Posted on 04/12/2008 7:19:29 AM PDT by DouglasKC
That Mary was sinless...that praying to Mary is scriptural, etc. etc.
Romans 3:10
As it is written, None is righteous, just and truthful and upright and conscientious, no, not one.
Romans 3:9-11 (in Context) Romans 3 (Whole Chapter)
Romans 3:12
All have turned aside; together they have gone wrong and have become unprofitable and worthless; no one does right, not even one!
Romans 3:11-13 (in Context) Romans 3 (Whole Chapter)
It wasn't a single verse as pointed out earlier. And I'm not the first or last by any means to make this point. If you don't agree with "my" interpretation than dispute it on a scriptural basis. But I don't accept tradition as authoritative so if you appeal to it I'm only going to go right back to scripture.
You are only going to go right back to you personal interpretation of Scripture. By what authority do you deem to interpret Scripture for the rest of us?
Again it's not "my" interpretation. All followers of Jesus Christ have been given his spirit and as long as we let his spirit live in and through us we are merely mouthpieces for the real power and authority that dwells within, Jesus Christ.
Could it be said you are spreading falshoods concerning the Catholic "veneration" of Mary?
But, they cannot do this.....as their traditions are contrary to what scripture actually says. I posted in #255 [Matthew 6:5-7] about only praying to God.....and not using vain repetitions. This is why it is futile to discuss the subject as tradition....with them....always trumps scripture.
Consequently, they then can only say...."who gave you the right to personally interpret scripture"!
What are we to think when we read that the Lord has commanded us only to pray to the Father? What should we believe when we read that we are not to use vain repetitions in our prayers? Just how can this be misinterpreted to say it's O.K. to fall down on our knees and pray to Mary..... while using vain repetitions?
It's not a matter of misinterpreting. They know this. It's a matter of pressing the point home.....that what they do is in disobedience to scripture! And...this they will continue to deny by accusing you of your own private interpretation.
C'est la vie!
I know. I read that this morning so I am familiar with that passage. So does that mean that we don’t congregate in churches at all? And notice the word “vain” modifying repetitions? So give it your best shot but like a lot of people whom I assume you respect, like the late Bill Buckley and Laura Ingram, I’ll continue to the say the rosary on a regular basis.
Of course not! It means pray to the Father and do not use vain repetitions.
So give it your best shot but like a lot of people whom I assume you respect, like the late Bill Buckley and Laura Ingram, I’ll continue to the say the rosary on a regular basis.
It's not a matter of respect. I don't know you too well, but I'm sure you are a fine God fearing person. There are many God fearing Catholics on this forum that have my great respect.
[2 Timothy 2:7] Consider what I say; and the Lord give thee understanding in all things.
You wrote:
“Maybe I was mistaken. I was under the impression that Catholics considered that Mary was sinless BEFORE the death of Christ.”
Mary was always sinless, but she was made sinless by the grace won on the cross by Christ. Christ was Mary’s Savior too, only He saved her FIRST.
“That she had to be sinless to bear the Christ. But apparently what you’re really saying is that Mary is like anyone else. When Christ died on the cross and she accepted his sacrifice that she became sinless in God’s eyes, just like happens to all Christians.”
No. Man are you ever confused. You haven’t gotten this right yet. You flail against this and still don’t even know what it is!?
“That’s entirely different. I thought you were saying that God’s grace made Mary sinless before she even conceived the Jesus and way before he was sacrificed.”
Yes. Jesus sacrifice on the cross was so momentous that it was not restricted by time.
“This of course would be the situation that would make Christ a liar and Christianity a cruel hoax.”
No, this would simply show how powerful Christ really is. His death was so powerful it saved those who came before Him as well as those who came after Him.
“My apologies.”
Not accepted. Deliberately creating straw men - here again really - shows you are not interested in honest debate. Mock apologies simply don’t cut it.
I had frankly tired of this post and hadn’t followed it since yesterday. You are obviously of the same mind as the one who started this polemic yesterday. It is those who use the Bible as the book of quotes for purposes of division and hate who will ultimately fail in regressing us to the divisions of the past. You are doing the same by twisting the meaning of our catechism. I use the name untwist because I am used to pointing these distortions out to liberals, not presumed friends on FR.
I don’t need to tell you since you bothered to poke into the catholic catechism, that if you wish to understand Mary’s place in the church it is explained in great detail in Catechisms 964 - 975. Since you want to stir this pot and try to reopen old wounds by using distortion, look at Catechism 972:
“After speaking of the church, her origin, mission, and destiny, we can find no better way to conclude than by looking to Mary. In her we contemplate what the Church already is in her mystery on her own “pilgrimage of faith,” and what she will be in the homeland at the end of her journey. There, “in the glory of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity,”, in the communion of all the saints, the church is awaited by the one she venerates as Mother of her Lord and as her own mother.”
I know you don’t want to accept that our belief is that Mary’s place in the faith is as Mother of our Lord. As such, she is Mother of our Church. I understand that you are a far smarter catholic than I am, but I can only tell you what is real and experienced in my 47 years of faith. She indeed serves as a model, an icon if you wish, of what faith and sacrifice are all about. We follow her model of veneration - she venerates God, in the persons of the Holy Trinity. We do not venerate Mary, we do work to follow the model and venerate our Lord through her example.
Let me just add another important point. Whatever faith we choose, or no faith, we as believers in conservative principles have some very critical problems at hand. I believe that the unity of conservatives that sees the way to electing strong protestants like Reagan, who brought us the great catholic supreme court justice like Scalia, followed by other protestants like the Bushes who brought catholics Thomas, Roberts and Alito, are our hope. Let the divisive Clintons bring us the Breyers and Ginsbergs and their ilk. We need to embrace what brings us together. The islamofascists really don’t care about protestant vs. catholic doctrines. We’re all infidels in their eyes and they want us all dead. I believe in the best of what we are as a society and this thread is a real disappointment because it only highlights the worst.
My best wishes to you.
The basis of your argument is specious as there is no catholic doctrine or practice that includes “worship” or “veneration” of Mary as part of our faith.
I have no idea what caused you to accuse me of distortion and then morph into a political diatribe.
You were mistaken. Catholic doctrine does call for the "veneration" of Mary. It's as simple as that.
If you want to discuss politics you are on the wrong thread. Goodbye.
“Is Mary Worthy of Worship?”
No.
But our interpretations differ! How do we resolve this? If the Spirit leads us why has he been peddling different, often contradictory, versions of the truth since the "reformers" came along. Is God the author of confusion?
A question you have studiously avoided answering. Why should we accept your interpretation of scripture over that of say the Mormons, or the Jehovah Witnesses or the Seventh Day Adventist or any of the other thousands of Protestant denominations, all peddling different version of the truth?
To Whom Should We Pray
Q. To whom should we pray? A fellow Christian recently explained that all prayers should be directed only to God the Father or the Trinity. She said that there are very few "ancient" prayers addressed to Jesus Christ and none to the Holy Spirit. I am having trouble with this. I believe that all 3 persons of the Trinity are present when I pray and all 3 hear and respond, no matter which Person I address. I have frequent prayers to Jesus. I ask the Holy Spirit's guidance in my faith life. When I pray, I pray to Jesus. And I can see nothing wrong in this. The Bible and the catechism have no restrictions.
A. In answer to the question "To whom should we pray," Luther's Small Catechism with Explanation (Concordia Publishing House, 1986) clearly answers: "We should pray to the true God only, Father, Son and Holy Spirit." According to Scripture and the historic teaching of the Lutheran Church, Christians may offer their prayers to any or all of the three persons of the Trinity, each of whom is "true God." This is a clear and indisputable teaching of Scripture and of the Lutheran Church.
http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2687
Prayers for the Dead
Q. I would appreciate knowing our official LCMS doctrinal position on prayers for, or on behalf of, the dead, specifically those who have died (as far as we know) in the faith.
A. Question 201 of Luther's Small Catechism with Explanation (Concordia Publishing House, 1991 edition) answers the question "For whom should we pray?" as follows: "We should pray for ourselves and for all other people, even for our enemies, but not for the souls of the dead." Hebrews 9:27 is cited in this connection: Since individuals are judged by God immediately after their death and enter either heaven or hell, there is no reason to pray for them. Those in hell cannot be helped by prayer, and those in heaven have no need of our prayers.
Okay! I'll take the bait. Please give me your interpretation of [Matthew 6:5-7] And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly. But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.
What....in your opinion do these verses say to the Christian reader?
She couldn't have been always sinless, at least if you believe scripture.
Rom 5:11 And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.
Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
That is exactly what John was addressing here:
1Jn 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
1Jn 1:9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
1Jn 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His Word is not in us.
Mary could not have been created sinless. It's impossible. I've quoted multiple scriptures to show this is so. She could not be made sinless without the sacrifice of Christ. If she did, then Christ was a liar. He did not die for our sins.
You're saying that she was sinless BEFORE Christ was ever sacrificed. You're saying that the sacrifice of Christ was a done deal, there was no doubt it was going to happen, there was no gamble because God went ahead and made Mary sinless BEFORE it happened. Again that makes his sacrifice into a show, a sham. If there wasn't a possibility he could fail (and there wasn't under this theology) then Christ is meaningless. God could have had a cow sacrificed and then extended salvation to everyone because he had already determined that it was going to work by making Mary sinless.
1Jn 3:5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.
He was manifested to take away our sins. Mary's sins weren't taken away BEFORE he was manifested.
What you're espousing is at best created, man centered logic that has no basis in scripture and at worst outright heresy.
“My apologies.” Not accepted. Deliberately creating straw men - here again really - shows you are not interested in honest debate. Mock apologies simply don’t cut it.
I am very interested in honest debate and don't believe that I'm creating a straw man argument about Marian worship...and especially not about Mary having no sin.
Not at all. Therefore the confusion that exists within traditional Christianity must be due to something else. The church of God was being subverted and confused even in biblical times:
2Co 11:13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
2Co 11:14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
2Co 11:15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.
One only needs to examine the state of Christian churches today to see the fruits of deception that has taken hold. Homosexual bishops, unrepentant adulterers, church sanctioned gambling, child abuse, the list goes on and on.
Constantine was never Pope.
Christians were worshiping on Sunday well before Constantine. In fact we know that from the New Testament and from other documents, that are not part of the canon of Sacred Scripture, that the very first generation of Christians worshiped on Sunday.
Jesus’ sacrifice created a New Covenant and authority to loose and bind (are you intellectual enough to even understand what that means?) was given to Peter and the Apostles to establish His Church, which they did, to include Sunday worship. You can protest all you want, but you are wrong and can’t refute that the first Christians DID worship on Sunday...it is irrefutable.
There is no scriptural proof that Peter was ever in Rome. There is lot's of man's Tradition of such. Peter was the Apostle to the Jews not the Gentiles; scripture says Peter went to Babylon where All of the New Testament scriptures which are G-d breathed point out that followers of the Christ A clear reading of the Gospels show Jesus teaching They as followers of the Christ continued to celebrate the Feast Days as commanded by YHvH. Binding and loosing comes with the giving of the Keys, which is future tense in Matthew 16 The New Covenant was for the Jews only, as outlined in Jeremiah 31:31. YHvH blinded the Jews as a temporary measure so the gentiles could be grafted into Abraham Jesus' Name in Hebrew is Yah'shua which means YHvH is my salvation Exodus 15:2; Psalm 18:2; Psalm 27:1; Psalm 62:1; Psalm 62:2; Psalm 62:6; Ekklesia is not a corporation located in Rome. The word Ekklesia in the LXX is the whole camp of Israel. If you were familiar with History you would know that Pontiff and Pontifex Maximus was an office of the
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai
high priest of Pagan religions back as far as Babylon, where "chief bridge builder" was the person who
negotiated with Satan over the souls of the dead.
The title later moved to Pergamus as the seat of Satan was given to the King of Pergamus. (see Rev 2:13).
The title was later seized by the Roman Emperors, thus the reference to Constantine in 325AD long after the life
of Peter. Thus Peter would never have been a Pontiff of anything except as a figment of someone's imagination.
there was a very large population of Jews outside of the Land.
followed His Holy Word and worshiped on Shabbat not on Sun Day, the Pagan day of worship.
They celebrated Shabbat as Yah'shua taught in the scriptures.
how to celebrate the Shabbat. What Jesus is doing
is rebuking the then Religious Leaders who have replaced
YHvH's commands with man-made Traditions for the
celebration of Shabbat.
as Yah'shua still has possession of the Keys in Revelation 1:18.
as a wild branch of olive into the root of YHvH. (see Romans 11)
also see:
Psalm 62:7; Psalm 118:14; Psalm 119:174; Isaiah 12:2; Isaiah 46:13;
Isaiah 49:6; Isaiah 51:5; Isaiah 56:1; Isaiah 19:20; Isaiah 43:3;
Isaiah 43:11; Isaiah 45:21; Isaiah 49:26; Isaiah 60:16; Hosea 13:4
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.