Posted on 08/16/2023 6:39:10 AM PDT by zucchini bob
(2 Peter 1:20) Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. (Isaiah 28:10) For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little: (Isaiah 28:13) But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.
I love how Jesus appeals to tradition.
On the contrary, it certainly has in the past and it is part of the Catechism of the Catholic church.
Now, before we get too far into the weeds here, let me quote the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 846-48, which—as is so often the case no matter the doctrine with the CCC—presents this teaching clearly and to the point under the heading:
“Outside the Church there is no Salvation.”
You didn’t read the Catechism correctly.
And had you started reading at chapter 811- rather than 846 you would not have replied in the way you did.
But absolutely, the Church teaches the Church IS necessary for Salvation
(Thank You Jesus !)-
but being necessary DOES NOT MEAN the Church itself is the essence of that Salvation ONLY in Christ.
So just you misunderstand what that means- that the Church is the vehicle, the Body- It is THROUGH His Church we are Saved by Grace-
NOT BY or FROM the Church.
Even you believe that, even if you cant allow yourself to realize it.
20 The Jews then said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?”
21 But he spoke of the temple of his body.
22 When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this;
and they believed the scripture and the word which Jesus had spoke.
. The Body of Christ is the New Temple. (Think Jewish context back then.)
Our Church he left us, IS the Body of Christ – and YES- outside the Body of Christ there is no Salvation. How could there be?
(However its not an absolute as we do not bind the hands of God- and God does what God wants.)
But for 2000 years- Catholics- Eastern Orthodox- the Christian community- beginning with the earliest Chuch fathers (BEFORE Constantine even!) have held to that idea- what is true today as Mark wrote in Chap. 16 that says:
He said to them, "Go into the whole world and proclaim the gospel to every creature. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned.
So as the Catechism rightly points out, It is the responsibility of the Church to Proclaim the Gospel and Baptize those who wish for Salvation. Those who don’t believe in the Gospel- and see no need for a Baptism of initiation into Christ- are gonna have a problem.
Its THROUGH THE CHURCH people can come to Christ- and be saved
– and NOT BY the Church.
Yes, there is much confusion about this doctrine-
Many Catholics misunderstand this doctrine in a triumphal way- and they are wrong. Yes, schism and denominationalism was not part of the plan for ONE Church- but that does NOT mean ONLY Catholics are saved.
Thats NOT what the Catechism Chapter you cited even means. Please read it over.
You may even disagree with who outside of the Body of Christ- "might be" or could be saved (Ben Shapiro ie.). God does what God wants to do. We humans never can bind God's Mercy.
.
Also very important- bear in mind on this - for 1500 years
THERE WAS ONLY THE ONE visible, holy catholic, and apostolic CHURCH
that people could see as the remnant of Christ.
So of course anyone- who rejected the Gospel and Baptism –
was outside the Church... and would not be saved.
You have to agree with that as well I would hope.
Its difficult to be reminded of that- but if you don’t understand the history,
your just building on sand.
And for Anyone who says- Catholic or otherwise - that a CS Lewis or D. Bonhoeffer -
are condemned because they were not Catholic- and outside the “Catholic” Church
are absolute morons and are abusingthe Christian doctrine that comes to us still today.
Salvation comes ONLY from Christ, through His Church.
It's right there in the Catechism.
That’s why Jesus made sure to promise to build this Church FOR us,
WITH the specific purpose of saving souls in the first place. Genius!
The Church is the community of Faith, Hope and Love, that contains BOTH human AND divine qualities. It's ONLY purpose- the REASON it exists- is to bring people to the saving Grace he offers us.
This cannot be seen... while outside the Church.
Those tired old canards again.
You all Catholics just will not accept the truth we tell you will you, but keep repeating and passing around baseless claims that have been debunked numerous times.
Besides, it's nothing compared to the 1.2 billion individual interpretation of Catholicism held by all those alleged 1.2 billion Catholics.
Heck, you all can't even agree with your church leadership that the pope is valid as he was elected according to official Catholic protocol.
By rejecting the authority of your church, you have effectively ex-communicated yourselves.
—> But absolutely, the Church teaches the Church IS necessary for Salvation
No church is required for salvation.
Mark 16:16 (TCENB): “This is a verse that some people believe teaches the necessity of water baptism for salvation. However, Christian baptism elsewhere in the New Testament is always defined by an outward confession of belief in Jesus Christ. This verse also regards baptism as such. The second part of the verse clearly teaches that unbelief alone results in condemnation (cf. 9:43–48), not belief and failure to undergo baptism.”
—> for 1500 years THERE WAS ONLY THE ONE visible, holy catholic, and apostolic CHURCH that people could see as the remnant of Christ
There was no Roman church as it existed after it bolted pagan practices into the church, and modeled itself administratively after the Roman Empire.
But God has always had His church of true believers - before Rome, during Rome’s domination, and after Rome’s monopoly was broken by a restoration of the Gospel.
Yes, Rome’s evil leaders slaughtered true believers every time they emerged - including their martyrdom of women and babies - but God used their blood to further His Gospel of Grace.
Ah the so called “secret church” that is hidden under a basket for 1500 years until Mad Marty had his revolution.
That is just stupid.
There is no historical evidence for this claim whatsoever.
It’s a method Protestants use to justify their rebellion against the church that has existed from the beginning.
Come back to the Church Jesus started, not Mad Marty.
All nations will call her blessed.
Except for Protestants who just think of her as a walking uterus.
Going to be interesting when you talk to Jesus about what you’ve said about his mom.
—> Ah the so called “secret church” that is hidden under a basket for 1500 years until Mad Marty had his revolution.
If it was “secret”, Rome couldn’t have slaughtered the believers who comprised it.
If it was secret, you wouldn’t see their names recorded in scripture.
—> There is no historical evidence for this claim whatsoever.
Just gave you two pieces of evidence.
—> Come back to the Church Jesus started
I am a member of the only church He started, and have been since the moment I came to saving faith.
—> All nations will call her blessed.
Scripture says Mary was “blessed among women.”
It never says she is blessed over women.
—> Going to be interesting when you talk to Jesus about what you’ve said about his mom.
It will be interesting to see you explain why you made her into a demigoddess and idol..,
You would think the story of the Golden calf would have been enough - or the Apostle’s words, “little children, keep yourselves from idols.”
—.> All nations will call her blessed.
I don’t remember a passage in Scripture saying that of Mary… would you post it please?
It was said of Israel in Malachi 3:12…
But you make an interesting point on deriving Concept-(ions) from Scripture, to the point of removing a personal doubt.
I’m curious why you would except the Trinity concept the Church has hammered out-
but refuse to ignore the very obvious scriptural typology pointing to The Blessed Virgin Mary being the Ark of the Covenant then?
There are multiple scriptural points that align perfectly with the Blessed Virgin as the NEW Ark of the Covenant.
Now I understand you can write that off as literary, scriptural convention… but where does that process end, when interpreting scripture?
How do you choose to accept, or deny,
what is produced by this fundamentally extra-Biblical interpretive process to begin with?
Who decides?
Or do we just invent another Bible Translation?
The problem you all Catholics have is that the concept of the perpetual virginity of Mary, along with the Immaculate Conception, is that neither are even alluded to in any way in Scripture. It is an extra Biblical man inspired fabrication about her that has no bearing on Jesus, His divinity, His atoning death, or our salvation.
Well, speaking solely for this sinful Catholic- yes, I do have a lot of problems. But the Imaculate Concept –ion… or perpetual virginity aint two of them. The issue is that we look at it differently. The idea that Gabriel went looking for a corrupt sinful Jewish girl to have Christ impregnated in her, so he can bring about Salvation to the world is Sunday School stuff. If your need is to accept that then that’s just fine. A deeper theology can’t abide with that simplistic understanding.
Kecharitomene.
A deep dive into the Greek (which I cannot do) which has been done by scholars on this word in Luke, as the Angel addresses The Full of Grace Nature, of the Virgin Mary. Push back all you want, and must, but BEFORE Mary is told she will conceive- she is told she is Full of Grace!- and actually even more – She's being told Who she IS, Her name !
So when did this happen?
At what age did she, as others in the Bible, became full of Grace?
We have to say, we don’t know… and since we don’t know…
we very well can’t say though…
“We don’t know how this happened, but it certainly couldn't have happened upon Mary’s concept- tion.”
That's a guess.
But Not for those who believe she was Given the Grace of God
to protect her from the stain of sin from her beginning.
The root Greek verb used here, charitoo is also used to describe Christ full of Grace in John 1:14- and Stephen in Acts the same way before he is killed.
The commonality of the usage of this verb, in scripture,
is to be “sanctified with Grace”.
So we can know, from the Bible,
Mary has been given the Gift of Grace.
And to be FULL of Grace means that there is no room for sin.
Hopefully you can agree with that-
as that is the same way Christ is described in John 1:14.
Now Luke, he uses the "Kecharitome" word- a one-off word ! - >br>Found NO WHERE ELSE in the Bible-
And ONLY ONCE in the bible as this title being given to Mary-
not as a verb or adjective… but as noun.
(You thought HandMaid of the Lord was something…)
Gabriel addresses Mary in this very specific way...
(And not just Hello Mary !)
HAIL Kecharitomene !
Her title it would seem,
as Gabriel announces, is - “ THE One full of Grace”
She is full of Grace- and was from the beginning of time when Christ chose her to be his Mother.
Why would God choose a corrupt, sinful woman to bring him into this world
- if he didnt have to?
And Mary was no average Jewish girl picked out of a line…
She was prepared from the beginning to be a pure vessel –
give the gift of being Full of Grace from her beginning.
Its all there in Scripture- in the Greek –
and I am saying to you if you can find a way to glean the Trinitarian formula out of scripture-
which you DO believe in- though NOT universally agreed on as shown-
you should try to extend some consistency here as well.
How can anyone deny that God had a special purpose for Mary-
for this one woman-
A woman God promised to keep and protect the Woman,
from the sinful, staining enmity of the Devil-
to have the Prophets speak of her as royalty
and to then still, NOT make for this Holy Virgin- the Purest Mother ever born?
Why, you say because All… “ALL have sinned, and fallen short”?
That's the sum total of a rebuttal...?
Well, ALL would have to include Jesus then- no exceptions...
Well, Jesus didn’t sin, so not All have sinned.
So much for All.
Literal Greek rendering of the announcement by Gabriel.
Luke 1:26–33 (WUESTNT):
“And having come to her, he said, Be rejoicing because you have been encompassed with favor. The Lord is with you.”
No capitalization. No title.
And this for our edification…
Luke 1:28 (TCENB):
“The fact that Gabriel’s greeting was customary: Greetings! (Gr. chaire, or Hail!). Mary was highly favored (Gr. kecharitomene) because God chose to bestow special grace (favor, Gr. charis) on her (cf. Eph. 1:6, the only other New Testament occurrence of kecharitomene).”
“She would be the mother of the Messiah, which was an honor that most Jewish mothers prayed would be theirs. God gave this honor to Mary without any special merit of her own (cf. v. 47). Roman Catholic commentators dispute this point, but competent scholars have refuted their arguments.”
—> And to Thank her for Praying for me - NOW, at the Hour of My Death.
Which is an assumption never in Scripture.
Totally made up.
—> And thank Jesus of course, for giving US sinners,
His Mother to Behold, From His Cross.
Which he did not - He spoke and gave Mary to the Apostle John.
John writes, “so when Jesus saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He said to His mother, ‘Woman, behold, your son!’ Then He said to the disciple, ‘Behold, your mother!’ And from that hour the disciple took her into his own household”
The rest was made up to support the role of Mary as a demigoddess.
That word Luke use was a ONE TIME special deal... To Address Mary
The word is being used as a TITLE.
Gabriel did NOT say, “Hail Mary, you are kecharitomene”
but simply- in an identifying manner...
“Hail kecharitomene.”
It's not a hello verse that describes an action ...
but rather a way to describe her new IDENTITY.
So you need to rely on modern day translations that suit your belief.
smh...
The NT is replete with churches only ONE of which was at Rome.
This business about Rome being the OTC, over all is complete balderdash.
As does EVEryONE who reads Scripture or the Catechism.
There is no way to avoid someone's own personal interpretation of any of it.
Even if you agree with it wholly and accept what others have decreed for you, then you have decided, made a judgment, that they are correct and so adopted it as your own.
I already posted the Greek about the use of the word blessed in regard to Mary and how it is also applied to ALL believers.
Not only that, if Jesus could not have been born of a corrupt, sinful woman, what about Mary? How could, or why would God do that for her but not Jesus? It makes no sense that God could not have done for Jesus what you all claim He did for Mary.
And again, Jesus is not so fragile that He could not have handled being gestated for nine months in a normal, and sinful, human woman.
If your Jesus can't handle that kind of contact, then you all need a stronger Jesus. Your Jesus doesn't amount to much if He cannot handle sin and exposure to it.
Nobody is denying God has a special purpose for Mary. God has a special purpose for each and every one of us.
But we know better than exalting others above measure and becoming respecters of persons, which is a sin.
And the claims made about Mary, her alleged immaculate conception and perpetual virginity, and her alleged sinlessness, are completely baseless and have NO support from Scripture.
Romans 3:21-25 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it—the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith.
If you take issue with that, talk to the Holy Spirit about it. Tell HIM He screwed up in inspiring Scripture.
Amazing how Catholics will hair split the Greek to justify their doctrines about Mary and yet blow off the Greek when it comes to *petra* and Petros* as being of no significance.
Or ignore the Greek when conflating the use of the word *lord* (kurios) and *god* (theos) when claiming Mary is the mother of God and Elizabeth says *mother of my LORD*.
For honesty and consistency in Scripture interpretation, use one of the other, but employing both depending on which doctrine you want to support is really intellectually dishonest at the very least.
Either the Greek matters, or it does not. It’s just not honest to have it matter when it supports you and not matter when it doesn’t.
—> Wrong.. Charitos is used in EPH 1:6 - NOT Kecharitomene.
…sigh
Luke 1:28–31 (BKC):
“The angel said that Mary was highly favored (kecharitōmenē, a part. related to the noun charis, “grace”; the verb charitoō is used elsewhere in the NT only in Eph. 1:6).”
……
—> The word is being used as a TITLE
Not in Luke or anyone else.
—> “Hail kecharitomene.”
Love how you used an English word, but kept a Greek word to make it appear as a title!
I already posted the literal Greek translation.
The angel greeted Mary . “Hail, graced-one”
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.