Posted on 04/14/2005 12:00:51 PM PDT by Dean Baker
That is utter nonsense. Catholicism is the oldest Christian religion. What exactly is correct worship, and who decides what is correct and what is not????
I dunno. Only God knows the heart. I think there are a lot of poor teachings in all the churches. (Especially now that Rick Warren seems to be pastoring them all through his heretical Schulleresque book's influence) -- but why is this news?
News flash! Martin Luther nails 95 theses to door at Wittenburg!
It's old news.
Actually, it is quite literally "Pre-judiced." The Baptist who believes that Catholics do not accept Christ as their savior believes a lie.
Catholics are "born" at their Holy Baptism and "born again" at their Confirmation.
Gee I believe God said judge not lest you be judged.
I hope that preacher is ready to be judged.
He's a "Bible Believing" pastor. When I come to him with a question about faith, his answer ALWAYS is... "Read Matthew, or look in the Psalms..." THEN he says what he thinks. He constantly turns me back to the Bible, again and again.
They're merely reporting what the Fathers said. St. Irenaeus of Lyons wrote, around AD 180:
"Consequently, then, Mary the Virgin is found to be obedient, saying: "Behold, O Lord, your handmaid; be it done to me according to your word." Eve, however, was disobedient; and when yet a virgin, she did not obey.... having become disobedient, was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race; so also Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless still a virgin, being obedient, was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race.... Thus, the knot of Eve's disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith."St. Irenaeus was two degrees removed from the Beloved Disciple, St. John. (St. John taught St. Polycarp of Smyrna, who taught St. Irenaeus.)
Thirty years before St. Irenaeus, St. Justin Martyr also compared Mary's obedience to Eve's disobedience.
Compared to that, most Protestant doctrinal distinctives are Johnny-come-lately's.
The call-no-man-father guy is wrong, but the Leviticus point is moot for Christians -- having been released from the dietary and cleanliness restrictions of the law by the blood of Christ. (Hence, the "new" covenent; that contract has been supersceded.)
Everything you did study was based on the bible. What Catholics do NOT do is cite chapter and verse. But nearly the entire mass is composed of various bible verses pasted together. As is Book of Christian Prayer (aka, Liturgy of the Hours), the prayers of the Rosary, and most other Catholic forms of worship.
Givest thou me a break,
You intentionally cherry-pick words for a ready made argument which you have against Mary, and then are shocked that no one wants to engage in beating their head against a brick wall by arguing with you.
I believe in the Catholic Faith, including the immaculate conception. Most of the terms you referred to earlier show how much we honor Mary, the mother of Jesus. But must be understood in their proper context.
The redeemer term I believe refers to the argument by some that by watching and participating in the crucifixion Mary shared in the redemptive sufferings of Christ. However I believe that there is no official declaration on that from the Church.
Why not just state your points if you have them instead of trying to set up traps for people in the form of questions so you can bash them on the head when they reply?
I think you mean answering?
Did "Mary" sin?
Is "Mary" different from the Blessed Virgin Mary who was preserved from the stain of Original Sin and remained sinless until she was taken bodily up to Heaven?
Was she conceived by a virgin?
No, she was conceived by her parents, St. Ann and St. Joaquim (IIRC), neither of whom were virgins, at least not after they, well, you know.
Does she serve in the role of redeemer?
No, she is co-redemptrix through her cooperation in bringing about redemption through Jesus:
The word "Coredemption" can be understood only vis-à-vis "Redemption." Our Redemption is the "price" that Jesus paid for our salvation, that is, the restoration of sanctifying grace. By "Coredemption" we mean Mary's unique participation in "the payment of the price" of our Redemption: through, with, in, and under Christ, our only Savior and Redeemer. Jesus is our Redeemer; Mary is our Coredemptrix only in complete dependence upon Him: "I am the handmaid of the Lord. May it be done to me according to your word" (Luke 1:38). http://www.voxpopuli.org/book_1_8.php
Is she the "Queen of Heaven"?
Yes.
Why do you put "church" in quotation marks. Don't you believe that the Catholic Church is a "church?"
As to your other question, the Catholic Church decided which books would become part of the canonical Bible. There were a number of texts that were considered for inclusion in the New Testament but rejected.
It's a little... suspicious I will admit. If you'd posted this in the religion section rather than the news/activism, I could understand your reasons better. But whether the Catholic Church's teachings are Scriptural or not is not 'news,' nor is the fact that protestant denominations disagree with the Catholic church.
I don't agree with a lot of Catholic teaching but I must say, John Paul II was an impressive man. I think it's extremely tacky for this Baptist preacher to exploit this time of mourning and transition to put that kind of message up there. Now there may be individual personal incidents in which you might say something like that but only with the greatest sensitivity and gentleness, and plastering it up on a sign isn't going to do that. This 'sign' thing makes me think he has got a personal agenda/issue with the Catholic Church.
It's like preaching a message that says bluntly "dear departed GEORGE may have been a nice guy and you all loved him but he's in HELL because he wasn't Christian."
I mean... do you really think we ought to exploit people's emotions to preach what we believe to be the truth? I think the truth should sell itself, regardless of emotion.
I think the Nazi's were truly evil. Supposedly they had plans to undermine Christianity. I don't know to what extent the used the Word of God to justify their anti-semitism, but I don't think they were Christian. I think anytime Satan gets a stronghold like that, Satan's going to go after the Jews and the Christians.
Got a link?
MM
Kinda hard to explain how for fifteen hundred years (or at minimum, a thousand) there were no Christians at all who did not believe at least most of the "false doctrines" of the Catholic Church.
Sure, here and there you might find exceptions to a single given doctrine. ("This group rejected the 'apocrypha'"; "This group rejected bishops"; "This group rejected the divine presence in the Eucharist"; etc.) But there is no record of any group rejecting several false doctrines from the time of the gnostics until the Reformation.
If you are truly born again (accepting Christ's gift of the Holy Spirit) the form of worship does not matter. The ritual itself is not the path to salvation.
Ritual can be a problem when it is by rote and lacks meaning. God looks on the individual heart.
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.