Posted on 08/17/2009 9:10:31 AM PDT by AnalogReigns
Precisely, one who does not have salvation assured CANNOT be "full of grace". Moreover, a soul stained with sin can only obscure the Lord, it CANNOT magnify the Lord. And finally, if she is blessed AMONG women, that means ALL women and Eve WAS created in a sinless state.
“If you wish to believe in the Assumption - well, it neither says yea or nay in Scripture, and I have no personal knowledge, so believe as you wish. I would say the same to the Orthodox - where scripture is silent, believe as you wish and let God teach us on His schedule.”
Sounds fair to me, Mr. R! :)
As part of a research project, I and three others researched the medieval Catholic Church and the ordination ceremonies of the past. In order to fully understand the vetting process, we asked to recreate the modern ordination ceremony. We were granted permission from the local diocese, with the understanding that it was for eductional purposes only and not for us to be included in the roles of the priesthood. I was the only non-Catholic in the mix.
The rite was performed off of Catholic grounds and was administered by a lay member of the diocese.
For your edification, I did not say that I was ordained a priest, merely that I went through the ordination rite. I was required to discuss the workings of the church and to affirm that this was not to bring discredit to the church.
Live and let live. Cool by me.
Based upon how FR Catholics have reacted regarding what the Catholic Church teaches as defined by a Protestant, I am not sure I would hazard defining your church's doctrine. The perpetual virginity of Mary isn't supported by Scripture, but rather Scripture is silent. If Catholics are not bound to it as a salvation issue than I wouldn't see it as an issue. As my earlier post indicated, invocation to Mary is something that would probably be considered a 'major issue' my church would contend. I would.
To be more clear and not run the risk of defining what Catholics believe, if you would post a similar list to what I have done in #256 I would be happy to reply.
Yes, as a matter of fact I do read what I type.
"The same worship is rendered to Mary as to Christ. Churches are built to her honour; her shrines are crowded with devotees; enriched with their gifts; and adorned with their votive offerings. To her prayers are addressed as to a divine being, and blessing are asked as from one who has power to bestow them. Her votaries are taught to pray, 'Spare us, good Lady,' and 'From all evil, good Lady, deliver us.' Five annual festivals celebrate her greatness, and keep alive the devotion of her worshippers. In Roman Catholic countries the dawn is ushered in with hymns to her honour; her praises are again chanted at noon, and the day is closed with an Ave Maria sung to the Lady of Heaven." (James A. Wylie, The Papacy, London (1852) p. 370)
James Wylie was a Catholic theologian.
So, at least we've clarified that it is your interpretation. It's just too bad that your interpretation is incorrect.
My interpretation was about a soldier on the battlefield, and it is quite correct.
Catholics do not rely upon Mary for salvation either.
Ever hear of this?
Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now, and at the hour of death.
Or this?
Pope John Paul II in his General audience of Wednesday, December 18, 1996 said: “Beginning with Simeon’s prophesy, Mary intensely and mysteriously unites her life with Christ’s sorrowful mission: she was to become her Son’s faithful co-worker for the salvation of the human race.” (L’Osservatore Romano, January 1, 1997).
Sounds as if Catholics do.
Great. Now find what he said in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
But you're wrong.
The ball is still in your court.
Where in scripture does it say that Mary remained a virgin?
Where in scripture does it say that Mary lived a sinless life?
Where in scripture does it say that Mary was assumed into heaven?
>>Pope John Paul II in his General audience of Wednesday, December 18, 1996 said: “Beginning with Simeon’s prophesy, Mary intensely and mysteriously unites her life with Christ’s sorrowful mission: she was to become her Son’s faithful co-worker for the salvation of the human race.” (L’Osservatore Romano, January 1, 1997). <<
I don’t know if you know this, but JPII is dead. He is alive in heaven (Lord willing) but his earthly body is dead. He no longer heads the Catholic church.
Now, the man leading the Catholic church says this
The Pope on Co-redemptrix
“Yet when asked, in a 2000 interview by Peter Seewald contained in the book God and the World, whether the Church would go along with the desire to solemnly define Mary as Co-redemptrix, Ratzinger’s response doesn’t look good. He says that the title Co-redemptrix “departs to too great an extent from the language of Scripture and of the Fathers and therefore gives rise to misunderstandings” (53). He also says that “for matters of faith, continuity of terminology with the language of Scripture and that of the Fathers is itself an essential element; it is improper simply to manipulate language” (54). “
Understand, that Ratzinger guy is Pope Benedict the 16th, current Pope.
And if you need help with the Latin, Redemptrix = one who saves.
You're making claims about Catholicism directly contradicted by public-source Catholic documents.
A theologian from the 19th century does not speak for the Catholic Church. The Bible does not command sola Scriptura.
We’re talking about the Church founded by Christ, but to some, it’s just a game.
Sad really.
rjsimmon: Ever hear of this?
Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now, and at the hour of death.
LOL. So what? I guess you've never asked anyone to pray for you. Otherwise, this does not support your statement that Catholics rely upon Mary for salvation, and as such your argument is a non sequitur.
And where does your JPII quote say that "Catholics rely upon Mary for salvation?" You're attributing words to JPII that he did not say.
It appears you have "misstated" the facts, should Wiki be correct:
James Aitken Wylie (1808-1890) was a Scottish historian of religion and Presbyterian minister. He was a prolific writer and is most famous for writing The History of Protestantism... He published his book The Papacy: its History, Dogmas, Genius, and Prospects in 1851, winning a prize of a hundred guineas from the Evangelical Alliance. The Protestant Institute appointed him Lecturer on Popery in 1860. He continued in this role until his death in 1890, publishing in 1888 his work The Papacy is the Antichrist. Emphasis mine.
A full retraction should be proper in this circumstance.
Ping to 314.
That’s a deceitful omission. I’m glad you checked.
For some reason, I was accepting his claim at face value.
Silly me.
Good find!
It’s a “I know more than you do” mindset.
At least this one didn’t tell us how much he loves us.
Omission? You mean, statement?
The only thing missing is the Klan's Distinguished Chair of Papist-Treachery Studies.
Can I take a moment to point out that Satan is the father of all lies?
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.