Current status of Mary [Re: Cardinal Ratzinger Does Not Foresee Approval of “Co-redemptrix”]

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

Mary is mediatrix and has the power to grant all graces.

Mary is the advocate for the people of God and has the authority to influence God's judgments.

Would you please give me your intreprations of these two parts of the petition. I ask because they were intreprated yesterday for me by another catholic on a different thread, and I would be interested if other catholics saw it the same way. Thanks.

Becky

[JesseShurun]

All things were created by Mary for Mary. Even the Son of God. "Make some wine!" she commands and he does it. Mary is co-creator with God and in fact tho it's little known, she has taken up her rightful seat at the right hand of God. (Somewhere in Hebrews)

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

May I respectfully point out that this verse says to continue in the doctrine of Christ not the doctrine of a church.

Was there a particular doctrine that John meant, when refering to the doctrine of Christ?

IMO, it would be that salvation is thru Jesus Christ only.

Becky

[Catholicguy]

Sola Scriptura requires no other authority such as Tradition or a teaching Church..

Why not just say that??????

<> Because they do not believe that. Steve does not think his congregation comeptent to enter into disagreement with his interpretation of the Bible and Rnmom is not competent to disagree with her Pope, the_doc.

Sola Scriptura is a bunch of hooey. Each lil' denomination/church/assembly/community; whatever you call it, is led by some man who has usurped the Divinely-Constituted authority and they weild that power with absolute authority. Disagree with the minister of Thomas Rd Baptist Church and you are history DESPITE Sola Scriptura. Falwell is Pope for his church just as drstevej is Pope for his church and the_doc is Pope for Rnmom.

Sola Scriptura is a myth. Were it rue, it would be found in the Bible AND folks would act on it. As it is, folks find some church - there are zillions of 'em - that agrees with what the individual already believes and then they join that church. They find a church to fit their beliefs....

IF Sola Scriptura were true, one would never have to have it explained to them and one would never have conflicting doctrine..it is just so stupid to say that sola scriptura actually exists - but, protestants take that as Gospel on the oral tradition of their protestant masters; who disagree with one another proving, I guess, that sola scriptura is true.<>

[Aquinasfan]

Excellent post. I'm bumping it so I can see it again.

At least someone appreciated it ;-)

[Desdemona]

IF Sola Scriptura were true, one would never have to have it explained to them and one would never have conflicting doctrine..it is just so stupid to say that sola scriptura actually exists - but, protestants take that as Gospel on the oral tradition of their protestant masters; who disagree with one another proving, I guess, that sola scriptura is true.

You're making me dizzy.

[Catholicguy]

<> Their ideas of scripture are but the oral traditions of those who revolted against the Divinely-Constituted authority. They are told what to believe prior to reading and "studying" the New Testament.

Were this any other endeavor, it would be palpably insane. Imagine a group of scholars gathering to oppose what a living author of a text attests his writngs mean? Most folks would say, "Look, you are CRAZY. The living auuthor of that text says the opposite of what you claim he says. Who are you to oppose what the author says?"

The Catholic Church wrote the New Testament and 16 CEBTURIES later some guys come along and go "Whoa, wait a second. Everything is a lie. The living author (The Catholic Church)didn't mean what she has said for 16 CENTURIES. Nope, she was lying but we great and humble men have discovered the REAL meaning of scripture and now you must follow us."

Totally insane. The living author of the New Testament is a liar and those opposed to the living author of the New Testament are the only ones to be trusted.

"Wait, just a second," you say, "Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit upon the Catholic Church He established to teach it all truth and yet you want me to think Jesus lied." And the revolters say, "Well, in so many words, yes."

"Wait, just a second," you say,"Jesus said He would be with His Church until the end of time and the gates of Hell would not prevail." And the revolters says, "Jesus was kidding. He REALLY meant He would be with US."

All it takes is the willingness to think of Jesus as a liar to accept sola scriptura and opposition to 16 CENTURIES of unchanging doctrine. <>

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

but, protestants take that as Gospel on the oral tradition of their protestant masters;

Not all of us do:)

I think the problem with so many different denominations comes from what you stated earlier. Not many people actually know what the bible really says.

New denominations are formed, IMO, because someone will come up against something in a church that they don't like regardless of wha the bible says so they go start a new one to uphold what they want the bible to say. You can pretty much make it say what ever you want. Look at the thread right now about Divorce and spousal abuse. Look at all the different intrerprations of those few verses where Jesus talked about divorce.

But if people would read it following the critiria that was meant to be used I think you would alot less differences. Literal, grammatical, historical.

Becky

[Catholicguy]

<> But, if you are willing to believe those lies, you get to have birth control, divorce and remarriage, and you get a million and more Popes and you can choose for yourselves what Doctrines to believe and which ones to reject and you can find a church that suits YOU personally.

After all, that is what the Faith is all about. YOU. :)<>

[Desdemona]

The living author of the New Testament is a liar and those opposed to the living author of the New Testament are the only ones to be trusted.

Which is why I prefer to call the protestant uprising a "revolt". Nothing was changed, but a lot was thrown out and destroyed.

[Catholicguy]

Your quibble is immaterial and your disgusting judgemenatlism is quintessential Calvinism.<> NO changing enter into entering changes the entire meaning and you know that cg that is why you are so angry.

<> Thanks for, again, proving my point. You claim to know better than me what I REALLY think.

You not only think that Calvin is God. You think you are.<>

[Catholicguy]

I have never said anyone was going to hell because they did not agree with me..

<> You have done that REPEATEDLY. And not just to me. You think you perfectly explicate the Calvinism your Pope the_doc taught you and you claim those that refuse to embrace that "truth" are unregenerarte.

Sorry, Lady. Them's your words, repeatedly.<>

[Catholicguy]

That was from a speech given to Catholics. Other scholars have noted this before. Hahn is just explaining what his scholarship revealed to him<> No that little doctrine of his was tried out on the Presbyterians.

<> YES, go back and read it. It WAS a speech delivered to Catholics.

>

[Frumanchu]

One thing that is getting lost in the translation is that in RC teaching, Salvation is not realized until we have passed to our eternal reward. That's the goal. No one is just "saved" because they read the bible and believe what it says. There's a lot more involved.

Salvation is bought with a price...the blood of Jesus Christ shed upon the cross. You must ask what we are saved FROM. We are saved from the just penalty of our sinfulness. The atoning sacrifice of Christ, the perfect Lamb of God, satisfies the just requirements of the absolute righteousness God demands. In one sense, salvation occurred at Christ's death, and in another it will be fully realized at judgement. My point is that this sacrificial atonement is avoidable given the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception because God could simply suspend original sin in His elect (regardless of definition) and eliminate the need for atonement. If, as your church maintains, Mary was completely sinless, she didn't need a savior. She was righteous and could stand before God.

And who, exactly, are the "elect"? Everyone is invited. That would mean that all people are the elect. Whether or not any one person partakes is a matter of free will, not God's.

That's a whole other debate, Des. Suffice it to say at this time that the language and context when the term "elect" is used seems to clearly indicate that it is a group separated from the whole, not a term applied to the whole.

And I guess I don't understand why, when God sent His only Son to us, he would have chosen just anyone to be the vessel of passage.

I guess I don't understand then why God would choose a Pharisee who persecuted His Son's followers to become an Apostle to the Gentiles. His ways are not our ways.

[theAmbassador]

<>His "Doctrine" comes from Satan. The scorpion's egg of "You shall be like Gods" was implanted in his intellect. Calvin's Will fertislised it and the bastard child was brought forth- Calvin's Dark Doctrines - and those with itching ears, anxious for new doctrine sallied forth to worship the Mother of errors and His child.<> ~ Catholicguy

<> LMAO I get all tingly and whatnot when I am called a "reprobate." To REALLY please me, tell me I will spend eternity in Hell. :) Oh, that's right. Reprobate means I AM predetermined for Hell. That being the case, why waste your time on one like me?<>

You need to rethink your Catholic doctrine that you have been fed and get out of your Maryology and Popeology and Catholicology. Calvinism is the doctrine of the Bible; it is the doctrine that the Lord Himself taught. In this way, Jesus is a Calvinist. And you despise His teaching. This does not look good for you. Reprobation is a real thing and the Lord's wrath will reside upon all of them. You need to repent of all your idolatries from the Catholic church.

• Proverbs 16:4 The Lord has made all things for Himself, yes, even the wicked for the day of doom.

It is perfectly reasonable to expect that if a man will not glorify his Creator and bring forth those fruits (John 15:8) then such a man has use to God only in his destruction. God will gain His glory over him and he will fulfill the use to which he was created even passively by being burned in the furnace of His judgment. Our Maker will not be thwarted in His purpose for man. God endures with much longsuffering these vessels of wrath by allowing them to enjoy the things He has given him dominion over. He permits him to enjoy the warm sun and the beauty of the moon and stars and the rain and all that the earth yields. Yet, he does not glorify His Maker. So, God in His longsuffering will not forever strive with him, but will eventually gather them all together to gain the purpose for which they were created in their destruction. Why should they be permitted to enjoy the goodness of God forever when they will not bring forth any fruit? Like the Parable of the fig tree, God has given the worthless all the benefits of life on this earth and yet, he bears no fruit. Why should all creation groan under the burden of such men?

He does tell us that "He has no pleasure in the death of the wicked." Yet, it is perfectly just and righteous that God should not endure with longsuffering forever their uselessness and let them frustrate Him. So, what fault will you attribute to the Vinedresser for bundling them up and gaining use of them in their destruction? As Jonathan Edwards does point out, it would be well to consider exactly how JUST it is that all men share in the same end as the wicked. So, I am moved to praise God for even offering grace to a single man.

When the saints go forth and look upon the corpses of the men who have transgressed against [God] shall we not be moved to a greater sense of awareness of just how wonderful the unmerited grace of God really is? Shall the saints not rejoice to know that we are not the objects of God fierce wrath? Shall the saints not fall down and give God glory through praise and worship? Shall we not feel awe and wonder to simply know that the only difference between the saints and the reprobate is the free grace of God that He has in His sovereignty bestowed? Will the saints not tell the angels of the wonders of God's grace and will the angels not look with wonder at the redeemed for the shedding of their Maker's blood which He poured out for the saints?

[Desdemona]

We'll try this again. I'm having a nasty sinus day, and am kind of dizzy, so I'm pinging a few others just to make sure I'm typing straight. If I'm in error they will correct me.

Salvation is bought with a price...the blood of Jesus Christ shed upon the cross.

Jesus Christ died, his blood was shed if you prefer, to offer the world eternal life in heaven. He open the gates. But, that isn't all. We have a part to play in out lives. In order to achieve salvation, we, the flock, must hold up our end of the bargain. He told us that we must do His will on earth in order to achieve that. That means prayer, sacrifice and a life lived worthy of Christ. Charity, humility, poverty of heart and spirit are necessary.

You must ask what we are saved FROM. We are saved from the just penalty of our sinfulness.

We have Salvation from everlasting death. That would be hell. Well, and purgatory, but if you live right, that could be a short stay.

The atoning sacrifice of Christ, the perfect Lamb of God, satisfies the just requirements of the absolute righteousness God demands.

Atoning is not Christ's sacrifice to make. That is ours. Christ's sacrifice was the ultimate one, one which none of us can ever repay - he gave his life for us. The least we can do is his will.

In one sense, salvation occurred at Christ's death, and in another it will be fully realized at judgement.

Salvation occurs daily as we pray and live life in Christ. We will not know how successful we are until we pass to the other side to be judged. Christ's death just opened the gates of the kingdom. Our actions determine whether or not we are allowed to pass through them.

My point is that this sacrificial atonement is avoidable given the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception because God could simply suspend original sin in His elect (regardless of definition) and eliminate the need for atonement. If, as your church maintains, Mary was completely sinless, she didn't need a savior.

God could, but He didn't. And whether or not Mary needed a savior is between her and God. As she was not divine, I think she did a savior. Aside from that, the gates of heaven were closed to her, still, if Christ hadn't died.

She was righteous and could stand before God.

I'm sure she does. Regularly. She already had all the grace which we, in our lives, try to receive.

[RnMomof7]

Popes can teach infallibly but the Church does not teach that popes are impeccable. Certainly the first pope, Peter, was not without sin.

Sin is not the issue.."there is none righteous no not one" ..the issue is that "unbroken chain" that you say proves that the "Keys" still reside in Rome..no keys no infallibility

[RnMomof7]

The woman represents both Israel/the Church and Mary.

So then is the ark Israel...the Church and Mary?

[RnMomof7]

All things were created by Mary for Mary. Even the Son of God. "Make some wine!" she commands and he does it. Mary is co-creator with God and in fact tho it's little known, she has taken up her rightful seat at the right hand of God. (Somewhere in Hebrews)

Exd 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.