First, I again commend you for your attitude towards these ideas that are likely new to you. I will try my best to explain all of this to you. Mary does not forgive sins in the sense that a priest could because we don't see Mary. The only reason a priest has been given this power from Christ is that He meant to continue on His ministry of Reconciliation to men in time (see 2 Cor 5:17-20). Through "us", Paul says, God pleads for us to return to Him. Thus, the priest is the hands and voice of Christ.
Thank you very much for the kind words, and for your questions about our beliefs. I appreciate your answer, and I've noticed that there have been several times when we both look at a certain passage and I see it as being directed toward all believers, and you may see it as being directed to the clergy. This is a perfect example. It seems to me that the key here is, who is "us" or "we"?
2 Cor. 5:17-21 : 17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come! 18 All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: 19 that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. 20 We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God. 21 God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
If in this passage "we" and "us only refer to the clergy, consider what that means for the layman. First, the ministry of reconciliation is only for the clergy because it was given to only "us", the clergy. Paul is specifically EXCLUDING all other believers in this whole passage.
Second, this is bolstered by the fact that the message of reconciliation was ONLY given to the clergy. Other believers cannot have the message from God or His word, they must get it from the one and only source, the Church.
Third, only the clergy are Christ's ambassadors. Laymen are unfit. This is so because of the key word "therefore" in v. 20. That relates to the exclusive giving of the message of reconciliation to the clergy.
Fourth, only the clergy can become the "righteousness of God". Laymen cannot become the righteousness of God, because the "we" and "us" only referred to clergy. The only time Paul references "the world" is in v. 19. All other times he says "we" or "us", so it must be exclusive. Either Paul means only clergy and no one else, or he means all believers, and no one else.
I still admit that I don't get the exact relationship with Mary. You said in the earlier post that Mary was the "co-metiatrix of Christ's graces". That appears to be a unique title. :) It's funny, I believe I heard on the news earlier that the author of the famous book "God Is My Co-Pilot" croaked. Concerning people, red flags always go up for me whenever I hear co-"anything" associated with God.
God does not create life directly, but allows His creatures to (He acts indirectly through them, of course).
Here is the famous "abortion" passage, and BTW I am very thankful to Catholics for the great work you all do in this area :) :
Ps. 139:13-16 : 13 For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. 14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. 15 My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, 16 your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be. (emphasis added)
(I had to throw in 16, just for fun :) But, does it really sound like David is talking about a cooperative effort here, especially in 13? Does it occur to David to refer to his parents as secondary causes? Or, does it appear that David is giving God full credit for being the only cause of his existence?
God acts indirectly through our actions to bring other people to Christ - so we can be co-redemptive in our actions.
Co-redemptive? I just can't accept this. God might use me as I would use a hammer to pound a nail. Since God loves me, He lets me experience being a very "happy hammer" if He saves someone after I have spoken to Him. But, I did not swing myself, and the nail (IN THIS EXAMPLE! :) did not get driven because of me.
Infallible teaching is not "based" on Scripture, but is based on the Apostle's teachings - they first came orally. Then, some of the Apostles wrote letters and narratives. These were accepted by the Church as being in line with what they had ALREADY LEARNED. Later, some men wrote down the oral traditions (like infant Baptism) as coming from the Apostles also. This was accepted by the Church and later declared infallibly suited for belief among Catholics under the guidance of the Spirit. The Scripture and this Tradition CANNOT disagree. They work together.
I thank you and appreciate your explanation, but the reason I copied the entire paragraph is that it jumped right out at me that there is one thing missing. :)
(A man with free will can reject any "guidance", right?)
---------------
Thanks for the difference between Ecclesiastical Tradition and Apostolic Tradition. I do need to be reminded. :)
What came first, the oral teachings of the Apostles during the first 20-30 years or the Scripture writings?
Sure, the oral teachings had to come first for the NT. I think I was thinking of all the teachings that has been declared infallible across time, including the one about Mary in 1854. I'm asking the following because I don't know, :) are you saying that each and every Tradition that has been declared infallible by the Church over the last 2000 years has also been declared to have been taught by the Apostles during their time on earth?
... Note in verse 15 [Gen. 3:15], it says that "the woman" (singular) will have enmity between "you (serpent) and "her" offspring. This is certainly not referring to Eve, because Eve had JUST SINNED! How can Eve have enmity between herself and Satan? I doubt she remained sinless, either.
My version actually has the enmity being between Eve and Satan, AND SEPARATELY, between their respective offspring. In 15 God says "And I will put enmity...", future tense. So what if Eve just sinned? Why can't Eve have enmity for satan, after all this she had a pretty good reason to, didn't she? :) If you asked me today if there was enmity between myself and satan, I would say absolutely 'YES'. Under your view, then, there was only enmity between satan and Jesus? satan didn't hate the rest of us? My experience has been different. :) Perhaps this is God saving Eve right here, to make her hate evil.
Verse 16, of course, is to Eve and her descendants, who will undergo painful childbirth and be subject to men. Considering this has been a valid interpretation of the Church for a long time, this certainly is reasonable - and quite in line with Christ's use of the word "woman" throughout the Gospel of John ("woman" would be an unusual name to call His mother, unless it had some other spiritual meaning. Again, the Church, after years of contemplation, picked up on this).
Well, how unusual could it be if one verse ago, "woman" meant His mother?! :) Seriously, I see some pretty sophisticated gymnastics going on here with the Fathers. In my Bible, the term Jesus used for His mother in John was "dear woman", a common term of respect.
In a literary sense, one big thing that bothers me with all of these many examples is that meanings are changed within one clearly defined thought. In 12, "the man", Adam, speaks directly about Eve, "the woman". In 13, God speaks directly to Eve, "the woman". In 14, God then speaks to the serpent and references "the woman" in 15. Then, in 16, it is specifically noted that God is now speaking TO "the woman" again. Then, in 17, God then turns and speaks to "the man", Adam. It's all in the same thought. How could only verse 15 break this train of thought? How could the same word have such completely different meanings for one and only one verse in a long chain of usage?
Catholic Scripture interpretation does not stop at one level, the literal sense, but also notes a spiritual sense to many verses, some having multiple meanings and senses. Thus, we agree that Scriptures do not ONLY speaking to the clergy, and Jesus is not ONLY speaking to the Apostles in Mat 28:20. The literal sense is "they are indeed speaking about themselves" (clergy/Apostles). It is through them that God intended His message to be given throughout the world. God did not deliver revelation to all men, but to a small group of men. However, WE TOO share in the priesthood of Christ as part of our Baptismal promises and obligations. WE TOO are to spread the Gospel by our witness. WE TOO offer our own sacrifices in union with Christ when we participate in the Mass, the representation of Christ's Paschal Mystery. WE TOO offer forgiveness of wrongs done to us - foreshadowing God's own forgiveness to others. OF COURSE we are to do all of these things. But this does not overthrow the initial literal sense of the Scripture - that the Apostles and their successors are primarily tasked by God to be His most visible works in the world today - and through them, the Truth can be known by men.
Laymen cannot become the righteousness of God, because the "we" and "us" only referred to clergy. The only time Paul references "the world" is in v. 19. All other times he says "we" or "us", so it must be exclusive. Either Paul means only clergy and no one else, or he means all believers, and no one else.
We, all Christians, share in the priesthood of Christ. Thus, we can also become righteous and so forth. But Christ still established a new ministrial priesthood. Such a "system" existed in the OT as well. The Jews were a priestly people, as Moses said - yet there still were ministerial priests who were men's official guides, men who offered sacrifice and were responsible for teaching the people. Today, priests continue this role, participating in Christ's priesthood by visibly teaching and preaching, offering God's healing, and visibly representing Christ's offering of Himself to the Father and to the community.
Concerning people, red flags always go up for me whenever I hear co-"anything" associated with God.
"Co-anything" doesn't mean that this person was NECESSARY for anything. We go back to the cookie analogy again. Was the daughter necessary? The mother choose to include the daughter in her work, not because the daughter was needed, because the mother loves the daughter and wants to share her work with the child. God does the same thing with all of us. Your wife is a co-creator, you are a co-redeemer when you bring others to Christ, and Mary is a co-mediatrix of grace - all because God loves us to participate in the divine nature (says Peter)
does it really sound like David is talking about a cooperative effort here, especially in 13? Does it occur to David to refer to his parents as secondary causes? Or, does it appear that David is giving God full credit for being the only cause of his existence?
Why are you messin' with my favorite Psalm? ;)
Again, you are trying to place God on a linear time scale. The Scripture is often written from the point of view of man, which APPEARS that God has lined up everything in advance. Day 1, this will happen. Day 2, that will happen. However, for GOD, there is no "in advance"! All is NOW. God doesn't "elect" us without seeing already our response to His love. This is because it all occurs simultaneously.
Co-redemptive? I just can't accept this. God might use me as I would use a hammer to pound a nail. Since God loves me, He lets me experience being a very "happy hammer" if He saves someone after I have spoken to Him. But, I did not swing myself, and the nail (IN THIS EXAMPLE! :) did not get driven because of me.
Think of yourself as the trusty sidekick going along for the ride. God is gracing you by sharing His life with us. He doesn't need us. You are confusing "necessity" with "sharing".
(A man with free will can reject any "guidance", right?)
You got it. Thus, there are very poor Catholics who think that abortion is OK, despite the constant teaching to the contrary...
are you saying that each and every Tradition that has been declared infallible by the Church over the last 2000 years has also been declared to have been taught by the Apostles during their time on earth?
Not by the Apostles, but by the Church that followed. We don't have the transcripts of what the Apostles orally taught. We have to go to the writings of men who followed them, the Church Fathers. To Liturgical and Sacramental celebrations. To the prayers of the Church. When we see the "sense of the faithful" leaning in a particular way on a subject, one that seems to have existed for a long time throughout the Church ("always, in every place, by all men" St Lerins), a consensus within the Church, we believe that the Spirit is speaking through the entire Church on a particular belief. The Church identifies this belief among the faithful, one that existed "back to the apostles" and defines something, putting this belief into words and definitions for the faithful (the Church had LONG before believed that Mary assumed into heaven - their was a Church celebration of it in the liturgy back to the 400's at least - but it wasn't officially defined until 1950. The Spirit had already instilled within the Church's Holy Tradition the belief).
My version actually has the enmity being between Eve and Satan
The bible doesn't seem to mention any sort of enmity between the two after the Garden event. Eve is never mentioned personally again in this regards. God appears to be talking about a particular person who will spring from Eve - the Church recognizes this as Mary in 150 AD in writings of St. Justin the Martyr, St. Irenaeus in 180 AD, and Tertullian in 200 AD.
Why can't Eve have enmity for satan, after all this she had a pretty good reason to, didn't she?
If only refering to Eve, why didn't God include Adam, since it was HIS sin that separated mankind from God??? Why would God refer to EVE, but not ADAM? The Jews and the Catholic Church see it refering to someone else.
In my Bible, the term Jesus used for His mother in John was "dear woman", a common term of respect.
Sorry, that is the NIV, not the Greek version. The NIV is notorious for such "paraphrases".
In a literary sense, one big thing that bothers me with all of these many examples is that meanings are changed within one clearly defined thought
Brother, ALL prophesy works that way! Let's look at one we agree on. Isaiah 7:14. Who does the Prophet speak to? Can we agree that he is speaking to TWO groups of people simultaneously, in the same sentence? One for the immediate hearer and one for the future that points to the Messiah's and His mother? Prophesy is hidden with the literal sense or historical sense of the Scripture.
Regards