Book on Mary turns runaway youngster immersed in drugs and crime into a priest

Visions of Jesus ^ | February 2004

[Judith Anne]

ping to myself, heh-heh...

[ArrogantBustard]

We warned you about that.

[OpusatFR]

That’s what I thought, but it just wouldn’t eat. May have been sick when we got it.

You could always put the catfish on the table. (-;

[Mad Dawg]

Draat! There it goes. And you go and mention tittles.

[Tax-chick]

Chocolate covered, or salted?

[Mad Dawg]

May He bless us both. If we ever forget that we are ridiculous, we won't understand the depth of God's compassion in becoming one of us.

Not that we'd understand it if we remembered ....

[Judith Anne]

I bet He had fun.

[Mad Dawg]

That was WAY funnier when I wrote it. Must have forgotten to close a tag. I was TRYING to say, harrumph harrumph, that I was working on my attachment to venial sin and had almost sprung my Mom from Purgatory.

Then the subject of tittles comes into the conversation. I may be old, but I ain't dead.

[Judith Anne]

Oh, we all laughed, we just moved on. :D

[Tax-chick]

If we ever forget that we are ridiculous, we won't understand the depth of God's compassion in becoming one of us.

Worth repeating. It's a comfort to know that God finds me just as hysterical and irritating as I find the lemurs :-). All we'll all be going to bed soon, giving all the parental authority figures a break!

[Judith Anne]

A blessed evening to almost everyone on the thread.

Later, FRiends.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Here's a a brief discourse on justification, salvation, sanctification and their various permutations and combinations.

God the Father elects; God the Son Jesus Christ justifies; God the Holy Spirit sanctifies.

Simple, though some seek to cloud its clarity with "other mediators" and the stock of trees.

[Mad Dawg]

I'm going to have to work on the Blessed Sacrament as "diet". Of course, there's Catherine of Siena. She reportedly lived on nothing but the sacrament. I should try that.

Humma humma, thinking noises here ....

Minor quibble with word "ceremony". Sacrament is different from ceremony and more than the ritual and ceremonial. From our POV anyway.

And while it works for the joke, I really think that in many respects the "high receptionism" of some Calvinism and Transubstantiation, are not ALL that different. Part of the problem in discourse is, to my way of thinking summarized, but not clarified, by Paul's saying "It is raised a spiritual body".

What is a "spiritual body"? How are we to think of it.

The relevance is that in sort of by-the-numbers transubstantiationism the substance of which we partake is the, so to speak "current" substance of our Lord. And currently he has a resurrected and, presumably, "spiritual" body.

Just as His resurrected body was palpable and able to eat, we may wonder about the physical consequences of participation in the Sacrament.

I'm not sure, though, that this line of enquiry is going to get us anywhere. It may be more useful to note that participation in the sacrament does not take place in a vacuum. It presumes the absence of unabsolved mortal sin. That in turn implies a life of less than unbridled vice.In Paul, is it okay to say that "spirit" is not opposed to "material" but to "flesh"? I think Paul has a readily, though not briefly, described meaning to those two words, which avoids the gnostic dualism they seem to imply. The "hint" would be that the flesh is dying (or has died) while the Spirit lives and gives life. This still doesn't riddle out the meaning of "spiritual body" but we can dare to guess that it is a body which does not die but rather is overflowing with life.

If I pretend I don't have a dog in this fight, I can see -- and in fact my brief researches into Paul's use of flesh and Spirit were prompted by this impression, how we would look materialistic. But just as I'm sure you all would (and should - the charge is unjust) have a good answer to the charge of dualism, we will talk about the Incarnation and the "taking of the manhood into God" (so-called Athanasian Creed).

Conversation about the Eucharist will sooner or later come down to conversation about the "esse" of a thing, what a thing IS (as opposed to what it is made of - or looks like or weighs or whatever). That is why (a)Eucharistic Theology is a demanding discipline and (b) it's not well done in sound bites and aphorisms.

Pardon the ponderous pomposity. I was in haste. Cats need fed, wife needs greeted, smooched, etc. ...

[Dr. Eckleburg]

in the OT, the priest performed the office of mediation. He, and he alone, would go into the holy of holies, after rigorous purification, once a year to mediate between God and man. Jesus, with his death and resurrection, accomplished the same thing, but for all time. He, and he alone, is now our mediator, because he is the PERFECT sacrifice, and sits at God’s right hand.

AMEN!

[Petronski]

God the Father elects

Traditions of Men.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Everyone throughout all ages has benefited from that which passed through Mary's womb ... Jesus Christ.

But the point you overlook is that Abraham did not benefit from Jesus after He had "passed through the hands of Mary." Abraham benefited before that occurred.

Therefore he was not, and we are not "reconciled to God" by Mary or even with Mary's help, but by the work of Christ alone.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Mary does not act in anyone's salvation. That is polytheism at best; paganism at worst.

Only Christ redeems.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

So, where is the “blasphemy”, exactly? Show us, scripturally, what the problem is.

LOL. The burden of proof lies with the positive.

It is up to you to show us that Mary is an intercessor; Mary is a co-redeemer; Mary is a dispensatrix of all grace; Mary reconciles men to God; yadayadayada.

The only Scripture that's been offered on this thread has come from Protestants disputing those errors.

The list of fiction the RCC puts forth is long indeed. Better hop to it and show us where those fallacies are found in Scripture.