Posted on 04/20/2016 7:27:09 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o
You are perhaps breaking this off, somehow, from the fact that we are a part of the salvation of everyone else in the Mystical Body of Christ, having a share in His ctivity and His work as His limbs, organs and senses, sharing and circulating all our spiritual gifts, through Christ our Head and through His grace only. We participate in one anothers' salvation precisely because we are one in Christ.
One in Christ. Everything with Him. Everything in Him. Everything through Him. Nothing apart from Him.
We are even partakers in His divine nature. Did you know that?
Not presently due to the reliance on mary and the catholic belief in the apparitions and their claims.
However, if that is the case do you publicly renounce the claims of the apparitions? : 5. The soul which recommends itself to me by the recitation of the Rosary shall not perish which is in contradiction of John 14:6 and the NT in general.
Will you publicly renounce the claim that "mary" is co-redemtrix, mediatrix and advocate in light of their contraction of Scripture which teaches we have One Redeemer who is Christ, One Mediator who is Christ and an Advocate in Christ and the Holy Spirt?
If you are unwilling to do so you are affirming these teachings and beliefs of the roman catholic church. The roman catholic beliefs are in contradiction to the Word which clearly states that it is only through faith in Christ do we have salvation.
You know that, right?
Catholics believe through Mary to Christ.
The apparitions are said to be Mary.
If the apparitions are Mary why don't catholics do what she says?
When this issue is raised catholics run to the private revelation excuse every time.
However, I notice you did not address the titles ascribed to Mary.
Those are official positions of roman catholicism.
Good question.
Whether the flood in Genesis 7:7 (easy to remember that number) is fact and happened? I hope so. If yes, then God’s message is loud and clear. If not, then the message of the rainbow still stands.
I accept St. Peter’s interpretation of the message. “This water symbolizes baptism that now saves you” (I Pt 3:21).
Noah’s water is possible.
Baptism’s water is necessary.
Keep up the good work.
The ark is JESUS, not the church.
Jesus said *I am the way the truth, the life. No man comes to the Father but through me.*
I’ve known you long enough, ealgeone, to say that I and other Catholics have addressed your concerns in patient detail many times, and if you’re reading what’s addressed to you, you’ve read all this already. There seems to be a comprehension disconnect.
We can both probably use our time more productively elsewhere.
If this doesn’t satisfy you, you can go to Google and google “Mrs Don-o” and any title or doctrine concerning Mary you care to name, and it’ll come right up. Happy reading.
The tagline bears frequent thought.
I think you're going somewhere untenable, metmom. It doesn't even make sense in Protestant terms.
Not sure what you're referencing, but Mrs. Don-O is correct in stating that "Mary apparitions" are private revelation, and as such, have no doctrinal authority. Zero.
Now if the "Mary apparition" you're talking about is approved by the church, that means that the churchmen who examined it think there's an orthodox way to understand what (is claimed to have been) said. There may be heterodox ways also, but that's not how the church understands them.
If it's not an approved apparition, you're on your own. There's no guarantee that the "apparition" isn't teaching grave heresy.
Speaking of grave heresy, there's no room in the NT for the kind of "Jesus and me" non-ecclesial ecclesiology you're teaching. Jesus saved his *church*, his *flock*, or he would never have called himself a *shepherd*, much less "the good shepherd".
Besides which, saying that there's "no room for mary [sic] or anyone else regarding salvation" means that the Incarnation had nothing to do with salvation, which is as contrary to Christianity as you can possibly get.
We have no NT examples of Jesus, or any of the writers, saying we must first come to mary and then we can come to Jesus.
Nobody used the word "must" in this context except you. "Can" or "should," but not "must".
Why is the story of the wedding feast at Cana in the Bible at all? John says everything in his gospel is there "that you may have life in [Jesus'] name," so that means the original example of Marian intercession is there for that reason as well. Does your church ever preach on John chapter 2?
The wedding feast is about the beginning of His ministry. It’s not about Mary as catholics like to illustrate. Her name is not even mentioned. It’s all about Him.
This comment proves to me your disingenuity. Mary's "name" was not mentioned, but "Jesus' mother" was mentioned.
Catholics shouldn't even bother responding to you. I should have never posted to you in this thread. Catholics need to shake the dust off their feet as Christ taught his disciples to do when others do not listen to them.
Catholic mary is co-redemtrix, mediatrix or advocate.
The soul which recommends itself to me by the recitation of the Rosary shall not perish.
I find that generally when there is shallow comprehension about Mary, thee is shallow comprehension about the Incarnation.
Some FReepers have even gone so far as to suppose that Mary served as God's birthgiver unwillingly --- she was supposedly, and they will say this explicitly, taken against her will --- and even that she was just a kind of surrogate-mother, an incubator who had nothing whatever to do with the providence of Christ's human nature. And they'll say that this had nothing to do with "covenants" (as if every covenant in the OT did not point to this!!) and that she was just an instrument in the most dehumanized manner imaginable: she was unfortunately flesh, so God had to unfortunately get onboard her uterus, but don't take it personally!
Not all, or even most, of our polemical friends take this attitude, thanks be to God; but some do. Not mentioning names, because I sure don't want to ping them into this discussion, which would be a near occasion of sin for us all.
As I noted to Mrs Don-o:
Catholicism has dogmas about Mary; the immaculate conception; perpetual virginity though none can be supported by Scripture.
Catholicism prays to Mary which is not sanctioned by Scripture.
Catholicism has tons of writings on Mary.
Catholicism has titles for Mary of co-redemtrix, mediatrix, advocate which are not supported by Scripture.
Catholics believe Mary influenced the Battle of Lepanto.
Pius V instituted "Our Lady of Victory" as an annual feast to commemorate the victory which he attributed to the Blessed Virgin Mary. This sure sounds like an endorsemetn of acceptance by Catholicism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_the_Rosary#Feast_day
This apparition is the same one who appeared at Fatima and the same at Guadalupe. The latter asked for a shrine to be built in her honor.
The Bishop of Leiria-Fatima noted the visions of Fatima were officially declared "worthy of belief" in October 1930. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_F%C3%A1tima#Official_position_of_the_Catholic_Church
Yet, when an apparition shows us claiming to be Mary, which has to be the same Mary as noted above based on Pius's endorsement through the feast, and says things that make catholics uncomfortable such as: "5.The soul which recommends itself to me by the recitation of the rosary shall not perish. or 11.You shall obtain all you ask of me by the recitation of the rosary, it becomes a take it or leave it proposition.
If the catholic really believes the apparitions are Mary why does the catholic not believe what the apparitions claim?
It sure seems like catholics want it both ways.
When someone is in Jesus, they become part of His body.
His body is not a religious organization people join that they can join without being in Him.
On the contrary, Jesus saves individuals, not groups.
1 Corinthians 12:27 Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it.
The seven churches in Revelation were a mixed group of believers and unbelievers. There are always going to be wolves in a group calling itself a church.
The body of Christ transcends denominational affiliation.
Yet when non-Catholics appeal to *private revelation*, well.... you know the routine.
Even a broken calendar is right once per year.
Are you saying there are other ways to Heaven other than Christ alone??
As I said, this has all been explained multiple times in the FR Religion Forum in detail. Google “Mrs Don-o” and you can cut-and-paste my answers to your cut-and-paste objections. Save us both some time.
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.