Posted on 09/02/2011 9:07:47 AM PDT by marshmallow
That was not the doctrine which I was referring too. This is deflection upon your part Cronos. Either answer my question or admit that you have been caught twisting the truth for your own gain.
I answered your question — you asked for false doctrine, here is Jesse’s —> do you agree with it or not?
So where they sing in heaven:
(Revelation 5:10) -- And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.
We could reasonably interpret it thus:
And hast made us unto our God kings and something as useful as tits on a boar hog: ...
Well you all DO read the Bible in a novel way!
What was your old screen name?
I haven’t attacked (nor have I studied) those other guys. SO I can’t evaluate what you’re saying.
Which one(s)? Where does it state a few verses later that we intercede on behalf of other people in order to provide forgiveness?
I do see verse 8: "I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling;"
I don't see anything there regarding intercession. When we pray FOR others, we are praying to The Heavenly Father for the person in question. No other "saint" need be prayed to for the simple reason that we have access to God Almighty through His Son.
When I say "intercede" that's what I'm talking about -- the intercession that is provided ONLY by God's Son, Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior.
No man, no priest, no thing EVER intercedes for us in that way. And sadly, that same type of intercession is taught by the RCC catechism -- there is no co-redeemer / redemptrix, and no co-mediator / mediatrix. Only Christ.
Maybe we're arguing around the same tree but going different directions; maybe we're using different definitions for intercessor... but hopefully what I've stated above clarifies what I'm saying.
As to faulty vs. badly expressed teaching by the RCC? To me, both apply.
Hoss
However, since they worship at the altar of prideful interpretation which they change at a moments notice,it can be difficult to ascertain their belief of the day which like the weather is in a constant state of flux.
The "who" is all believers -- not a caste of "Priests" in vestments.... although, they too could be saved according to God's will. I would think they would come out of the RCC and repent of the error of their ways, though....
Seems to me this verse says we will all be made priests and kings....
There is only one High Priest...Christ.
Hoss
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
In other words, if you want to take cheap shots, do your homework first. The phrase you want is the "assumption, NOT the "ascension" which is theologically a very different thing.
Also, I have already dealt with the matter of the intercession of the saints (including you and me.) The chapter of Timothy which speaks on the one mediator starts with an statement that we all should mediate and intercede. And Paul's discussion of our being 'in Christ' suffices to show that neither we nor Mary are intercessors or mediators on our own but because we are "in Christ."
The way it SOUNDS (or READS) is a problem . But it arises from our reading texts not originally written in English. And since the modern notion of "dynamic equivalence" just can't apply to technical works, what you're reading is almost a kind of learned creole or a pidgin.
My fave example is "consolation", which in its Latin form (consolatio) has been a big part of our thought for at least 1,000 years.
In English it sounds all icky and weak tea. I had to read some other texts and check some dictionaries before I realized it meant something like "strengthening".
By using words with those Latin roots, though, we end up making it easier for Catholic scholars all over the world. If we were writing for an strictly English audience (but I think we're always aware that we're a world-wide body) we might do better to use "strengthen", but it would complicate things.
After all, jargons evolve because they are useful; they serve a purpose.
And frankly, it takes somebody for whom communication is a pre-occupation to point out how icky some of these things sound.
It's exacerbated by there being two ghettos. There's the academic ghetto and there's the legacy, still powerful, of the Catholic neighborhoods in the US. The school, the culture was all "Catholic" so lifelong Catholics use "consolation" because they remember Sr. Mary Sadistica using it in kindergarten prayers AND mother and father using it at home.
And then I use all the Scholastic stuff -- Quaeritur, Utinam, Videtur, Sed Contra, Respondeo -- because I think Aquinas is cool and I enjoy it. (I do try to explain it every once in a while, though.)
And there's the "tribal identification" factor, to be sure.
Apologists and evangelists need to free themselves from the jargon. But it's no small matter. It's like when a Charismatic says "a blessing". There's a whole host of meaning and thought and even a kind of systematic thing lying behind that one word.
Personally, I think a good satire, BY a learned Catholic, of Catholic theological and spiritual jargon would be a big help. "How to talk Catholic."
Cronos —
It would be better if you showed the correct reply that Quix made — the reply you use is a reply Quix made to one of MY statements (note the reply to indicates my post number 1037) — yet your use of it seems to indicate that reply was to something else.
MInd clarifying? I’m confused.
Hoss
Are you deliberately being obtuse?
Have you even read all the posts?
Do you even care what is actually written?
I began with Scripture and related my understanding of the doctrine in my own words.
The catechism was brought into the discussion by someone else, who used only a portion of the relative entry to try to sensationalize what he was saying.
I merely offered the complete entry to rebut him, not to support what I have been saying.
This type of debate is childish. Respond to reality and not the strawman you set up to knock down to chalk up points with your cohorts.
And then it would be the teachers who would provide the hermeneutic.
Yep it is. I used the wrong word. Oops. And it was bodily right? Ok, so we agree she was “assumed” into heaven but she didn’t ascend. Was it a lateral assumption then? Oy!
NOW, are you going to hide behind that splitting of hairs to attempt to escape showing the scripture to show “proof” that your “teachers” rely and refer to scripture for their “teaching”?
>>The chapter of Timothy which speaks on the one mediator starts with an statement that we all should mediate and intercede.<<
I think you need to go back and read my post again. I specifically stated that the directive to pray for one another was for the living. I asked you to show the scripture where we are directed to pray to those who have passed on. Dodging doesn’t do you case much good.
Do Catholics need to believe that the Pope is infallible to enter heaven?
Do Protestants need to believe either one to enter heaven?
First, let me remind you that it is not permitted to call another freeper a liar.
Second, you are going to have to demonstrate that you can play by your own rules before you demand that I do. Cite for me "chapter and verse" that 100% of the Revealed Word of God is to be found exclusively in the Bible. As I have stated many times I do not ascribe to that man-made 16th century heretical construct of Sola Scriptura and will not do so until it can be Scriupturally established.
The term "co-redemptrix" is properly translated as "the woman with the redeemer". The prefix "co" comes from the Latin term "cum" which means "with" and not "equal to." Co-redemptrix, as applied to Mary refers, to her exceptional cooperation with and under her son Jesus, in the redemption of the human family.
The Catholic Church uses the term co-redemptrix to expresses Mary's active and unique participation in the activity of redemption accomplished by Jesus and is recognized as being radically dependent upon and subordinate to the redemptive action of Jesus.
Wow.There's a lot here, but I'll try.
First, a conclusion can be reasonably drawn even if it is not supported by explicit articulation in one or two verses. It is not a Scriptural standard but part of an extra Scriptural tradition to insist on 'Chapter and verse' to support a doctrine.
Second, it seems to me that IF one considers what Paul says about the Spirit in the believer and the believer in Christ, and the number of times that he says something like, "now I," and then it's almost as if he catches himself, as he says something like,"yet not I but Christ lives in me,"or not I but Christ working in me," then one can devlope the thought that by dying in Christ and being raised in Him, the Christian now operates in Christ, (or Christ's life operates in Him) and he (or Christ in him) carries out Christ's work.
To say it another way, it is a fruit of the astonishing redemption wrought by Christ, a redemption far greater than we could have imagined, that he now shares his life, himself, and his work with the saints.
To use a piece of dispensationalist jargon, I think one should "rightly divide" lie from falsehood.
All right. Then I’m sure you can give the scripture that backs up the RCC contention that Mary was “bodily assumed” into heaven and the contention that prayer to dead saints has scripture to back it up. Surely that’s not something you rely on RCC doctrine rather then something backed up by scripture.
You can post the scripture and relate “in your own words” how the scripture proves the RCC doctrine.
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.