Posted on 12/17/2010 7:31:07 AM PST by marshmallow
Christ himself commanded that we pray for one another. So I really don’t see why you have an issue with Mary praying for us.
“Catholic attitude toasted God is that somehow God is just too busy to hear our prayers.”
Has anyone here besides you expressed this? No. Hardly.
“if only a more holy person than ourselves could mediate between us and God”
Mediators are not the same as intercessors. Intercessors are those who pray to God for us. They intercede.
“this would be more effective in getting our prayers heard than if we ask Jesus to be our mediator.”
Well now I have to ask you, do you sincerely believe that prayer is effective? If so, then why is it a bad thing for people to pray together on something?
“So the Roman Catholic Church hasn’t said it’s a PLACE that you go?? That is defined.”
You seem awfully sure. Where in Canon law does it back up what you just said?
You might as well deny that Heaven is a ‘real’ place at least in the sense that we understand ‘real’ places to be.
Where is heaven? I don’t see that anywhere in scripture.
Would it matter if it were biblical evidence? I’ve been presenting nothing else but, and I don’t see you taking biblical evidence into consideration.
Great. Notice you aren’t getting crossfire.
Who is he that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us. (Romans 8:34)
You say “He’s fully Man and fully God” yet you say He was not fully man because He did not carry our sinful side. Double speak?
He had to be born of sinful man (Mary) in order to inherit (carry) the sins of Adam. Our minds cannot comprehend totally how that worked but it must have for our salvation to be possible.
So you deny that Peter was the first Pope and granted an office by Christ himself?
Your issue is with scripture, not history.
As for Catholicism in England, yes you are correct that for a time, maybe a hundred years or so, there wasn’t much contact, but both before and after, they did. Why do you think the Pope sent missions out that way? And how do you think Christianity got there in the first place? Why do you think they were writing to the Empire to get help defending themselves?
If I go back to the sources, why don’t I see the term ‘biblicist’ from any of the Church Fathers? That’s the hallmark of revisionism, imposition of modern terms on ancient times.
You’ve just denied that Christ was sinless.
Are you arguing that man was created to be sinful? Wow. That denies everything in Genesis which says precisely the opposite. Adam was cursed by God. To be fully Man this curse must be lifted, which is why Christ did not bear original sin and was free of the taint of sin.
Would you kneel before a statue of me, put your hands in prayer position, assume a worshipful attitude and then ask me, through my graven image to intercede for you before God?
“regardless of what SOME fine print in the Catechism says.”
So you acknowledge you are wrong about what the Church teaches. Excellent.
The Catechism doesn’t write those letters any finer than any others.
Do you believe that we are permitted to create images of God?
Well I’m not sure. Somewhere in that whole address of the Angel where they say, “all generations will call you blessed.”
I don’t see *that* said about anyone else in the bible other than Christ.
The miracle of the incarnation is that God took upon himself, all the frailties of man, that he literally entered his creation at a time and place of his choosing, by being born, just as any of us. That he spent nine months in his mothers womb, was raised by Mary and Joseph, and that he would go on to minister publicly to the Jews to call them to repent.
That he would suffer, and die, all to expiate our sins. To be the perfect man for which our blood debt could finally be paid.
Why do you believe that loving Mary somehow detracts from Christ? You seem to believe that if Christ were the one who uplifted Mary, that acknowledging the blessings he bestowed upon her, somehow deminishes Christ himself.
“So when a Catholic dies, his soul lays unconscious in the ground until the judgment?”
There’s two Final Judgements. One is for those who die now. They will see Christ and be judged.
The second will come after the time of tribulation, when the world ends and Christ returns to Earth.
So depending on which you refer to, depends on the answer to your question. Purgatory is the cleansing of those who are already saved prior to entering heaven. So it would occur, after Christ judges a person, and determines whether or not they will suffer Hell or rejoice in heaven.
“It’s like you might attend a wedding wearing dirty old rags...You are not rejected or sent off because you look so poorly...Your clothes are ripped off of you and burned and you are given a new suit of white linen...Right on the spot”
The scripture actually says that the one who’s works are burnt that they will still be saved, but only as one escaping through the fire. Fire burns. Fire hurts. To escape through the fire means that you yourself will be burnt by the flames before you reach through the other side. Burnt and purified.
“Jesus in the flesh, died...Would there be no death in the flesh had the flesh been sinless??? Perhaps you could ask Adam.”
You are quite right that we are immortal without sin. However, Christ died, not because of HIS actions, but because he was crucified and chose to die. Had Christ chosen not to die, he would not have died. This is bad theology.
“There is no reason to think that God could not be born into a body that was subject to Adam’s original sin and yet still be sinless.”
That’s two PROTESTANTS who have denied that Christ was sinless. Wow. This is bad. This is really basic Christology. Christ was born without sin. Wholly and completely, without original sin.
“Because I am subject to original sin, I am tempted to sin, I feel pain, I get old or sick and die...Or someone runs a spear thru me...But yet, I still live...I will be resurrected with a new, glorified body.”
Yes, but with Christ he could still die, for the flesh is not immune to privation. But the Curse of Adam was not upon him. That much we know.
“Was Jesus body void of original sin or was Jesus said to have committed no sin???”
Not either or question. Adam, without original sin, fell and was tempted by evil to disobey God. Christ, without original sin, succeeded and redeemed the race of Man, where Adam fell.
That he was without original sin does not make Christ immune to sin, for if this were so, then Adam himself would not have fallen. Sin is ultimately through the will, and Christ, though he suffered from the privations of hunger, and thirst, did not fall to the temptations offered by Satan.
1Pe 2:22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:
Not quite: Heaven and He’ll are both real because they are named and described in Scripture. Jesus spoke of both, did he not? Would you not assert the existence of Heaven and He’ll when God himself said they exist? Would you not agree that God himself trumps “Canon Law”?
I don’t need Canon Law be because God himself defined/described Heaven in his Word.
Don’t you believe in the Bible??
Hoss
Funny how Protestants deny God’s ultimate sovereignty be subject to themselves. Interesting.
You’d rather deny that Christ was sinless than confess that Mary was sinless.
So where is it? If it’s a place and as well-defined as you say it is, where is heaven in the grand scheme of things?
Sorry — Hell —
Auto correct on the iPhone snuck in on me. :)
Hoss
So why then did Christ establish a Church to spread the Word if we are expected to get by solely on our own interpretation?
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.