled by the latter, that the latter may set the former again at liberty Wherefore also Luke, commencing the genealogy with the Lord, carried it back to Adam, indicating that it was He who regenerated them into the Gospel of life, and not they Him. And thus also it was that the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. For what the virgin Eve had bound fast through unbelief, this did the virgin Mary set free through faith.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:22 (A.D. 180).
Certainly,she could have said no.
God does not owe us Salvation!He could have ended mankind right there. Mary's fiat overturned Eve's disobedience.
I'm finished for tonight.
Sleep well Dear Brother!
So, the salvation of the entire world hinged of whether a little girl would make the right choice. I don’t think so. God chose her from the beginning of the world. It was part of his plan FROM THE BEGINNING. Mary could not have said no.
Interesting discussion. Good night, Saint.
So, we have to invent one? The reason "leap of faith" philosophers were successful is because they offer exactly what the other side offers as "proof"—leap of faith! :)
I would respectfully disagree. :) The "leap of faith" philosophers were specifically UNSUCCESSFUL because they were forced to give up all hope of a meaningful reconciliation between man and God. Their stated desired premise was that reality (between God and man) could be explained using reason. That was their goal. But, they insisted that man was autonomous, and THAT is what destroyed their ambitions. They failed in their attempts because they refused to recognize a totally sovereign God. In fact, da Vinci died in spiritual anguish over this very issue. The Reformation thinker, OTOH, knew that only God was autonomous. THAT allowed God and reason to co-exist on the same plane.
The core "truth" is the initial assumption, which is accepted on a leap of faith, as absolute truth.
IOW, Christianity is a baseless faith. :) I couldn't possibly imagine using my free will to choose to devote my life to a baseless faith. :) I don't understand this at all.
Last time I checked, we know more about who we are through archeology and anthropology. The Bible is "silent" on all those hominoids' remains.
I was talking about the things that really matter, such as the proverbial questions: Who am I?, Why am I here?, Where am I going? "Leap of faith" philosophy has no hope of truly answering any of those questions.
FK: "No, "inspiration" for these purposes connotes infallibility."
Really? By whose definition?
Biblically, "inspired" means "God-breathed". The words from God's breath either contain error or they do not.
FK: "Neither I, nor any of my Reformed brethren claim infallibility in our teachings."
That's good! But how can you then claim that the "indwelling spirit" (implying the Holy Spirit) leads you? Why would He lead you fallibly?
He doesn't lead us fallibly, He leads us according to His plan. That plan includes growth. Some will achieve higher levels of truth than others, all under the direction of the Holy Spirit. My understanding of Christianity right now is exactly what the Holy Spirit wants it to be for right now. It was a little different a year ago and it will be different next year. That doesn't mean He is leading me fallibly, it means He didn't give me all the answers at once. The plan is for me to spend the rest of my life growing in Him.
But we also know that what we read of their writings are copies of copies of copies, and not the originals, and that the various scribes were not "inspired" in the same way (infallibly) as the Apostles, so we must presume that those copies are not exactly what was written in the originals, or else we are making another leap of faith and assuming that all the copies of the copies are absolutely infallibly copied (which we know for a fact they are not).
If one thinks the originals were infallible, like I do, then it is no leap to also think that if God went to all that trouble, that He would also protect later versions that were accepted by God's Church. Otherwise, what would have been the point? It would be silly to think that God created a perfect revelation for a handful of people only to walk away from it and leave the future billions of believers in the dark as to what to believe directly from Him.
Continued on next post.
FK: “We fallible humans apprehend that interpretation in different ways, hence differences among good Christians.”
Aaah, that explains it I suppose... :) Let me rephrase: we fallible humans apprehend things fallibly (imperfectly), so we all know a little bit of the truth, but not the whole truth. The devil is in relativism (ecumenism), FK. Literally.
The "whole truth" is only the providence of the Divine. How could we know it? And, I might add, our apprehension at any given time is in accordance with the wishes of the Holy Spirit. (I.e., I am saying the same thing here as I said in the prior post.) Do you claim that your Church has THE Divine truth? I truly doubt it, since your faith is "mystery-laden". :)
But, we somehow infallibly "know" that the Bible is infallible because it was written by fallible men who were inspired and made infallible, but we cannot comprehend their writings infallibly, so we just worship God as we see fit, fallibly.
If man was running the show, it actually WOULD be just as pathetic as your statement makes it sound, i.e., I would agree with you. However, we have reason to thank God that it is actually HE who is running the show, and therefore God is in control of what we comprehend, when we comprehend it, and how we worship.
FK: "Now, in my view this is also written to all Christians, but in the narrow view this shows Godly inspiration of a special type directly to the Apostles."
Then all "true" Christians will be speaking infallibly...leap of faith again. I hope you realize that. Will the "true" Christians please stand up?
No, I didn't say that at all. In the general sense Holy Spirit is always there for all Christians, to lead them as to what to say. Is that so terrible a thought? :) In this case, the results will not always be in accordance with our wishes, i.e. we may stumble or get some doctrine wrong, etc. That is according to God's plan.
In addition, Holy Spirit was there in a special way to make sure the writings of the Apostles and other Biblical authors were pristine in accuracy as to what God wanted. For God's Holy word, there was no learning curve for the writers. They had to get it exactly right the first time for the future of Christianity. This was a separate situation.
Would the Holy Spirit, the Lord, lead people into disagreements?
Yes, absolutely IMO. I have learned some very valuable life lessons as a result of disagreements with both Christians and non-Christians alike. In addition, I know for sure that my faith is stronger as a result of my disagreements with others on FR! :)
Further, my personal belief is that disagreements with others are fertile testing grounds used by God. I know that when I first started here that my fuse was A LOT shorter than it is now. I thank God for bringing FR into my life for that purpose too. :)
Would He deceive them? If you go by the OT, God does deceive some people but the New Testament calls Him the Spirit of Truth, the Comforter.
I would agree with you that the Christian God does not deceive. Where are you thinking of in the OT?
...... It's biblically established that some will be apostles, others teachers...interpreters, etc.
I see you sneaking this in at the very end of a long paragraph. :) While you are right that it isn't a matter of fair or unfair, my point was that Biblically, there is no appointment of interpreters. Apostles, yes, clergy, yes, teachers, yes, interpreters other than Apostles, NO.
I’m not sure that this will stand up in either temporal court or His Court. How can you guarantee something without being responsible for it?
Within the realms of law and justice, both human and Divine, the concept of responsibility carries with it the premise or possibility of multiple cause levels. God created satan, satan caused evil. Therefore, is God the author of evil? I think we both would say "No". Now, did God KNOW that satan would cause evil when He decided to create him? I think we would both say "Yes". So now is God the author of evil? Again, my understanding is that we would both say "No".
The third step would be to say that if God predestined that satan would cause evil (with no sort of "infusion" of evil or any such thing by God) does that make God the author of it? I would still say "No" BECAUSE God owed no duty to satan or anyone else to prevent him from causing the evil. satan can only do what God allows. If you're with me on the first two steps, then I think the third turns on whether there is duty. I do not see that there is. Predestination guarantees the outcome, but does not attach authorship in the case of sin.
Yes, but isn't repentance an act of God?
2Ti 2:25 with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth,
Seems pretty clear to me Kosta. ;O)
Thwart His will? Most people? I don’t think.
Why not? The Apostolic position is that it is omnipotent God's desire that all men be saved. Yet, we know that all men are not saved. (I assumed that all of us believed that most will not be saved. Do you disagree?) If it is not man's free will that thwarts God here, then what is it?
And the majority of people go to hell under Reformed doctrine. Count up the selected elected. Not a majority, as far as I can see.
Is "the count" much different under Catholicism, or do you think most people go to Heaven? How do you interpret this?:
Matt 7:13-14 : 13 "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.
Anyone who, after receiving baptism, while remaining nominally a Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts any of the truths that must be believed with divine and Catholic faith is considered a heretic. Accordingly four elements must be verified to constitute formal heresy; previous valid baptism, which need not have been in the Catholic Church; external profession of still being a Christian, otherwise a person becomes an apostate; outright denial or positive doubt regarding a truth that the Catholic Church has actually proposed as revealed by God; and the disbelief must be morally culpable, where a nominal Christian refuses to accept what he knows is a doctrinal imperative.
Can you show me where Pope Benedict XVI is in heresy?
Where it comes to the faith given to us from Jesus Christ, the operative word is ‘believe’.
I’m glad that you are coming around. Thinking and rationalizing led us to the heresy of the Reformation and all the denominations that it has spawned. The Tiber is hard to swim for the rationalists, but all the more rewarding for it.
Have a happy thanksgiving.
I'm not playing ringaround the rosey with you. Is it possible for you to answer a simple question?
Maybe you could attempt to answer what "always" is.
Gen 6:
5
When the LORD saw how great was man’s wickedness on earth, and how no desire that his heart conceived was ever anything but evil,
6
he regretted that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was grieved.
7
So the LORD said: “I will wipe out from the earth the men whom I have created, and not only the men, but also the beasts and the creeping things and the birds of the air, for I am sorry that I made them.”
8
But Noah found favor with the LORD.
9
These are the descendants of Noah. Noah, a good man and blameless in that age,
10
for he walked with God, begot three sons: Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
Noah found favour. He was not full of grace. Mary is the exceptional human, Noah was not.
:::The third step would be to say that if God predestined that satan would cause evil (with no sort of “infusion” of evil or any such thing by God) does that make God the author of it? I would still say “No” BECAUSE God owed no duty to satan or anyone else to prevent him from causing the evil. satan can only do what God allows. If you’re with me on the first two steps, then I think the third turns on whether there is duty. I do not see that there is. Predestination guarantees the outcome, but does not attach authorship in the case of sin.:::
You may not see it, but it is there. If you make sure that something happens, then you are responsible. There is no duty or anything like that involved. There is only authorship. If the Reformed God predestines everything then He owns it, lock, stock and barrel. All the good. All the evil. Everything.
Acts 6:
[8] And Stephen, full of grace and power, did great wonders and signs among the people.
Stephen was not human? A different kind of "full of grace"?
It is not the Apostolic position that was pulled out of the cosmic bingo barrel. It was the words of Jesus pulled out of the Gospels. We don’t know if it thwarts God’s will or not; we are told what we are told and we believe what we are told to believe.
I’ve read the speculation that hell is only God’s next step to getting a person’s attention and various other things that propose a methodology towards everyone getting to Heaven. I subscribe to none, since both Scripture and the Church are silent on it.
I do not believe that most people are not saved - Christ uses the term “the many”. I believe that most people are saved to everlasting life. I, however, do not know if I am among them. I hope and I pray and I try to imitate Christ, however poorly. But I am not arrogant enough to presume that I know.
Matt 6:
1
1 “(But) take care not to perform righteous deeds in order that people may see them; otherwise, you will have no recompense from your heavenly Father.
2
When you give alms, do not blow a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites 2 do in the synagogues and in the streets to win the praise of others. Amen, I say to you, they have received their reward.
3
But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right is doing,
4
so that your almsgiving may be secret. And your Father who sees in secret will repay you.
5
“When you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, who love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on street corners so that others may see them. Amen, I say to you, they have received their reward.
6
But when you pray, go to your inner room, close the door, and pray to your Father in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will repay you.
7
3 4 In praying, do not babble like the pagans, who think that they will be heard because of their many words.
8
Do not be like them. Your Father knows what you need before you ask him.
9
5 6 “This is how you are to pray: Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name,
10
your kingdom come, 7 your will be done, on earth as in heaven.
11
8 Give us today our daily bread;
12
and forgive us our debts, 9 as we forgive our debtors;
13
and do not subject us to the final test, 10 but deliver us from the evil one.
14
11 If you forgive others their transgressions, your heavenly Father will forgive you.
15
But if you do not forgive others, neither will your Father forgive your transgressions.
16
“When you fast, 12 do not look gloomy like the hypocrites. They neglect their appearance, so that they may appear to others to be fasting. Amen, I say to you, they have received their reward.
17
But when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face,
18
so that you may not appear to be fasting, except to your Father who is hidden. And your Father who sees what is hidden will repay you.
19
13 “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and decay destroy, and thieves break in and steal.
20
But store up treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor decay destroys, nor thieves break in and steal.
21
For where your treasure is, there also will your heart be.
22
14 “The lamp of the body is the eye. If your eye is sound, your whole body will be filled with light;
23
but if your eye is bad, your whole body will be in darkness. And if the light in you is darkness, how great will the darkness be.
24
15 “No one can serve two masters. He will either hate one and love the other, or be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.
25
16 “Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat (or drink), or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food and the body more than clothing?
26
Look at the birds in the sky; they do not sow or reap, they gather nothing into barns, yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are not you more important than they?
27
Can any of you by worrying add a single moment to your life-span? 17
28
Why are you anxious about clothes? Learn from the way the wild flowers grow. They do not work or spin.
29
But I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was clothed like one of them.
30
18 If God so clothes the grass of the field, which grows today and is thrown into the oven tomorrow, will he not much more provide for you, O you of little faith?
31
So do not worry and say, ‘What are we to eat?’ or ‘What are we to drink?’ or ‘What are we to wear?’
32
All these things the pagans seek. Your heavenly Father knows that you need them all.
33
But seek first the kingdom (of God) and his righteousness, 19 and all these things will be given you besides.
34
Do not worry about tomorrow; tomorrow will take care of itself. Sufficient for a day is its own evil.
Nothing about the preselected here; it is only about all men and their doings.
Since History is not on your side ,it is up to you to provide proof that Mary’s body was NOT assumed into heaven.You can’t!
You Said...”I’m not playing ringaround the rosey with you. Is it possible for you to answer a simple question?”
Nor am I playing ringaround the rosey with you.
Once you accept the Blessed Mother as the “New Eve” , the rest is very easy to understand Her role in Salvation History
Here is some good information to help you in your search
From University of Dayton
http://campus.udayton.edu/mary/resources/maryandchurch.htm
http://campus.udayton.edu/mary/maryhistory.html
Ask the Blessed Mother through prayer to help you
I wish you and your family a Blessed and safe Thanksgiving!
If you want to think that God being in full control means He owns evil, then have at it. We do not. The alternative is that man is really in control, not God, and that history unfolds according to random chance. We are just plain lucky that Mary said "yes", we are just plain lucky that the Jews turned against Jesus and crucified Him so that we may be saved, we are just plain lucky that the Apostles decided to follow Jesus, and on and on and on. I can't imagine what my faith would be like if I thought that man is really running the show down here. :)
Does scripture say otherwise,or say Salvation without Mary’s fiat? NO!
“”Mary could not have said no””
Why did God send the Angel Gabriel and why did Mary say "let it be done to me according thy word"? Do you think this was just for show?
Here is question for you now...
Did man crucify Christ by free will?
There is only one answer, because If man does not have free will,than it would mean Christ crucified Himself. Thus the answer has to be that Man has Free Will and used that FREE WILL to crucify Christ.
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.