Mary, Mother of God

The Sacred Page ^ | December 29, 2015

[Iscool]

“Mary, mother of JESUS.”

And JESUS is GOD.

Jesus is God, manifest in the flesh...Put's a little different perspective on it...

1Ti_3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Was Jesus justified in the flesh??? Nope...Justified in the spirit...

[rwa265]

I know that the Roman Catholic church does not look down on any of the various Catholic branches.
Absolute and utter nonsense. They very well do look down on others.

---

There are many Catholics who are unaware that the Latin Church is in full communion with several Eastern Catholic Churches. I was one of them. Many years ago, I was invited to attend a Mass and breakfast at the Cedars, which is the banquet hall at St. Raymond’s Maronite Church in St. Louis. We were advised in the invitation that attending the Maronite Mass would fulfill our obligation to attend weekly Mass. This was something that several of us did not know.

Due to this lack of knowledge among Latin Catholics, there are most likely some who do look down on our Eastern Rite brothers, which is wrong for them to do.

The Latin Church is not in communion with the Orthodox Church, which is unfortunate. A major purpose for holding Vatican II was a desire to reconcile the various Christian faiths with each other.

Peace,
Rich

[Syncro]

King James Bible
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus

All will call Mary blessed, but she is not a mediator between man and God.

Only Jesus.

Born a man, always God from eternity.

[Syncro]

29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

Guess Paul didn't have a clue. Who knew?

Take to heart his words so that you do not eat and drink damnation to yourself.

Remember that Jesus is in each and every Christian. And each and every Christian is in Jesus.

One does not have to visit the Catholic wafer to be in the presence of Jesus if one is born again.

Scripture references available upon request.

[daniel1212]

The sin of Onan was quite evident to be selfish disobedience to God.

This might be true; but where is it recorded? Did GOD tell Juda to tell him? Juda, therefore said to Onan his son... IF I live by sticking to the Scriptures.

Sticking to the Scriptures means going by what it teaches, which as in everyday life means what is communicated in the many genres and means employed,and via precept as well as the principal behind them, the use of which Scripture itself affirms and examples. In contrast, restricting teaching to only explicit statements such as you require here (sounding like a RC in opposing SS, though Westminster even affirms the light of nature and the magisterial office) is not Scriptural or reasonable, though the more explicit and unequivocal a statement is then the stronger it the case is for the validity of its understanding.

How do we know that "Adam knew his wife" means sexually so since it is not explicitly stated? Or how do we know from the OT that Cain slew his brother due to envy since it is not explicitly stated but only implied? That he did so because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous (1Jn. 3:12) is affirmed under the NT, thus further indicating it was due to envy.

Here, how do we know here that the sin of Onan was quite evident to be selfish disobedience to God? Because first the text plainly states that "Onan knew that the seed should not be his...that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother," (Genesis 38:9) thus if the seed would have been his then he would not have prevented conception, which was rather obviously due to selfishness. That it was disobedience to God is what may be contended, but in the light of the later law mandating this (Dt. 25:5-10; cf. Ruth 4:10) it infers that at least they were doing "by nature" what is in the Law, (Rm. 2:14) which has God as its author.

[daniel1212]

And how do you know that your judgment is correct that your church is the one true church and is necessary to know what is of God, but others are wrong in judging that she is not the one true church?

Pretty much, yes.

So "Pretty much" is how you know? Or are you basically arguing that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority.

And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus any who knowingly dissent from the latter must be in rebellion to God?

[daniel1212]

Thanks for your incorrect analysis.

Thanks for your lack of any correct analysis.

[Syncro]

Thanks for your incorrect analysis.

The links provided show that all of the analysis is backed up by the Bible.

That "pesky" Bible, The Word.

Jesus is the Word made flesh.

That pesky Jesus?

Thank you Daniel for your intensive research work, always backed up by scripture and history in the case of all the facts of what Catholicism made the handmaid of the Lord into.

[Syncro]

The question was How do you know?

Any proof you can provide?

Crickets do not make a very good argument.

If what you believe were true, a good debater would not hesitate to show why.

If there is no proof, you are wrong.

[Syncro]

The Latin Church is not in communion with the Orthodox Church, which is unfortunate.

Catholics split with the Orthodox Church about a thousand years ago.

They were "protesting" the Orthodox not accepting their pope as supreme authority over them.

As well as many other un scriptural beliefs of Catholicism, as the Orthodox preferred to follow Christianity rather than Catholicism.

Which act by Catholics made them in essence the first Protestants.

[daniel1212]

The Scripture that didn’t exist in AD 30 is supreme because it didn’t exist in AD30? you continue to ignore, as needed, that Scripture - which did exist in 30AD - alone was manifestly the supreme authority on what is of God, the supreme standard for faith and obedience, and providing for additional conflative complimentary writings being recognized as such, as was the case in the past, and thus providing for a canon.

Where in the Old Testament is there Protestantism?

Where is Catholicism? Protestantism is basically supported in principle, while Catholicism is not. As told you, even laity could assuredly discern both men and writings as being of God, even without an infallible magisterium, and even in dissent from the historical magisterium, which is how the church began, with laity discerning that John the baptizer was a prophet indeed, and that Jesus was the Christ, contrary to the judgment of those who sat in the seat of Moses. (Mk. 11:27-3; cf. Mt. 23:2) Who were magisterially the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23)

But instead the common people followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved them Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)

And the veracity of Truth claims being dependent upon the weight of scriptural substantiation, and even in dissent from the claimed historical magisterium, is the most fundamental distinctive of the Reformation, having clear Scriptural support, while the fundamental distinctive of Rome, that of the veracity of her claims being based upon the premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility is unseen and unnecessary in Scripture. Almighty God both provided His word and preserved faith without one, and often by raising up men from without the formal magisterium (dissent from which was a capital crime: Dt. 17:8-13), and thus the church did not begin upon those who sat in the seat of Moses, as akin to Rome, but upon dissenters, "the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone." (Eph. 2:20) Thanks be to God.

In addition are the multiple beliefs of Catholicism that are not of Scripture, more critically than the declension of true Protestant evangelical churches.

[metmom]

And yet, if a Baptist church split over some point of doctrine, it would be condemned by Catholics and used as an example of the fallacy and weakness of sola Scriptura.

Catholics allow for themselves what they disallow for everyone else.

It’s called *hypocrisy*.

[metmom]

And I’m STILL waiting for someone to answer whether the Church gives Scripture it’s authority or whether Scripture gives the Church its authority and which one is authoritative over the other.

[MHGinTN]

“Scripture references available upon request.” Bwahahaha, the cricket symphony will be cacophonous!

[daniel1212]

Praise the Lord. Considering how much Rome has gone beyond Scripture, and her claim to even remember" a allegedly 1st century event that was lacking in early valid testimony even as a common belief.

As Ratzinger states,

Before Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven was defined, all theological faculties in the world were consulted for their opinion. Our teachers' answer was emphatically negative . What here became evident was the one-sidedness, not only of the historical, but of the historicist method in theology. “Tradition” was identified with what could be proved on the basis of texts. Altaner , the patrologist from Wurzburg…had proven in a scientifically persuasive manner that the doctrine of Mary’s bodily Assumption into heaven was unknown before the 5C ; this doctrine, therefore, he argued, could not belong to the “apostolic tradition. And this was his conclusion, which my teachers at Munich shared . This argument is compelling if you understand “tradition” strictly as the handing down of fixed formulas and texts [meaning having actual substance in history]…But if you conceive of “tradition” as the living process whereby the Holy Spirit introduces us to the fullness of truth and teaches us how to understand what previously we could still not grasp (cf. Jn 16:12-13), then subsequent “remembering” (cf. Jn 16:4, for instance) can come to recognize what it has not caught sight of [even bcz there was nothing to see] previously and was already handed down [invisibly, without evidence] in the original Word,” J. Ratzinger, Milestones (Ignatius, n.d.), 58-59. Therefore Rome can claim to "remember" a fable that only is evidenced as being a later development and make what at best warranted only speculation into a binding doctrine approx. 1800 years after the event allegedly occurred.

[daniel1212]

And I’m STILL waiting for someone to answer whether the Church gives Scripture it’s authority or whether Scripture gives the Church its authority and which one is authoritative over the other.

Catholic doctrine, as authoritatively proposed by the Church, should be held as the supreme law; for, seeing that the same God is the author both of the Sacred Books and of the doctrine committed to the Church, it is clearly impossible that any teaching can by legitimate means be extracted from the former, which shall in any respect be at variance with the latter. Hence it follows that all interpretation is foolish and false which either makes the sacred writers disagree one with another, or is opposed to the doctrine of the Church.(Providentissimus Deus; http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus_en.html)

As His premise is fallacious so is his conclusion. For that Scripture is wholly inspired of God is a belief that is essentially due to its Divine qualities and attestation, with many writings of Scripture having already held to be authoritative by the time of Christ, thus the frequent appeals to it as the word of God by Him and the NT church, while Rome rejects that souls can even assuredly know what Scripture consists of and means, as the church alone possesses ensured (if conditional) infallibility. And thus the basis for assurance of the belief that Rome herself is what she claims rest upon the premise of her claimed ensured infallibility.

But as ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility is a novelty, unseen and unnecessary in Scripture, thus the claim that it cannot be contradicted by Scripture, and is actually the supreme law, is fallacious. Moreover, even RC theology does not hold that infallible teachings are wholly inspired of God and thus have it as their author the same way Scripture does, and which is not simply correct, but has the unique anointing of the word of God. (Heb. 4:12)

[daniel1212]

Which act by Catholics made them in essence the first Protestants. The EOs share most of the errors of Rome, though with substantial differences, while conservative RCs can be charged with with being Prots in principal as rather than giving assent to all of V2 and modern teaching, they engaging in judging whether it warrants assent based upon their understanding of historical RC teaching. The paradox is that in seeming contrast, some of the strictest class of traditional RCs (sedevacantism) even assert that all Cath. teaching, even all public papal teaching (invoking Pious 10) requires at least religious assent. But since modern popes are too liberal, than they hold that Pope Paul VI and his successors left the true Catholic Church and thus lost legitimate authority in the Church, arguing that a formal heretic cannot be the Catholic pope, with the see being vacant since the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958.

They also have SSPV which broke away from the traditional sect the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) over liturgical issues, and also hold that many in the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church no longer adhere to the Catholic faith but instead profess a new, modernist, Conciliar religion. But SSPV priests regard the questions of the legitimacy of the present hierarchy and the possibility that the Holy See is unoccupied (sedevacantism) to be unresolved.

[ealgeone]

My question: If the pope has the keys why does he need to consult with anyone? Shouldn't he be able to say God told me _______ and there be no question about it?

Would love to hear the catholic position on this.

[Not gonna take it anymore]

You don’t have a clue.

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

Shouldn't he be able to say God told me _______ and there be no question about it? Would love to hear the catholic position on this.

The pope and bishops have the power to "bind and loose."

The phrase was well known by the Jews. From the Jewish Encyclopedia:

Rabbinical term for "forbidding and permitting." The expression "asar" (to bind herself by a bond) is used in the Bible (Num. xxx. 3 et seq.) for a vow which prevents one from using a thing. It implies binding an object by a powerful spell in order to prevent its use (see Targ. to Ps. lviii. 6; Shab. 81b, for "magic spell"). The corresponding Aramean "shera" and Hebrew "hittir" (for loosing the prohibitive spell) have no parallel in the Bible.

The power of binding and loosing was always claimed by the Pharisees. Under Queen Alexandra, the Pharisees, says Josephus ("B J." i, 5, § 2), "became the administrators of all public affairs so as to be empowered to banish and readmit whom they pleased, as well as to loose and to bind." This does not mean that, as the learned men, they merely decided what, according to the Law, was forbidden or allowed, but that they possessed and exercised the power of tying or untying a thing by the spell of their divine authority, just as they could, by the power vested in them, pronounce and revoke an anathema upon a person. The various schools had the power "to bind and to loose"; that is, to forbid and to permit (Ḥag. 3b); and they could bind any day by declaring it a fast-day (Meg. Ta'an. xxii.; Ta'an. 12a; Yer. Ned. i. 36c, d). This power and authority, vested in the rabbinical body of each age or in the Sanhedrin (see Authority), received its ratification and final sanction from the celestial court of justice (Sifra, Emor, ix.; Mak. 23b).

This Pharisaical authority is also referred to in the New Testament by Jesus, in "Moses' seat." "Do whatever they tell you."

The pope has a special charism, enjoying ultimate earthly Teaching Authority.

The office of the papacy is patterned after the office of the vice-regent of the Davidic kingdom.

We see in Isaiah 22 the office of the vice-regent or majordomo of the Davidic Kingdom. In the king's absence, the prime-minister held full authority.

The Bible tells us that Jesus is the King of the eternal, redeemed Davidic Kingdom -his Church. Jesus gave "the keys of the kingdom" to Peter, instituting the office of the "prime minister" of Jesus' earthly kingdom.

+ + +

The Church teaches that Divine Revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle.

The pope does not transmit Divine Revelation, but can rule infallibly regarding Church Teaching, which is based on Divine Revelation.

In my next post I will post below the relevant passages from the Catechism regarding the authority of the bishops and pope.