Mary Matters (Dr. Walter Martin on disbelief in the Mother of God)

Catholic Exchange ^ | JULY 26, 2014 | Tim Staples

[Arthur McGowan]

Protestant: It is contrary to Scripture to say that Mary was sinless.

Catholic: How is it contrary to Scripture?

Protestant: Oh! So EVERYTHING that isn’t in Scripture must be TRUE?

[Arthur McGowan]

How about responding to the issue: Can St. John and St. Paul be teaching error when they say that we will SEE GOD?

[Arthur McGowan]

Nobody ever said that Mary is the origin of the eternal, infinite, Triune God. Thus, you are railing against a belief that no one has ever held or taught.

Is the following syllogism formally valid or invalid?

Emily is the mother of Sam.
Sam is a fireman.
Therefore,
Emily is the mother of a fireman.

[terycarl]

then why was it not necessary for Mary's parents to be sinless to be a fitting vessel to bear the (allegedly) sinless Mary?

The allegedly sinless Mary WAS NOT GOD....Jesus was.

[terycarl]

Jesus, born on December 25, killed on good Friday and raised on easter Sunday is the counterfeit to the genuine.. that just isn’t truth.. it is false.

as you very well know, the exact dates are TOTALLY irrelevant

[terycarl]

I'm not. Some years ago, some Catholics were stating that we are going to be resurrected having the same bodies we have now. Never mind that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.

You leave Christ's church and come up with some very strange ideas of your own...You have no idea whatsoever of what resurrected bodies will look like....none

[terycarl]

She’s not the mother of His divine nature,

Jesus was all man and all God and you cannot separate the two....You didn't pay real close attention in Religion class, did you???

[Religion Moderator]

Reading the mind of another Freeper is a form of "making it personal."

Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.

[ADSUM]

You can try to twist the meaning of words to your satisfaction and personal opinion, but it doesn’t make it the Truth.

The words of Jesus are very clear and Christ emphasized the meaning.

Yes many left and many more here have rejected the words of Jesus. So you just ignore the words and faith of Peter and the other apostles.

[terycarl]

That has been explained to you time and again and yet you still persist in the same error.

this statement made by a fallen away Catholic......amazing

[1010RD]

So if you’d been a Hebrew in the time of Moses you’d reject the Book of Joshua? The Psalms? Isaiah? Habakkuk? Malachi?

If you were a Christian at the earliest would you stop at Matthew?

[daniel1212]

So, then, when Catholics tell us they are offering the sacrifice of the mass, in which Jesus as the lamb in heaven is perpetually dying and they are participating in that eternal sacrifice that is forever happening in heaven, then they are telling us that God, in some unfathomable way, beyond human understanding, is forever dying in heaven.

I’m sure I’ve seen you post stuff about the sacrifice of the mass and Jesus perpetually dying in heaven since His death on the cross is eternally happening in heaven.

Well, this gets into metaphysical explanations, and is another illustration of the need for interpretation of so much RC teaching. Note that the Bible has been called a dark and dead book, and denigrated as a supreme authority due to its interpretive nature, which is not true of RC teaching. Thus the typical layman must be expected to understand such teachings as following without thinking that that Christ somehow dies again as a sacrifice for sins, which requires actual blood.

The supreme power of the priestly office is the power of consecrating...Indeed, it is equal to that of Jesus Christ...When the priest pronounces the tremendous words of consecration, he reaches up into the heavens, brings Christ down from His throne, and places Him upon our altar to be offered up again as the Victim for the sins of man...Indeed it is greater even than the power of the Virgin Mary [who is said to be all but almighty herself]...The priest speaks and lo! Christ, the eternal and omnipotent God, bows his head in humble obedience to the priest's command. - (John A. O'Brien, Ph.D., LL.D., The Faith of Millions, 255-256 , O'Brien. Nihtt obstat: Rev. Lawrence Gollner, Censor Librorum Imprimatur: Leo A. Pursley, Bishop of Fort Wayne,-South Bend, March 16, 1974

1265. What is the Sacrifice of the Mass?...Christ, the eternal High Priest, in an unbloody way offers himself a most acceptable Victim to the eternal Father, as he did upon the Cross.

1269. How does the Mass re-present Calvary? The Mass re-presents Calvary by continuing Christ’s sacrifice of himself to his heavenly Father. In the Mass, no less than on Calvary, Jesus really offers his life to his heavenly Father.

1277. Does the Mass detract from the one, unique Sacrifice of the Cross? The Catechism of the Council of Trent: The Mass in no way detracts from the one, unique Sacrifice of the Cross because the Mass is the same Sacrifice as that of the Cross, to continue on earth until the end of time...The Mass, therefore, no less than the Cross, is expiatory for sins; but now the expiation is experienced by those for whom, on the Cross, the title of God’s mercy had been gained. - The Question and Answer Catholic Catechism by Fr John Hardon

And forasmuch as, in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the mass, that same Christ is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner, who once offered Himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross; the holy Synod teaches, that this sacrifice is truly propritiatory...For the victim is one and the same, the same now offering by the ministry of priests, who then offered Himself on the cross, the manner alone of offering being different. - Trent The Twenty-Second Session, cp. 2; http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct22.html

We, therefore, confess that the sacrifice of the Mass is one and the same sacrifice with that of the cross...That the holy sacrifice of the Mass, therefore, is not only a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, or a commemoration of the sacrifice of the cross; but also a sacrifice of propitiation, by which God is appeased and rendered propitious.. (The Catechism of the Council of Trent, Published by Command of Pope Pius the Fifth (New York: Christian Press, 1905), pp. 173-175).

CCC 1364 As often as the sacrifice of the Cross by which 'Christ our Pasch has been sacrificed' is celebrated on the altar, the work of our redemption is carried out."

CCC, second edition 1367: The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory."

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Protestant: It is contrary to Scripture to say that Mary was sinless.

Catholic: How is it contrary to Scripture?

Protestant: Oh! So EVERYTHING that isn’t in Scripture must be TRUE?

Catholic: oK, yeah. We make up whatever we have to. If the Scriptures don’t teach it, we can! They don’t say not to teach it!

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“This statement made by a fallen away Catholic......amazing “

Not fallen. “Seated in the heavenlies with Christ.”

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“She’s not the mother of His divine nature,
Jesus was all man and all God and you cannot separate the two....You didn’t pay real close attention in Religion class, did you??? “

Sure you can. It is as easy as talking about His peri carnage existence in eternity and His entry into time and human existence.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Autocorrect!

Should be pre-incarnate existence.

[Arthur McGowan]

So, is everything that is NOT taught in Scripture false?

There’s nothing in Scripture about using telephones.

I presume, then, that you do not use telephones.

[avenir]

"This decision by most Christian denominations to interpret such a key section of the Bible in a figurative way seems curious in light of the fact that flocks of disciples walked away from Jesus at the time of its proclamation. One would think that if His message had somehow been taken too literally by the disturbed crowds, and in fact He intended it in only a symbolic way, Jesus would have corrected the misunderstanding among the departing throngs, rather than let them walk away from His saving message."

And when he was alone, those around him with the twelve asked him about the parables. And he said to them, “To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables, so that 'they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand, lest they should turn and be forgiven.'"—Mark 4

I am not saying "eat my flesh and drink my blood" was a proper parable (though in my mind it is clearly figurative), but do think the result of His saying falls in line with the judgment He spoke of in Mark above. Jesus came to Israel, His own, and His own received Him not. Tragic mistake.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“
There’s nothing in Scripture about using telephones.

I presume, then, that you do not use telephones.”

You’ve got to do better than a logical fallacy...

[1010RD]

I do. That's why I stick to what Scripture says about her and not the man-made fairy tales that men have invented. Believing lies about someone is not respecting them.

Completely concur, but weren't you just arguing recently that Jesus wasn't born to Mary? By born I mean in the usual way like how women have babies.