Posted on 03/19/2014 8:19:20 PM PDT by ealgeone
CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH SECOND EDITION
PART ONE THE PROFESSION OF FAITH SECTION TWO THE PROFESSION OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH
CHAPTER THREE I BELIEVE IN THE HOLY SPIRIT
ARTICLE 9 "I BELIEVE IN THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH"
Paragraph 6. Mary - Mother of Christ, Mother of the Church
963 Since the Virgin Mary's role in the mystery of Christ and the Spirit has been treated, it is fitting now to consider her place in the mystery of the Church. "The Virgin Mary . . . is acknowledged and honored as being truly the Mother of God and of the redeemer. . . . She is 'clearly the mother of the members of Christ' . . . since she has by her charity joined in bringing about the birth of believers in the Church, who are members of its head."502 "Mary, Mother of Christ, Mother of the Church."503
Was anyone saved before the crucifixion and resurrection?
I do have you... because you missed the point. 1 Kings 2 isn't about her request or about Solomon's answer. It's about her role and her position in the throne room. Bathsheba was enthroned at the right hand of the king as the queen mother. As Christ is the everlasting Davidic King, so Mary has taken her place as His mother in His Kingdom.
I caution not to use the following queen mother events in the Kings books. The image of queens gets worse.
I caution you from too much extrapolation... there are some very bad images of kings as well. Is Christ's Throne tainted by Rehoboam, Jeroboam or Ahab?
Tone it down.
You are correct. The Bible wasn't written to support beliefs. The Gospels were written that you would believe and know Christ. The Epistles were primarily written by the early Church for correction and encouragement.
Have you ever seen the Roman Catacombs? From the earliest of Christian times, there are etchings and depictions dedicated to the Eucharist. In fact, one of the charges against Christians in the first century was that we were cannibals because we claimed to be eating our savior. And yet... there is no Epistle directed to putting down this practice or belief. Why? Simply put, the Epistles corrected what was flagging or explained what was hard to understand. That there is no direct Epistle dedicated to the Eucharist shows its centrality and importance... it was not a scandal to the early Church and was too basic to need explanation. The only place you see it is when St Paul corrects the Corinthians for their flippancy toward it (Chapter 11). "For this cause many among you are weak and sickly, and not a few sleep." As he said, it isn't just a meal, "If any man is hungry, let him eat at home; that your coming together be not unto judgment."
My word! What are we to do for the person who only hears of the "Trinity" but doesn't know Jesus? Will he assume we worship three-sided geometric shapes?! We must change our religious terminology to appeal to the ignorant before it does more harm!
There is simply no way for anyone to deduce that from the term unless they had been indoctrinated by Catholicism.
There is much in Christianity that must be explained (just ask the Ethiopian). That is why we are here... to explain it and carry on Jesus's mission to call all peoples to Himself.
Hebrews 11 has a whole list of people who were declared righteous because of their faith.
If Mary were free from sin at her conception this would contradict Romans 3:23.
Actually, reading Luke's account of Mary you find she uses the words, humble, bondslave to describe herself.
She also declares the following in Luke 1:47....And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior.
From this Mary certainly understood she was in need of a Savior as we all are.
I guess some people don’t have the story of finding the child Jesus in the temple. With his mother and father searching for him for three days. Mary and Joseph are indeed mentioned.
And how about the Wedding at Cana, where the Mother of Jesus intercedes for the couple who is out of wine. We know his mother is there too from the first line of the story.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+2%3A1-11&version=ESV
YES! Exactly! There is a purpose for the text included in the Bible. It tells the story of our fall and redemption. What it doesn't do is give a liturgical how-to or answer all the questions of life... it isn't meant to be an all-inclusive catechism or instruction book. It's a Book with a purpose and an object. Beyond that, it points to the Church as the bulwark and pillar of the truth (1 Tim 3:15) so that we may be taught the rest.
You can’t take Scripture out of context and build theology around it....well I guess you can...but it’s wrong to do.
I agree wholeheartedly.
Who is the Bride of Christ? The Church
Who is the Body of Christ? The Church (by marriage with Him)
If we are one with Christ and He is one with the Holy Trinity of God... then, we are part of that Holy Trinity through our oneship with Christ. Think about that one for a while and just imagine the implications.
1 Cor 6:3 Do you not know that we will judge angels? We are part of the Holy, and Royal Family of Heaven.
“Are you telling me you don’t believe that scripture is entirely inspired by the Holy Spirit?”
Are you telling me that Jesus isn’t God?
If you can’t prove sola scriptura, then you fail every time you demand that someone else act as if it true.
“Why do you disagree with the RCC position?”
I don’t have any disagreement with Royal Crown Cola.
And about Peter, show me where the CCC says there’s only one sense to the verse.
552 Simon Peter holds the first place in the college of the Twelve; Jesus entrusted a unique mission to him. Through a revelation from the Father, Peter had confessed: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Our Lord then declared to him: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.” Christ, the “living Stone”, thus assures his Church, built on Peter, of victory over the powers of death. Because of the faith he confessed Peter will remain the unshakable rock of the Church. His mission will be to keep this faith from every lapse and to strengthen his brothers in it.
881 The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the “rock” of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock. “The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head.” This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church’s very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.
In other words, Peter without his confession of his faith in Christ as the Son of the Living God was just Simon. With the confession, with the revelation and faith that came with it from God, Simon was made the rock by Christ.
There’s no contradiction. Only Protestant anti-Catholics who don’t know what they’re talking about.
“Mary is the mother of Jesus.”
Jesus is God. Thus, Mary is the mother of God.
“Calling her *mother of God* which is found nowhere in Scripture, is changing it.”
Nope - since Mary is the mother of the Lord as inspired by the Holy Spirit through Elizabeth.
Yes. Read the OT.
Or read Hebrews 11, the faith chapter.
Righteousness has always been by faith in the Messiah, whether the person was looking forward to His coming or looking back at it.
“You keep pushing the envelope of “making it personal” on this thread by telling other Freepers, individually, that they will fail in their debate with you and how superior you are to them.
Tone it down.”
So is noting failure BEFORE it happens (but inevitably will happen) the “pushing the envelope of “making it personal”” or is it noting their repeated failures after the fact that is the problem?
When can failure be noted? If you know someone will fail because there is no way for them to succeed (e.g. “Prove George Washington wasn’t the first U.S. president”) how is it “pushing the envelope of “making it personal”” to note what is irrefutably true?
Also, what about this: “Why do you disagree with the RCC position?” I disagree with no Catholic position yet the question is asked to me as if I did. How is that not “pushing the envelope of “making it personal””? Is it the inclusion of a question mark? Then I suppose I could just as well do this: “When you fail (?) - and you will (?) - what will we learn from your failure (?)” And that would make everything hunky dory, right?
Thank you and good luck in your studies and your analysis of the Scriptures.
Again?
Oh, I get it. It's not the Catholic church changing its teachings. They're just evolving or being refined.
Gotcha......
Thank you. Just to be clear I am not a snob about the RC Church having a monopoly on the Truth of God.
It’s just that when I see folks denouncing the Church as heretical and in violation of the Bible, I say whoa!
That *We are God* heresy is beginning to float around the Pentecostal circles these days, as well.
Well, the CCC does teach it...
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p122a3p1.htm
460 The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature":78 "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God."79 "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."80 "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."81
Genesis 3:1-5 Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?” And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’” But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
Regarding prayers to saints in Heaven.
If we can agree that saints in Heaven do not pray on their own behalf... they are in Heaven... then I would ask you to look at Rev 5:8. In this scene, we see the four and twenty elders in Heaven presenting golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. If they are not praying for themselves, it is reasonable (though some may disagree) that these prayers are being offered on behalf of those still on Earth.
Praying for each other is simply part of what Christians do. In 1 Tim 2:1–4, St Paul strongly encouraged Christians to intercede for many different things, and that passage is by no means unique in his writings. Elsewhere Paul directly asks others to pray for him (Rom. 15:30–32, Eph. 6:18–20, Col. 4:3, 1 Thess. 5:25, 2 Thess. 3:1), and he assured them that he was praying for them as well (2 Thess. 1:11). Most fundamentally, Jesus himself required us to pray for others, and not only for those who asked us to do so (Matt. 5:44).
Since the practice of asking others to pray for us is so highly recommended in Scripture, it cannot be regarded as superfluous on the grounds that one can go directly to Jesus. The New Testament would not recommend it if there were not benefits coming from it. One such benefit is that the faith and devotion of the saints can support our own weaknesses and supply what is lacking in our own faith and devotion. Jesus regularly supplied for one person based on another person’s faith (e.g., Matt. 8:13, 15:28, 17:15–18, Mark 9:17–29, Luke 8:49–55). And it goes without saying that those in heaven, being free of the body and the distractions of this life, have even greater confidence and devotion to God than anyone on earth.
You must understand two very important concepts for this... the universality of the Church and the Communion of Saints.
First, the Church is in all places. It is the Kingdom on Earth and it is joined through Christ with the Kingdom in Heaven. Authority over the Church on Earth is the same authority in Heaven. So it is that what is bound and loosed on Earth is bound and loosed in Heaven and so forth. It is one kingdom and we have been given appointed ministers to care the for the Kingdom in exile here on Earth. They have real authority, even in Heaven.
Second, the Communion of Saints is important as part of our Christian Creeds. In the Reformation the meaning of words was changed to comport with new theology so now Protestants see the communion of saints as more a body of believers. But that was not so from early in the Church. The Communion of Saints is the Body of Christ both here and in Heaven. We are one universal Church in one communion in one Body, which is Christ. They surround us as witnesses (Heb 12:1) and attend to our needs (Rev 5:8) as we do for each other physically in this world.
We do pray to Christ and we believe all that you have posted about our access to Him. You miss something, though, when you neglect that we are exhorted to pray for one another as intercessors and forget that we are part of a great and holy communion.
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.