Posted on 07/18/2010 6:04:05 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
I, however, have seen it first hand. I used to be blind to it. At one time I thought the only people saved were the members of my own Lutheran congregation. Even sister churches were suspect. I was very comfortable in my pew.
There is so much confusion..
An anathema is simply an administrative pronouncement a step above simple excommunication in which it instructs those remaining in communion to not have any interactions with those anathematized. (from Natural Law)
Yet the also tell us that once a catholic ALWAYS a catholic, that like it or not we are under rome.. they need to make up their minds.. are we excommunicated or not??
the tens of millions of non-RC’s in the world who have little to no choice but to
TAKE THE LABEL AT FACE VALUE
THAT IS, THAT IT MEANS THAT
JESUS IS 100% IDENTICAL TO FATHER GOD;
WHICH THE VATICAN HAS TO REALIZE IS TRULY WHAT IS GOING ON WITH THAT LABEL.”
____________________________________________________________________________
Once again, for the umpteenth time: that is absolutely, positively, most assuredly, and 100% WRONG.
It means what you say at “face value” ONLY if there is no distinction of Persons in the Trinity, and that is a giant HERESY.
Jesus is the eternal Son of God, the Second Person of the Trinity, and he became Man in the womb of the Virgin Mary. His two natures are not separated, but united in one Divine Person. Mary became the Mother of that Divine Person at the moment of His conception in her womb.
One could also go with "Mary, the mother of Jesus the Messiah". That would clear things up in case there were other Mary and Jesus, as mother and son combos.
I recommend just scrolling past; it's better for those who wish actual dialogue or passionate, but respectful dialogue, and it's better in the long run for the thread.
Best yet, it is a great help to maintaining a peaceful frame of mind. :)
SITREP!
BTW, isn't saying "Christ" the same as saying "The Incarnate One"? I mean really.....what's the difference?
If they didn't treat her like one it wouldn't be an issue.
To say this is to totally ignore God’s covenant with Israel.
(both the House of Israel and the House of Judah)
Mary was Jewish and under the old testament covenant.
She was born just like everyone else but she was righteous in the God of Abraham ,Issac and Jacobs eyes because she did follow that covenant .
As was John the Baptist and his parents also.
Sin is sin and all sin is unrighteous .
Jesus came to pay for that sin , the ultimate sacrifice.
Baptism is not to remove original sin as Jesus own sacrifice takes care of that for those who believe in him.
Baptisim is an outward expression of a person accepting Jesus sacrifice as paying for your sins in full and making you righteous in God’s eye.
Me neither. And the anathema thing was gone long before we were born. All we have now is excommunication and you have to be a bishop. Things were a lot more fun during the Wars of Religion.
Justifiably so, but thank God the Apostolic Traditions of the Church are part of the Revealed Word of God and not the mere traditions of men like Luther, Calvin, and Machen.
The “spirit” behind heresy is primarily the desire to destroy the things of God.
Yep, it’s for accuracy. As we see, if you have trouble with the accuracy of who Mary was, you can often have troubles being accurate about who Jesus is.
It’s all about the Incarnation.
If you have trouble with the accuracy of what an idol is, you can often have troubles being accurate about who Jesus is.
Premise 1: Jesus is God
Premise 2: Mary gave birth to Jesus
Mad Dawg’s unstated premise: Mary was immaculate
Since your unstated premise is false the conclusion becomes invalid. Metmom, knowing you held to the unstated premise, was correct in determining the conclusion to be false.
I find it disingenuous to try to trap someone into a logical conclusion without disclosing all the premises that lead to the conclusion.
They have no power to save. They have no power to condemn. It’s a bunch of ritualistic mumbo jumbo. This kind of nonsense condemns them. They have taken the legitimate issue of church discipline and twisted it into a tool to make members subservient to them.
I pray that those who see this for what it is turn to Jesus. The alternative is He will tell them “I never knew you”.
Act 20:26 Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men.
Act 20:27 For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.
Act 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
Act 20:29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
Act 20:30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
They have no power to save is so correct and it is pretty obvious that what they are searching for is disciples for themselves.
Act 20:30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
I, however, have seen it first hand. I used to be blind to it. At one time I thought the only people saved were the members of my own Lutheran congregation. Even sister churches were suspect. I was very comfortable in my pew.
WELS? If you were being taught the above, you were poorly served by your pastor. I'm very comfortable in my pew as well, but as the Catholics would say, 'I was properly catechized'. As you should know, in Luther's catechism, Large or Small, the focus is on the Members of the Trinity, what The Father has wrought, The Son has wrought and what the Holy Spirit continues to do. All the focus is on the Works of God, not the works of man. What God has done, continues to do, and will continue to do for us. The Sacraments are a testament to God's Work, not our own. But just as there are sinners everywhere I'm glad you landed somewhere where you can now see God's truth.
As to fact: I supported Theotokos (Th) LONG, decades long, before I supported Immaculate Conception
(IC). The Episcopal Church (back when it mattered) was silent but leaning no on IC but supported Th. My argument for Th did not change in any way because I assented to IC. I do not mention IC in my defense of Th because I do not see any relevance.
As to the logic: it seems to me that the conclusion of Th follows from the reasons set forth in the Chalcedonian definition which, as far as I know, does not contemplate coming down one way or another on IC.
and not the mere traditions of men like Luther, Calvin, and Machen.
Must be Wednesday! LOL.
To quote Ronald Reagan; "There you go again!"
You cite another bogus lying source as your proof. A former Catholic nun? Riiiiggghhhhtttt!
You do realize that a liar citing another liar does sot generate a truth, right? Mary Ann Collins considers herself a former nun although she never took her vows. On all her publications and websites, she lists herself as, "Mary Ann Collins: Former Catholic Nun". She admits she was expelled from the convent she attended but the religious order or convent she attended remains mysterious. She refuses to say where she attended and no one has admitted that Mary Ann Collins attended a convent even as a novice.
The 1917 Code of Canon Law, which abolished all ecclesiastical penalties not mentioned in the Code itself (canon 6), made "anathema" synonymous with "excommunication" (canon 2257). There is no ritual or provisions for anathema included in the post-Vatican II revision of the Pontifical.
Note: Fact checking does not mean checking to see if the "fact" agrees with you.
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.