Posted on 02/19/2010 5:07:29 PM PST by bogusname
No actually that is intercession not mediation
Intercession... entygchanō
mediator...mesitēs
“Salvation is in HER hands”
Heresy.
A Catholic heresy
This might help, that is, if you care to have an open mind.
http://www.catholicapologetics.org/aptoc.htm
self ping
How do you know that Mary sinned?
Are you trying to execute buffoonery here?
Does the Roman Catholic Church write theology in English alone then?
You really need to stop witch hunting and learn much more about Catholics, and what they teach before harping on a superficial non-issue.
I don’t think its right to take the US constitution and associate the words “inalienable rights” with the rights of little green men from Mars.
Essentially, that is what you are mistaking a very precise implication of the word “co” as (as it semantically means in a language you do not understand) when you insist on the the English sense of the word. The English language has the roots of many of its words from the Latin language, but it is not at all the same as Latin, please get this through your head.
Should I draw Vin Diagrams to point out what means what according to which language???
“How do you know that Mary sinned?”
Because the scriptures say all have sinned; the only scriptural exception is Jesus.
“How do you know that Mary sinned?”
Have you ever read the Bible? Perhaps Romans 3:23 is not taught where you worship?
Just more double speak from you guys...You claim now that co-redemptrix is a Latin word(s)...Now, co is Latin...
But then you call Mary a co-redeemer, an American word, but you’re still using the Latin word co??? Or is it now the American word co???
You can’t use co-redemptrix in one sentence and co-redeemer in another...
Wow that is so deadly.
OK, by this logic, without Mary’s mother there would be no Mary and so Mary’s mother is also a Co-Redemptrix. And also Mary’s father, and Mary’s father’s father, and so on.
Mary’s entire lineage straight from Adam and Eve all must be Co-Redemptrix-es too, right? Unless the Roman Catholic Organization is going to claim that Mary dropped out of the sky. Maybe they already do.
Mary’s Great Great Great Grandmother is also a Co-Redemptrix, because without her, Mary’s Great Great Grandmother wouldn’t have been born and therefore Mary’s Great Grandmother wouldn’t have been born and therefore Mary’s Grandmother wouldn’t have been born and therefore Mary’s mother wouldn’t have been born and therefore Mary wouldn’t have been born.
But there would still have been an Incarnation.
How about this for a shocker: God could have chosen another woman if Mary had said no. He knew she wouldn’t, but He could have easily done so. All the woman had to do was say “yes” and then obey. It is just the same as what any sinfilled fallen human has to do to accept Christ’s free gift of redemtion. There is nothing special about Mary. Being blessed with the honor of carrying Christ to term and then raising him was a *GIFT* from God. It had nothing to do with her and doesn’t confer any superpowers onto her.
Your logic is not deadly but just plain flawed.
Without a mother there would be no incarnation. You concede that point with your foolish speculation about what God would have done if Mary had said no.
I don’t even need to go there. She said yes. True, without someone saying yes there would be no incarnation. (Without a mother, just being plopped on earth fully grown, He’s not fully human and we aren’t saved, so He needs a mother.)
My point, which seems lost on you is that the woman we honor IS the one who said yes. Without her [or her equivalent—to use your logic] there would have been no Incarnation.
So (now listen carefully): you and I agree! You concede my point by running on and on about how God would have had to find another mother if Mary had said no. So you agree with me that God needed to have a woman/mother.
So, we honor the woman who said yes.
Why don’t you? I think you honor an abstraction: “God needed to have . . . “
We honor the concrete, real woman who poured everything a mother pours into being a mother. No other woman ever was like that and ever can be like that. And you wave your hand and say, “ah, well, if she had not been willing, God would have had His way with some other woman.”
Sorry, I find you grossly wanting in the simple decency to recognize the awesomeness of the concrete fact that a concrete woman, the first one God approached,
Said Yes.
You can honor your abstraction. I love the real person who said yes because she’s the Mother of my Lord.
Incidentally, so did Elizabeth. What did Elizabeth “get” that you don’t “get.”
Yes, let us read.
10 As it is written: There is not any man just. 11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. 12 All have turned out of the way; they are become unprofitable together: there is none that doth good, there is not so much as one. 13 Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have dealt deceitfully. The venom of asps is under their lips. 14 Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: 15 Their feet swift to shed blood: 16 Destruction and misery in their ways: 17 And the way of peace they have not known: 18 There is no fear of God before their eyes. 19 Now we know, that what things soever the law speaketh, it speaketh to them that are in the law; that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may be made subject to God. 20 Because by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified before him. For by the law is the knowledge of sin. 21 But now without the law the justice of God is made manifest, being witnessed by the law and the prophets. 22 Even the justice of God, by faith of Jesus Christ, unto all and upon all them that believe in him: for there is no distinction: 23 For all have sinned, and do need the glory of God.
Read that before?
Sure you did, the quote (verses 10-18) is Psalm 14(13). Let us examine the context for that psalm, and read the next one:
who shall dwell in thy tabernacle? or who shall rest in thy holy hill? 2 He that walketh without blemish, and worketh justice: 3 He that speaketh truth in his heart, who hath not used deceit in his tongue: Nor hath done evil to his neighbour: nor taken up a reproach against his neighbours.
So the Psalmist, at least, knows very well that there are basically two categories of people: those who work good and those who work evil. The Psalmist is demonstrably not of the opinion that all have sinned.
Maybe St. Paul quotes the Psalmist in order to disagree with him? No, it doesn't seem that way. The composition of that chapter follows the composition of the two psalms: people who work evil are in contrast to the faithful who are redeemed by Christ. No polemic with the Old Testament is apparent.
But what if we simply read unaware of where the quote is from? Maybe Paul simply borrowed the language of Psalm 14 without realising that he is pointing the reader toward the opposite conclusion. Doesn't seem that way either. Surely Mary sought God. Very many people seek God. Your pastor, the one who teaches you all that Protestant nonsense, I am sure, seeks God, the poor man. I don't know anyone, at least not personally whose lips are venom. I don't think Mary hurried to murder anybody. In fact, how about yourself: whom did you murder?
So, no Romans 3:23 teaches something very important, but that Mary has sinned it does not teach.
“So, no Romans 3:23 teaches something very important, but that Mary has sinned it does not teach.”
Sure it does if read in the context of Paul’s complete argument. Here are just a portion of his writings;
Rom. 3:9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;
Rom. 3:19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
Rom. 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Rom. 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
Rom. 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
Rom. 11:32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.
Gal. 3:22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
But the “alls” do not include Jesus because the scripture specifically says he did not sin, but it does not say the same for Mary. She is included in the ‘all”.
Heb. 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
You bypassed the context of verses 10-18, because it is inconvenient to you. But that context enables you to understand that the “all” in verse 23 is a generalization. It doesn’t exclude just Jesus, it logically excludes, for example, all children before the age of reason, or Noah who is explicitly described as “perfect in every way”. Neither excpetion is explicitly made in v.23, because it is not intended to convict of sin every single person who ever lived. I showed why it would contradict the very point S.t Paul is making, and the Psalms he is quoting.
Nor is it fitting logically into the point St. Paul is making. His point is generic: that Jews, despite their divine laws, are no better. Both Jews and Gentiles are natural sinners; both equally need the Savior. The objective here is to lead the Gentiles to salvation, not convict them of anything.
In Romans 5 the topic is original sin, not actual sin. The sin of Adam passed on to the rest. You might use it against the doctrine of Immaculate Conception, but not for your original contention. Even so, “all” in Romans 5 is not categorical: it is there to draw contrast broadly between condemnation of man and eternal life given by the Savior. This is evdienced textually by how St. Paul uses “all” and “many” interchangeably in that passage.
All these passages, you cited a few more, show that sin generally hold men in bondage and Christ liberates them. Never is St. Paul making the point that everyone without exception is guilty on some sin, it is alway said by way of contrast to the salvation offered to all by Christ.
“You bypassed the context of verses 10-18”
Paul, in Romans 5 draws a parallel and antithesis between Adam and Christ. Adam is for him a ‘figure’—a counterpart or type—of Christ. He develops it in this section of Romans and in his discussion of resurrection in 1 Cor. 15:22, 45-49. As death entered the world through Adam’s disobedience, so new life comes in through Christ’s obedience. As Adam’s sin involves his posterity in guilt, so Christ’s righteousness is credited to His people. To Paul, Adam was a historical individual, the first man. But he was more: he was what his name means in Hebrew—’mankind’; the Federal head of all mankind.’ The whole of mankind is viewed as having existed at first in Adam. Because of his sin, mankind in alienation from God: the whole of mankind is viewed as having originally sinned in Adam.
All of mankind has been judged and under condemnation. God’s view of natural man (taken from Ps. 14 and 53) is Rom.3:10-11, As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. Rom.3:23, For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Because of that state of rebellion God has judged all mankind and all are under condemnation. Rom.5:18, Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation;
Sin was present in the world ever since Adam’s fall, Rom. 5:19, For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, Rom.5:12, Death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned. Render with RSV: ‘and so death spread to all men because all men sinned’.
Throughout Romans 5 Paul uses “all” and “many” ‘the many’ interchangeably (like the twofold ‘all’ in 1 Cor.15:22 and Rom.11:32). However, he differentiates the “all” and the “many” when he applies them to the “first Adam” and the “last Adam”; the latter “all” and “many” being those who are “in Christ”; not universal as in the “first Adam”.
As I said, the “alls” do not include Jesus because the scripture specifically says he did not sin, but it does not say the same for Mary. She is included in the ‘all”. Heb. 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. No one but Jesus is excluded; all are under condemnation and in need of God’s saving grace.
By the way, I really don’t appreciate snide personal comments. If you want to continue a civil discussion I am willing to oblige.
What you say int he bulk of your post is Catholic theology: Catholic anthropology and Catholic understading of original sin, so long as we agree that original sin in itself does not condemn. Rather, it is the inherited condition of man that for all or nearly all results in commission of actual sins, by those who reach adulthood.
Our disagreement is textual, because surely I am not going to dispute the general characterization of man with and without Christ as it is given by St. Paul. The textual disagreement is whether, as the Catholic Church explains, the use of “all” cannot be taken in a categorical way, or, as you contend, it should be taken categorically.
“All” cannot be taken categorically in these contexts, for the reasons that I elaborated upon previously and now I will simply enumerate them:
— If “all” is taken categorically, then “not seeking God”, “feet quick to shed blood” etc has to be taken likewise categorically, which is absurd. Surely if Mary murdered someone we’d know.
— The context is to contrast the evil with the righteous, both in the Psalms as quoted and in Romans, where righteousness is traced to Christ.
— There are several people, albeit not Mary, who are explicitly characterized as sinless, primary example being Noah.
— The intent is to convert the Gentiles and to give them an equal footing in the Church, not to convict each of them of sin.
— In Romans 5 we have an intentional, it seems, parallel use of “all” and “many” (v 18 speaks of “all” in both senses of condemnation and justification and v. 19 speaks of “many” again in both senses).
I am not personal with anyone. This is a public thread. If I see an argument being bypassed I point that out, for the benefit of the reader.
I obviously have a low opinion of the Reformation, and especially of its methodology of selectively reading the scripture for prooftexts; I don’t think I need to apologize for it, since I have always been ready to explain why. It has never been my intention to address you in any personal way.
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.