Replies

Well, since you asked...

“Fly, oh Adam, oh Eve, and ye their children, who have offended God ; fly and take refuge in the bosom of this good mother. Do you not know that she is the only city of refuge, and the only hope of sinners ? St. Augustine”

This (and other quotes like it) is written in the same sense as Col 1:24.

Does anyone seriously suggest St Paul believes something was “lacking” in the suffering sacrifice of Christ? Of course not.

So what’s the meaning here? St Paul is saying that what is “lacking” is nothing on Christ’s part but everyone’s part who does not cooperate with the grace of God, by participating in the same suffering by uniting ones suffering to that of Christ’s on the Cross.

So we see here a deeper meaning than the “plain” reading of the Scripture. Similarly with the Marian quotes as above. Does anyone really believe the Catholic Church is so brazen in her “worship” of Mary, that the words as written are meant to be taken literally and devoid of all context?

I submit only those with an agenda or axe to grind would jump to that conclusion.

Quotes as above (from St Augustine no less, the alleged Saint of Proto-Protestantism...but I digress) are meant to be understood in the greater context of the Catholic understanding of salvation to whit: synergism as opposed to monergism. That is, that each person, by his cooperation with God, participates in his own salvation.

With this understanding the quotes as above become more clear: they aren’t saying Mary brings about salvation by her own power or that she is some kind of goddess equal to God. They are saying that by her unique role in salvation history, and her Fiat, she did indeed bring salvation to the world through her Son Jesus Christ. Put another way, without her Fiat, the plan of salvation as God intended (the Incarnation of His Son) never would have taken place. So we do indeed owe much to Mary, and thus in this sense it can be said what is said in the quote above (as others).

It’s Mary’s “yes” that is thanked and honored in quotes as above. Such quotes do not equate her with God in any way, just like Col 1:24 doesn’t actually say there was anything “lacking” in Christ’s suffering.

It takes a mind unfettered by agendas and presuppositions to see this point.

I’m going to bet though both of you will have something to say to “prove” what I’m saying “wrong”. So go ahead. Get that precious last word in; it’ll be to your detriment though if you don’t even take a few minutes to objectively consider what I’ve said.

Not that that’s ever stopped a critic of Catholicism around here.

Thanks for the information in your post.

What are your thoughts about the Protevangelium of James?

I just learned of it last Sunday on the History Channel's Banned from The Bible program. Fascinating info about Mary's life!

She's obviously not of the Holy Trinity, and no one I know is claiming she is or even close, but she's also not your average human either, apparently. Not in life or in "death".

Well, you have a career as Baghdad Bob or White House Press Secretary.

So we see here a deeper meaning than the “plain” reading of the Scripture. Similarly with the Marian quotes as above. Does anyone really believe the Catholic Church is so brazen in her “worship” of Mary, that the words as written are meant to be taken literally and devoid of all context?

I'm so dizzy from the spin.

If they weren't to be taken at face value......why have the "marian" quotes on these issues? What would move the writers to pen these quotes. We don't see these kind of writings

These writings aren't even close to Col 1:24 or any others. They contradict Scripture in every sense.

Col 1:24

Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I do my share on behalf of His body, which is the church, in filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions

>>This (and other quotes like it) is written in the same sense as Col 1:24.<<

Not even close. The insinuation is preposterous. Paul was saying that his suffering so far was lacking the suffering that Christ had suffered. NO WHERE in that passage can it even be inferred that Paul was talking about the suffering of Christ lacking anything.

>>St Paul is saying that what is “lacking” is nothing on Christ’s part but everyone’s part who does not cooperate with the grace of God, by participating in the same suffering by uniting ones suffering to that of Christ’s on the Cross.<<

There is one of those Catholic injections again. "Cooperating with the grace of God"? The attempts by the Catholic Church to inject some sort of effort on man's part to deserve or appropriate salvation is pervasive and totally in error.

>>Does anyone really believe the Catholic Church is so brazen in her “worship” of Mary, that the words as written are meant to be taken literally and devoid of all context?<<

No "context" has changed the meaning of the words of the Catholic Church or it's followers. The clear intent of the words is obvious. They place Mary ahead of Christ or the Holy Spirit. The very words you use which I quote below serve as evidence.

>>Put another way, without her Fiat, the plan of salvation as God intended (the Incarnation of His Son) never would have taken place.<<

What utter contempt for the ability of God.

>>It’s Mary’s “yes” that is thanked and honored in quotes as above.<<

Nonsense. It's Mary that Catholics elevate to demi goddess not just her words. The Catholic Church consistently elevates man above what scripture warrants.