The Neverending Story (The New Christian Chronicles)

Southern Baptists ending talks with Catholic Church ^ | 3/24/01 | AP

[malakhi]

The Neverending Story
An ongoing debate on Scripture, Tradition, History and Interpretation.

Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams

Thread 162
TNS Archives

[SoothingDave]

Mary being made free from OS is not why Jesus is God. Rather Jesus being God is why Mary was made free from OS. To be a worthy resting place for God himself.

If God could simply nullify Mary's ability to sin, there would be no need for Jesus - ever.

Who said anything about God nullifying Mary's ability to sin? She was born without Original Sin, but that doesn't make sin impossible. Or Adam and Eve never would have sinned. One day I wish you would drop your insufferable attitude and actually listen.

You have no idea what you are saying - do you?! Blasphemy. Pure and simple Blasphemy. God CHOSE Mary because she had kept herself free from sin and lived righteously. God didn't break his own laws and transgress Mary's rights or those of the Devil in order to bring Christ into the world.

First you tell God what He can not do (nullify Mary's ability to sin) then you speak of the "rights" of the Devil. Wrong has no rights.

God prepared Mary for her role, but He did not remove her free will. She had no Original Sin, but she was still free to sin personally. Which she did not. Though I am sure that she had God's help in avoiding sin in her life.

Honestly, man. If we said that Mary avoided sin all on her own, which you seem to be saying, then there would be no need for a Savior and you would rip me for that.

If we say that Mary needed special assistance from God to remain sinless you rip us for saying God violated the devil's "rights" and turned Mary into a slave.

There's no pleasing some people who are already pleased with themselves.

SD

[SoothingDave]

If I give you a million dollars to give away for me, does that make you "rich"?

Vat II isn't saying that Mary was given a million to give away. They're saying that she co-owned the million - which is utter garbage; but, such is what we've come to expect from the Vatican.

Wah wah wah.

Now from this common sharing of will and suffering between Christ and Mary, she `merited to become most worthily the Reparatrix [one who makes amends or atonement] for a lost world,' and therefore, Dispensatrix [one who dispenses] of all the gifts which Jesus gained for us by His death and His blood (Vatican II documents).

Whose gain? Read for comprehension much?

SD

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

this is not the time to be regaled by each others perceived shortcomings.

but these shortcomings are not acceptable to God. any heresy islamic or otherwise is still heresy. all heresy needs to be exposed, wether islamic, protestant, or catholic.

Becky

[Invincibly Ignorant]

There's no pleasing some people who are already pleased with themselves.

I'm sure the Lord is pleased with ya Hav. Hang in there against these type of attacks.

[IMRight]

And IMRight tries to minimize the changes, but it was taught before that meat eating was a sin because it was disobedience to the Church. This is a good teaching and still stands. The required action now is not abstinance from meat, it is to be a personal thing. To willfully disobey the Church is still sinful.

I believe I said as much in my replies on the issue.

[JHavard]

We don't assert she is herself a Cadillac. Only the confused who won't listen to a Catholic for even a second think that.

Now then. Jesus is a Cadillac. Mary is a Chevy truck that carried a Cadillac. Now will you join me in saying Mary is a Cadillac carrier?

Yes, Mary is a Cadillac carrier, and when she had dilivered the Fleetwood, she then dilivered 2 Oldsmobiles, a Buick, a Pontiac, and two Sebrings.Lol

[pipeorganman]

CO-REDEMPTRESS WITH CHRIST. Catholic doctrine about Mary goes far beyond her role in Jesus' birth. It is taught that she shared in His sufferings also, and thereby shared in His work of redemption. We will give this in the words of the Vatican II documents:

"As St. Irenaeus says, she being obedient, became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race. Hence not a few of the early Fathers gladly assert with him in their preaching `death through Eve, life through Mary'. This union of the mother with the Son in the work of salvation is made manifest from the time of Christ's virginal conception up to his death. She cooperated in the work of the Saviour in an altogether singular way to restore supernatural life to souls. As a result, she is our mother in the order of grace. Mary, sharing as she did even on Calvary, had a part even in the once for all acquisition of the great treasury. Now from this common sharing of will and suffering between Christ and Mary, she `merited to become most worthily the Reparatrix [one who makes amends or atonement] for a lost world,' and therefore, Dispensatrix [one who dispenses] of all the gifts which Jesus gained for us by His death and His blood (Vatican II documents).

Sounds pretty DIVINE to me.

Havoc

Vat II isn't saying that Mary was given a million to give away. They're saying that she co-owned the million - which is utter garbage; but, such is what we've come to expect from the Vatican

It is important to realize that the document referred to above was written in Latin, and not English. In the Latin language, the prefix Co means "to co-operate with". It does not mean "equal with" as it generally does in English. Thus the term Co-Redemptrix is understood to mean that Mary co-operated with the Redeemer.

Also, again in Latin, the use of the feminine ending "trix" indicates a status of subordination. So the Latin actually contains a "double-barrelled" meaning that indicates not only one who has co-operated with, but also one who is inferior to the one being co-operated with.

Note the bold area above. St. Ireaneaus accurately expresses the role of Mary in our salvation.

Also note the English title to the paragraph. It also uses the feminine ending of "ess" to denote an inferior status to Mary's role.

Sounds pretty DIVINE to me. No, it in no way indicates divinity, but rather her role in our salvation.

So, yes, Vatican II is saying that Mary was given a million bucks to give away.

[IMRight]

Peace! Apparently neither of us meant what the other thought. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[JHavard]

And IMRight tries to minimize the changes, but it was taught before that meat eating was a sin because it was disobedience to the Church. This is a good teaching and still stands. The required action now is not abstinance from meat, it is to be a personal thing. To willfully disobey the Church is still sinful.

I believe I said as much in my replies on the issue.

NOT

you said P-1693, that my wife could not have been a good catholic and believed she would go to hell.

Also from RobbieS on post #1681, IMRight again on P-1690 and P-1703, read them and see how in agreement you Catholics are.

[cookcounty]

"It is important to realize that the document referred to above was written in Latin, and not English. In the Latin language, the prefix Co means "to co-operate with". It does not mean "equal with" as it generally does in English. Thus the term Co-Redemptrix is understood to mean that Mary co-operated with the Redeemer.

Also, again in Latin, the use of the feminine ending "trix" indicates a status of subordination. So the Latin actually contains a "double-barrelled" meaning that indicates not only one who has co-operated with, but also one who is inferior to the one being co-operated with."

If the Latin transliteration is misleading, then why use "Co-Redemptrix" in english discourse? What value can there be in mis-communicating? Is this about trying to sound erudite?

If all this means is "submission" Why not simply call her "an obedient and key servant of God of extraordinary faith?"

[IMRight]

I responded (I think to you) with a simple question that nobody answered:

If you and a few Christian friends (say your whole church) agreed to observe two days of prayer and fasting (say over the financing of a new church building) and you later decided that you were a tad hungry so you had a cheeseburger... would you not believe that you had sinned?

I thought that made the point that: yes, eating meat on a Friday in Lent IS sinful for a Catholic but no, you don't go to Hell for doing it. Perhaps I should have been more explicit.

Certainly the Church has the authority to order a fast of it's members. And for centuries, we as a body have fasted together during the time of Lent (with variations as has been posted by others) and at certain other times. This is a sacrifice we make as Catholics in rememberance of far greater sacrifices made on our behalf.

My point (poorly made if your response is any indication) is that your wife's understanding was somewhat... unrefined. Catholics recognize that they have fallen short of the ideal (sinned) by not living up to the sacrifice we corporately choose to make.

[Pelayo]

I wonder how that applies to current events. Most specifically: if terrorism is evil and pacifists seek to pacify or make "peace" with evil as opposed to fighting and resisting evil, then is pacifism evil?

Yes, in as much as it is apathy to the problem. Those who really believe the problem can't be solved by war are more justifiable, at lest they believe something.

[JohnnyM]

In response to the sin nature inherited through the father.

It was right in front of my face in Romans from a passage quoted earlier.

Romans 5:12-19
"Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification. For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous."

The one here is Adam. There is no mention of Eve. Adam is the one responsible for bringing in sin and it is from him (the father) where we receive our sin nature.

JM

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

Sounds pretty DIVINE to me. No, it in no way indicates divinity, but rather her role in our salvation.

Mary has NO role in our salvation.

Mary was given salvation for her faith no more.

BigMack

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

Wah wah wah.

Pretty good response from Dave, goes along with his banging his head and heals on the floor. :)

BigMack

[saradippity]

Becky,please note that I was trying to stay on topic. We were originally talking about a Study that you presented. There was a question thrown at posters regarding belief in Satan. I said I was surprised at one of the findings. You hooted and howled and gloated about your prophetic gifts.

SD speaking generally addressed the poor quality of teaching and said he couldn't blame you or others for not having a good understanding of Catholic teaching.

You proceded to yip and crow over his coming to my defense. It seemed that you overlooked the fact that nowhere in it did he support me or try to explain what I might have been doing.Possibly because he didn't even know.

You admitted you hadn't known quite what was said and asked for forgiveness. I said sure but cautioned that I thought we needed to focus on the threat posed by a group,small portion of the whole that it may be,that hated that for which they thought our Western Civilization stood. Since I consider all of the good,beautiful and true in our society a direct result of the fact that Western society is built on the foundation of Christendom. I suggested that all of us needed to be less mean-spirited and petty. I thought that Jesus prayed that we all might be one in the Father. It seems to me this can hardly come to pass if we are going to snipe and belittle one another.

Never daunted you responded that it is someone's duty(yours I assume)to eradicate heresy wherever it existed. Becky,you need to get a better understanding of policy and procedure and practice to use the government vernacular,or elephants and piss-ants to use the street vocabulary,or issues and asides to use more corporate terms,or big pictures and magnified fly specks to use political lingo because when you appear to believe that your comments were intended to combat heresy you lose your effectiveness since clearly you were involved in a discussion about a survey. There isn't any indication in any of the posts referenced that we were discussing anything close to a tenet or belief of our respective churches/Church. We were talking about the veracity and validity of a study done by an agency about the beliefs of Christians. So you were not combatting heresay,you were seeking to denigrate members of the Catholic Church.

[JHavard]

I thought that made the point that: yes, eating meat on a Friday in Lent IS sinful for a Catholic but no, you don't go to Hell for doing it. Perhaps I should have been more explicit.

Frankly, I have the seal of God, that I have eternal life, so going to hell is not an option for me or my wife

Certainly the Church has the authority to order a fast of it's members. And for centuries, we as a body have fasted together during the time of Lent (with variations as has been posted by others) and at certain other times. This is a sacrifice we make as Catholics in rememberance of far greater sacrifices made on our behalf.

You are acting as though the hierarchy came to the people and asked them if they would please fast from meat every Friday for a good cause, and they all said, we'd love to, and you know it didn't happen that way, you had the power to "bind and Loose", and it took you all those years to have mercy on your people, you should be ashamed of your selves, and that was exactly what Jesus meant when he told those who made the law, that put grievous burdens on the people then wouldn't use a finger to lift it off of them.

Lk 11:46 And he said, Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers.

Mt 23:4 For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.

My point (poorly made if your response is any indication) is that your wife's understanding was somewhat... unrefined. Catholics recognize that they have fallen short of the ideal (sinned) by not living up to the sacrifice we corporately choose to make.

Unrefined? Thanks again, it is you who are unrefined, my wife will be your teacher in the kingdom of God if you make it, and if God judges you by your own works standards, you have a lot ahead of you yet.

Watch your chain doesn’t come off your sprocket from back peddling so fast, it seems SD can't leave you guys unattended for a full weekend without you blowing it.

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

Never daunted you responded that it is someone's duty(yours I assume)to eradicate heresy wherever it existed. Becky,you need to get a better understanding of policy and procedure and practice to use the government vernacular,or elephants and piss-ants to use the street vocabulary,or issues and asides to use more corporate terms,or big pictures and magnified fly specks to use political lingo because when you appear to believe that your comments were intended to combat heresy you lose your effectiveness since clearly you were involved in a discussion about a survey. There isn't any indication in any of the posts referenced that we were discussing anything close to a tenet or belief of our respective churches/Church. We were talking about the veracity and validity of a study done by an agency about the beliefs of Christians. So you were not combatting heresay,you were seeking to denigrate members of the Catholic Church.

Oh you mean you want her to compromise the truth like you do, and oh by the way, I won't be sending you an apology.

BigMack

[Pelayo]

If all this means is "submission" Why not simply call her "an obedient and key servant of God of extraordinary faith?"

It wouldn't change anything, you guys would still deny it.

Mary didn't have extraordinary faith! one what Biblical reference do you base this silly Catholic dogma on anyway? Oh yha, and FYI, we are ALL servants of God! Mary wasn't the only one to be obedient! In fact she wasn't even the most important in that aria! the Apostles were! you dumb Catholics can't get anything right!

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

you dumb Catholics can't get anything right!

I'm sorry but you walked right into that. :)

BigMack