Posted on 12/17/2010 7:31:07 AM PST by marshmallow
So how do you come up with she's the mother of God the Son and not to be called the "Mother of God"? Unless of course, you believe "Jesus, God the Son," is not Himself God . . .
We do celebrate it as a Mystery, something that cannot be known without revelation and that cannot be understood by human minds.
“Is it not catholic teaching that God is IMmutable?”
I’d say the teaching is that God does not change unless he desires to do so.
“that Scripture is inerrant, Scripture which says that ‘flesh and blood’ cannot inherit God’s kingdom?”
You’d deny bodily resurrection? We see after the resurrection of Christ in the Gospels, that he does have a resurrection body, which is the flesh purified. That he eats and bears the grevious wounds inflicted on him from the cross, and yet no longer suffers.
I have repeatedly commented that I find the term RC offensive. That you continue to use it speaks much of your Christian good will and beatitude.
I do not speak for Catholic apologists, either Pope or peasant. There is diversity of thought within the Church so your theory about Catholics being "brainwashed robots" is contradicted by your own argument. Each must examine his own conscience and provide his own reasons. I can only comment on the what has been decided upon by the Magesterium or declared ex Cathedra.
The position of the Church is as follows. Any future misrepresentation of these facts by you a liar because you will have known better and have chosen to willfully distort it for some unholy:
When the Church invokes Mary under the title, "Coredemptrix", she means that Mary uniquely participated in the redemption of the human family by Jesus Christ, Our Lord and Saviour. At the Annunciation (cf.Lk.1:38) Mary freely cooperated in giving the Second Person of the Trinity his human body which is the very instrument of redemption, as Scripture tells us: "We have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all" (Heb.10:10).
And at the foot of the cross of our Saviour (Jn.19:26), Mary's intense sufferings, united with those of her Son, as Pope John Paul II tells us, were, "also a contribution to the Redemption of us all" (Salvifici Doloris, n.25). Because of this intimate sharing in the redemption accomplished by the Lord, the Mother of the Redeemer is uniquely and rightly referred to by Pope John Paul II and the Church as the "Coredemptrix."
It is important to note that the prefix "co" in the title Coredemptrix does not mean "equal to" but rather "with", coming from the Latin word cum. The Marian title Coredemptrix never places Mary on a level of equality with her Divine Son, Jesus Christ. Rather it refers to Mary's unique human participation which is completely secondary and subordinate to the redeeming role of Jesus, who alone is true God and true Man.
Saying that Mary is the mother of Christ in no way detracts from His divinity and it keeps the role of Mary in proper perspective.
Anyone with a decent working knowledge of who Christ is realizes that. I suppose that only failed Protestants would have trouble with that.
And at the foot of the cross of our Saviour (Jn.19:26), Mary's intense sufferings, united with those of her Son, as Pope John Paul II tells us, were, "also a contribution to the Redemption of us all" (Salvifici Doloris, n.25). Because of this intimate sharing in the redemption accomplished by the Lord, the Mother of the Redeemer is uniquely and rightly referred to by Pope John Paul II and the Church as the "Coredemptrix."
Mary's grief, contributed NOTHING to our Redemption.
Christ alone paid the penalty for sin.
“...the flesh purified”? What need of purification would a perfect and sinless man have? Particularly since that inerrant Scriptures says his flesh did not see corruption?
The Scriptures seem pretty clear when it says “flesh and blood cannot inherit God’s kingdom”.
“That he eats and bears the grevious wounds inflicted on him from the cross, and yet no longer suffers.”
Then those who are likewise resurrected to heaven will bear their “grevious wounds”?
“You’d deny bodily resurrection?”
Those inerrant Scriptures would. ‘The last Adam (Christ) became a spirit’.
The “Mother of God” is accurate in so far as it describes Christ. Unfortunately, the cult of Mary has ignored the original intent, meaning and focus on Christ and implied all kinds of nonsense about Mary.
"...failed Protestant"? Who is that?
Renewing ancient heresy is a not-so-charming pasttime of the Usual Suspects. Frankly I don’t think they believe that drivel either.
I find it amusing that some of the people who must have seen literally thousands of posts on hundreds of threads, over the course of the past ten years or so, always “start over” again with the same dumb, over-the-top posts claiming they “know” what the Church teaches about this or that. I can't tell you the countless posts I've seen here explaining Catholic teaching about the Mother of God so clearly, and then someone WHO'S PARTICPATED ON THOSE THREADS comes out with something like, “The Church teaches that Mary existed before God”, or some similar drivel, in spite of it's having been refuted countless times.
Amazing lack of memory, or willful instigation...not sure which. Perhaps they simply don't read the Catholic posts.
But you said, and most emphatically...
NL: Neither has any Pope ever declared Mary a co-redeemer...
So it's not quite "diversity of thought" in the RCC, it's an error on your part in knowing what your church believes and teaches.
Is that an example of being "poorly catechised?" Maybe it's just the RCC talking out of both sides of its mouth again and never being consistent about much of anything.
It's interesting that you chose NOT to put the bulk of your comment in quotation marks. Apparently you should have since you seem to have lifted almost the entire comment from other peoples' work found here (and other places) which was NOT written by you...
MARY AS CO-REDEMPTRIX: AN EXPLANATION
Even though you didn't write that blather, it is still (and poorly) trying to defend the anti-Scriptural elevation of a sinner to the status of divinity. A big no-no from the very beginning. God is not amused by that kind of idolatry. Where He once may have winked, He know condemns.
Regardless, it's very bad form to make it appear that whole paragraphs are your own writing when someone else actually wrote them. If you can't think of what to say or you feel inept writing something, just link to the page. We'll be sure to read it, and that way we'll know who actually wrote the work.
There is diversity of thought within the Church so your theory about Catholics being "brainwashed robots" is contradicted by your own argument. Each must examine his own conscience and provide his own reasons. I can only comment on the what has been decided upon by the Magesterium or declared ex Cathedra.
lol. Well, which is it? Do RCs agree on their theology and rely on "what has been decided upon by the magisterium" or do they "examine their own conscience and provide his own reasons?"
Do you not see the blatant contradiction here?
"Brain-washed robots" seldom do. (Not sure who originally wrote that nifty phrase, but since you put it in quotation marks, I figured I'd better, too. Just to be safe.)
(I'm also hoping you noticed the use of the quotation marks throughout my comment. Using them means someone other than me made those statements. Try it. You'll get the hang of it.)
Any future misrepresentation of these facts by you a liar because you will have known better and have chosen to willfully distort it for some unholy:
Did you drop a verb in that sentence? Regardless, it's against the rules of the FR FR to call someone "a liar."
God willing, your apology will be forthcoming.
I have repeatedly commented that I find the term RC offensive.
No, you haven't. Not in a long, long time.
Are two people posting under the name "Natural Law?"
Regardless here, too, the shorthand of "RC" and "RCC" has not been declared "offensive" by your magisterium, and therefore my conscience will continue to permit me to use the terms.
(Note the quotation marks.)
Interesting? Yes, but the author seems lost in the wilderness of speculation.
No pope has. JPII may have stated his personal opinion, but the office of the pope has not declared. For one who claims to know all things Catholic you never miss an opportunity to parade your ignorance.
Further, "co-redeemer" doesn't mean what you so fallaciously claim it does. Mary did indeed participate in the Redemption of mankind through her willing participation in the birth and life of Jesus. That is an irrefutable stare decisis fact and not open for debate. No amount of anti-Catholic hysteria, chest thumping, badgering, threatening, warnings, or word games is going to change that or the Catholic belief in that. Get over it or get used to it. (note: stare decisis is a legal common term and not in need of translation).
"Regardless, it's very bad form to make it appear that whole paragraphs are your own writing when someone else actually wrote them."
I clearly introduced that as the Church's position. I didn't claim to author it. I am not responsible for the conclusions you jump to.
" Regardless, it's against the rules of the FR FR to call someone "a liar.""
I didn't call you one, I merely stated the conditions that would confirm you as one. You have the ability to prevent that, if you choose or assume the mantle by your own actions. A liar is as a liar does.
"Are two people posting under the name "Natural Law?"
Why don't you ask the mod, you seem to have privy to a lot of information not available to the average garden variety Freeper. Better yet, why don't you just read the minds of the committee you perceive to be Natural Law.
By using the term" "Mother of God" for Mary, a created being, the RCC gives the false impression that Mary preceded Christ which is insanity because the Triune God has no beginning and no ending.
"Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?" -- 1 Corinthians 1:13
The RCC would make it appear that Mary suffered and died for us by calling her a "mediator" which is a singular office held by Christ alone.
That Rome has now taken this blasphemy and made it even more intolerable by calling Mary a "co-redeemer" simply reveals the depth of depravity to which this church has sunk.
this is exactly what the Catholic Church teaches (though I'm not Catholic):
Well, now, you could have fooled me.
Were you ever Roman Catholic? What church do you belong to?
INDEED.
Your time might be better spent correcting them than me.
I clearly introduced that as the Church's position.
No, you didn't You did not use quotation marks. Anyone reading that would be led to believe those words were yours.
Deception seldom ends well.
A liar is as a liar does.
So very true. And a liar, as we all know, posts other people's writings as their own and fails to use quotation marks to note that fact.
Why don't you ask the mod, you seem to have privy to a lot of information not available to the average garden variety Freeper.
The only "information" I'm "privy to" are the rules found on the Religion Moderator's homepage. Perhaps you're unfamiliar with them. Why not spend some time reading them and trying to abide by them? They are actually very workable, even-handed rules that benefit us as Christians and as debaters.
Better yet, why don't you just read the minds of the committee you perceive to be Natural Law
I don't have to read anyone's mind. I can read the posts and see a stark contrast between some of "Natural Law's" posts.
A lot of us can.
Lots.
And it's not pretty.
INDEED.
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.