Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

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

Posted on 10/07/2002 1:03:41 PM PDT by Polycarp

This is a decent summary from a non-Catholic source:

Current status of Mary:

Although the virgin Mary is rarely mentioned in the Bible, and although Protestant churches consider her to be a relatively minor biblical character, the Roman Catholic Church has long assigned her an elevated status. 

The Roman Catholic Church has historically taught two basic dogmas about Mary:

bullet 1. Mary is the Mother of God.
bullet 2. Perpetual Virginity: Mary was a virgin when Yeshua (Jesus) was conceived; this state continued throughout her life.

Two additional dogmas about Mary were infallibly proclaimed by two popes during the 19th and 20th centuries:

bullet 3. Immaculate Conception: Pope Pius IX proclaimed the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary on 1854-DEC-8. Many Roman Catholics believe that this refers to Jesus' conception circa 5 to 7 BCE. In fact, it means that Mary herself was conceived free of sin before her birth circa 20 BCE.
bullet 4. Assumption of Mary: Pope Pius XII, in his Munificentissimus Deus (1950-NOV-1), defined that Mary, "after the completion of her earthly life was assumed body and soul into the glory of Heaven." That is, she was "taken up body and soul into heaven," at the time of her death. She is there "exalted as Queen of the Universe." 1

In addition, various popes and church councils have referred to Mary as co-redemptrix, mediatrix, and advocate:

bullet In ancient times:
bullet St. Antonius (circa 250 - 350): "All graces that have ever been bestowed on men, all came through Mary."
bullet St. Bernard (1090 - 1153): "[Mary is called] the gate of heaven, because no one can enter that blessed kingdom without passing through her."
bullet St. Bonaventure (1221 - 1274): "As the moon, which stands between the sun and the earth, transmits to this latter whatever it receives from the former, so does Mary pour out upon us who are in this world the heavenly graces that she receives from the divine sun of justice." 1
bullet 1750: Alphonsus Mary de Liguori, canonized as Saint Alphonsus in 1839, wrote a book "The Glories of Mary." It continues to be published today, under various church imprimaturs. Various chapters in the book are titled: "Mary our Help," "Mary our Mediatress," "Mary our Advocate," etc. 1
bullet 1935: Pope Pius XI gave the title co-redemptrix to Mary during a radio broadcast. 1
bullet Circa 1965: The Chapter 8 of the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church, passed by the Vatican Council II states, in part: 
bullet "Rightly, therefore, the Fathers see Mary not merely as passively engaged by God, but as freely cooperating in the work of man’s salvation through faith and obedience. For as St. Irenaeus says, she being obedient, became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race. Hence not a few of the early Fathers gladly assert with him in their preaching ...'death through Eve, life through Mary.' This union of the mother with the son in the work of salvation is made manifest from the time of Christ’s virginal conception up to his death" 2  
bullet "Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation. By her maternal charity, she cares for the brethren of her Son, who still journey on earth surrounded by dangers and difficulties, until they are led into their blessed home. Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress and Mediatrix." 3
bullet 1985: Pope John Paul II recognized Mary as co-redemptrix" during a speech in Guayaquil, Ecuador. He said, in part, "Having suffered for the Church, Mary deserved to become the Mother of all the disciples of her Son, the Mother of their unity...In fact Mary’s role as Co-redemptrix did not cease with the glorification of her Son." 4
bullet 1987-MAR-25: In his encyclical Redemptoris Mater, Pope John Paul II "referred to Mary as 'Mediatrix' three times, and as 'Advocate' twice." 1
bullet 1997-APR-9: During an audience Pope John-Paul II referred to the role of Mary during the crucifixion of Jesus: "Mary … co-operated during the event itself and in the role of mother; thus her co-operation embraces the whole of Christ’s saving work. She alone was associated in this way with the redemptive sacrifice that merited the salvation of all mankind. In union with Christ and in submission to him, she collaborated in obtaining the grace of salvation for all humanity...In God’s plan, Mary is the ‘woman’ (cf. John 2:4; John 19:26), the New Eve, united to the New Adam in restoring humanity to its original dignity. Her cooperation with her Son continues for all time in the universal motherhood which she enjoys in the order of grace. Trusting in this maternal cooperation, let us turn to Mary, imploring her help in all our needs." 1

Although Mary has been referred to on numerous occasions as co-redemptrix, mediatrix, and advocate, none have the force of an infallible papal declaration.

Petition drive to promote an infallible statement:

Professor Mark Miravalle of Franciscan University in Steubenville, OH, initiated a formal petition drive in 1993 during a Marian conference at that university. It asks the Pope to make infallible statement that would officially elevate Mary, the mother of Jesus, to the status of co-redeemer. More than six million signatures from 148 countries have reached the Vatican as of the end of the year 2000, asking that Pope John Paul II infallibly declare a new dogma: "That the Virgin Mary is a co-redeemer with Jesus and co-operates fully with her son in the redemption of humanity." If this were done, "she would be a vastly more powerful figure, something close to the fourth member of the Holy Trinity and the primary female face through which Christians experience the divine." 3 Miravalle's petition has received support from Mother Theresa, 550 bishops, Cardinal John O'Connor and 41 other cardinals (including at least 12 cardinals in Rome). If the dogma is declared infallibly, it would pronounce Mary as "Co-Redemptrix [co-redeemer], Mediatrix [mediator] of All Graces, and Advocate for the People of God." It would require all Roman Catholics to believe that:

bullet Mary is co-redemptrix with Jesus. She participates in people's redemption.
bullet Mary is mediatrix and has the power to grant all graces.
bullet Mary is the advocate for the people of God and has the authority to influence God's judgments.

If the dogma is infallibly declared, many feel that, in the words of Father Rene Laurentin, it would be the equivalent of launching "bombs" at Protestants. Father Laurentin is a French monk and the world's leading Mary scholar. He believes that: "Mary is the model of our faith but she is not divine. There is no mediation or co-redemption except in Christ. He alone is God." Raising the status of Mary would further acerbate the split between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches. Ecumenical activity would be negatively affected. There is speculation that a schism might develop over the issue within the Roman Catholic church. There may be a renewed debate over the role of the pope's power in the church. 5,6


TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; Theology
KEYWORDS: catholic; catholiclist; ratzinger
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 701-720721-740741-760761-777 next last
To: theAmbassador
Bwahahahahahahaha!!!! Fundies kill me!
721 posted on 10/10/2002 10:31:07 PM PDT by Audit_Jesse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Woodkirk
So do you believe, like Bishop Alfonse di Ligouri, the Societies of Mary, and most Catholics, that there are two paths to
salvation, one through Jesus and the other through Mary? And
that she is more loving and merciful than Jesus and able
to impose her decisions upon him? Is Mary another way to
heaven for those who don't want to go through Jesus? Was
Jesus lying when he said that there is no way to the Father except through him?



You're full of it bub if you think "most" catholics believe this, and everything you typed afterward is all broad generalization based on your fallacious idea. I have NEVER met a catholic who thought you could achieve salvation through Mary sans Christ. I'm catholic and I can attest that your statement is total bull. Get over yourself and your bigotry.
722 posted on 10/10/2002 10:56:19 PM PDT by Audit_Jesse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: JesseShurun
That was a wonderful post on the ARK today by the way. Pink had great spiritual insight. I wonder how many read it.

Tooooo few I bet it might threaten the Queens position:>)

723 posted on 10/10/2002 11:02:08 PM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 719 | View Replies]

To: JesseShurun
I love that ...He does bear us up ...
724 posted on 10/10/2002 11:02:44 PM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 720 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
I could tell you deeper things, but I will scare eggo.
725 posted on 10/10/2002 11:12:55 PM PDT by JesseShurun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 724 | View Replies]

To: JesseShurun
LOL...LOL....walk quietly and carry a large Bible:>)
726 posted on 10/10/2002 11:16:30 PM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 725 | View Replies]

To: MarMema
Listen MarMema, I've been told that there are personality conflicts among some of the Catholic and Orthodox posters on FR by FReepmail, and don't care to get involved with that. I am not suggesting that the Orthodox Churches and Catholic Church are the same, otherwise they wouldn't be in schism with each other. I was just trying to point out that they have far, far more in common with each other than with the "Calvinists". You know how sometimes best friends can fight each other like no other? Maybe the disputes between the Othodox and Catholics are along the same lines. Believe me, as a Uniate I know, boy do I know.

MarMema, the Divine Liturgy, the Divine Liturgy! Walk one of the Calvinist posters through on that one! Then tell me how much "more" you have in common with them as opposed to the Catholic Church. I'll have the ambulance ready!

After reading your original Post to me:

Incorrect. Absolutely incorrect. I have found far more in common with Rnmom and Hank Kerchief, than I have with any Catholic here on FR. I prefer to be lumped with the protestants, thank you.

I don't know. My response looked "globally" at the Churches but your point tends to be more personal. In any event, overall, the Religion Forum on FR seems to be a poor representation of what is happening throughout the "religious world". Maybe that will change. I don't know, I don't want to dispute you, but I reread my Post #522 and essentially stick by it. I don't know Hank Kerchief, and RnMom, who I just started posting "with" is just playing games with me. I am not impressed. Maybe I caught her at a bad time. Whether for her or me, I cannot say. You'd think she alone owns the Bible. I have noticed that some, no, many, very bright posters have stayed away from this thread and have been hearing that it happens when the Calvinists "come to town". I can't blame them. A lot of anti-Catholic bigotry, distortions, lies, and arrogance, false attributions of what others believe, etc., etc., etc. Did not Christ say something to the effect "Do not give what is Holy to swine"? Where's the civil discussion?

I don't know, from your Post, maybe you want to convert to Calvinism? Maybe discuss your Faith in other venues if personalities are that bad? I'm not here to fight, but MarMema, while the Churches of Apostolic Succession are not the same, doctrinally they are similar, much more so than compared to Calvinism.

Whatever you do, may God Bless You!

727 posted on 10/11/2002 1:17:12 AM PDT by TotusTuus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 621 | View Replies]

To: Audit_Jesse
You think so --- I know more about your religion than you do --
Ask someone who wears the scapular of Mary as to why they
wear it. Ask some of your faithful rosarians if according to tradition
Mary ever made a promise of a second way to heaven, Read the
material of the Ligourians. Ask them about Mary's ladder to heaven.
Maybe they are keeping it secret from you --- they don't want too
many people crowding up her ladder to heaven. You guys
are unbelievable ====
728 posted on 10/11/2002 4:54:44 AM PDT by Woodkirk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 722 | View Replies]

To: Audit_Jesse
You think so --- I know more about your religion than you do --
Ask someone who wears the scapular of Mary as to why they
wear it. Ask some of your faithful rosarians if according to tradition
Mary ever made a promise of a second way to heaven, Read the
material of the Ligourians. Ask them about Mary's ladder to heaven.
Maybe they are keeping it secret from you --- they don't want too
many people crowding up her ladder to heaven. You guys
are unbelievable ====
729 posted on 10/11/2002 4:54:45 AM PDT by Woodkirk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 722 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI
The Canon of the Bible

The reality, however, is that there are many hundreds of quotations and allusions to the Septuagint and Deuterocanonical books found in the New Testament. For example, when Our Lord quoted Isaiah to condemn those who "leave the commandment of God, and hold fast to the precepts of men" (St. Mark 7, 6-8) He used that version of Isaiah found only in the Septuagint. Christ also clearly alluded to Sirach 27, 6 which reads "The fruit discloses the cultivation of a tree." In St. John 10, 22-36 Our Lord and the Apostles observed the key Feast of the Dedication, or Hanukkah, which celebrates events only recorded in 1 and 2 Maccabees. Likewise, St. Paul draws from Wisdom chapters 12 and 13 in Romans 1, 19-25. Again, in Hebrews 11, 35 we read of women who "received their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they might rise again to a better life." The ex- Protestant convert James Akin in his tract "Defending the Deuterocanonicals" states:

"There are a couple of examples of women receiving back their dead by resurrection in the Protestant Old Testament. You can find Elijah raising the son of the widow of Zarepheth in 1 Kings 17, and you can find his successor Elisha raising the son of the Shunammite woman in 2 Kings 4, but one thing you can never find – anywhere in the Protestant Old Testament, from front to back, from Genesis to Malachi – is someone being tortured and refusing to accept release for the sake of a better resurrection. If you want to find that, you have to look in the Catholic Old Testament – in the deuterocanonical books Martin Luther cut out of his Bible."4

________________________________________________

How did they "live by the rule of faith" -- the WORD alone -- when all that was available were the letters, aka Epistles, aka "the WORD of God", being circulated to all the churches from the apostles, when they couldn't be there to teach them directly (orally)?

To begin with, since no canon of new testament scripture existed at all immediately after the death of Jesus, it would have been impossible for Christians to live by "the Bible alone." All that they had was oral tradition. Some of this oral tradition was written down later, some wasn't. Scripture tells us "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings[ 2:15 Or traditions] we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter. (2 Thessalonians 2:15)" Christians are never told to abandon oral tradition.

The Bible is the Word of God. But Jesus is the Word of God made flesh, as the Bible tells us. There is more to Jesus (truth) than is recorded in the Bible, as the Bible tells us.

I think you'll find your answer in the NT as to how God could possibly find a way to be able to teach his elect what they needed to know as his plan of redemption was unfolding.

See above. I'm interested in your interpretation.

Its really amazing, isn't it, that in A.D. 367, Athanasius listed the same exact 27 New Testament books (made up of the apostle's letters to the churches) in his Thirty-ninth Paschal Letter that we have today. Hummmmmmmmm.

Why amazing? A consensus existed before several councils authoritatively determined the canon of scripture around the year 400 A.D. But many books were still in dispute prior to the council.

All canonical books of the OT were written by prophets; none of the apocryphal books were written by any prophets: therefore they are not canonical.

Thus sayeth Matchett-PI? Where's that in the Bible? The Church determined the canon of Scripture in several councils around the year 400 which included the Deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament. This canon was in use until Luther's time when he decided to ditch several inconvenient books. His pretext for disposing of the Deuterocanonical books was the Jewish gathering at Jamnia around the year 100, the same gathering that rejected all Apostolic writings. By what authority did Luther dispose of the Deuterocanonical books? It couldn't have been the Bible, could it? Because the Bible doesn't determine its canon. An outside authority must determine the canon. Protestants depend on Luther's authority or their own. Catholics depend on the authority of Christ's Church, "the pillar and foundation of truth."

Athanasius says “Our whole scripture is divinely inspired and hath books not infinite in number, but finite and comprehended in a certain canon.” There was, therefore a certain canon by the late 300’s. He then enumerates this, “The canonical books of the OT are two and twenty. Equal to the number as the Hebrew alphabet.”

Jerome plainly rejects all the apocryphal books from the canon. In his Prologus Galeatus he says “As there are twenty and two letters, so there are counted twenty and two books. Therefore the Wisdom of Solomon, and Jesus, and Judith, and Tobit, are not in the canon.” (See the introduction to the Vulgate in his own hand.)

Should we derive the canon of Scripture from the Church Councils or from Athanasius and Jerome? If we are to go only by the Church Fathers, why just Athanasius and Jerome? Wouldn't the consensus of the Church Fathers make more sense?

Below we give patristic quotations from each of the deuterocanonical books. Notice how the Fathers quoted these books along with the protocanonicals. The deuterocanonicals are those books that were included in the Bible even though there had been some discussion about whether they should be...

Also included are the earliest official lists of the canon. For the sake of brevity these are not given in full. When the lists of the canon cited here are given in full, they include all the books and only the books found in the modern Catholic Bible.

When examining the question of what books were originally included in the Old Testament canon, it is important to note that some of the books of the Bible have been known by more than one name. Sirach is also known as Ecclesiasticus, 1 and 2 Chronicles as 1 and 2 Paralipomenon, Ezra and Nehemiah as 1 and 2 Esdras, and 1 and 2 Samuel with 1 and 2 Kings as 1, 2, 3, and 4 Kings—that is, 1 and 2 Samuel are named 1 and 2 Kings, and 1 and 2 Kings are named 3 and 4 Kings. The history and use of these designations is explained more fully in Scripture reference works.

  The Didache

"You shall not waver with regard to your decisions [Sir. 1:28]. Do not be someone who stretches out his hands to receive but withdraws them when it comes to giving [Sir. 4:31]" (Didache 4:5 [A.D. 70]).

  The Letter of Barnabas

"Since, therefore, [Christ] was about to be manifested and to suffer in the flesh, his suffering was foreshown. For the prophet speaks against evil, ‘Woe to their soul, because they have counseled an evil counsel against themselves’ [Is. 3:9], saying, ‘Let us bind the righteous man because he is displeasing to us’ [Wis. 2:12.]" (Letter of Barnabas 6:7 [A.D. 74]).

  Clement of Rome

"By the word of his might [God] established all things, and by his word he can overthrow them. ‘Who shall say to him, "What have you done?" or who shall resist the power of his strength?’ [Wis. 12:12]" (Letter to the Corinthians 27:5 [ca. A.D. 80]).

  Polycarp of Smyrna

"Stand fast, therefore, in these things, and follow the example of the Lord, being firm and unchangeable in the faith, loving the brotherhood [1 Pet. 2:17].

. . . When you can do good, defer it not, because ‘alms delivers from death’ [Tob. 4:10, 12:9]. Be all of you subject to one another [1 Pet. 5:5], having your conduct blameless among the Gentiles [1 Pet. 2:12], and the Lord may not be blasphemed through you. But woe to him by whom the name of the Lord is blasphemed [Is. 52:5]!" (Letter to the Philadelphians 10 [A.D. 135]).

  Irenaeus

"Those . . . who are believed to be presbyters by many, but serve their own lusts and do not place the fear of God supreme in their hearts, but conduct themselves with contempt toward others and are puffed up with the pride of holding the chief seat [Matt. 23:6] and work evil deeds in secret, saying ‘No man sees us,’ shall be convicted by the Word, who does not judge after outward appearance, nor looks upon the countenance, but the heart; and they shall hear those words to be found in Daniel the prophet: ‘O you seed of Canaan and not of Judah, beauty has deceived you and lust perverted your heart’ [Dan. 13:56]. You that have grown old in wicked days, now your sins which you have committed before have come to light, for you have pronounced false judgments and have been accustomed to condemn the innocent and to let the guilty go free, although the Lord says, ‘You shall not slay the innocent and the righteous’ [Dan. 13:52, citing Ex. 23:7]" (Against Heresies 4:26:3 [A.D. 189]; Daniel 13 is not in the Protestant Bible).

"Jeremiah the prophet has pointed out that as many believers as God has prepared for this purpose, to multiply those left on the earth, should both be under the rule of the saints and to minister to this [new] Jerusalem and that [his] kingdom shall be in it, saying, ‘Look around Jerusalem toward the east and behold the joy which comes to you from God himself. Behold, your sons whom you have sent forth shall come: They shall come in a band from the east to the west. . . . God shall go before with you in the light of his splendor, with the mercy and righteousness which proceed from him’ [Bar. 4:36—5:9]" (ibid., 5:35:1; Baruch was often considered part of Jeremiah, as it is here).

  Hippolytus

"What is narrated here [in the story of Susannah] happened at a later time, although it is placed at the front of the book [of Daniel], for it was a custom with the writers to narrate many things in an inverted order in their writings. . . . [W]e ought to give heed, beloved, fearing lest anyone be overtaken in any transgression and risk the loss of his soul, knowing as we do that God is the judge of all and the Word himself is the eye which nothing that is done in the world escapes. Therefore, always watchful in heart and pure in life, let us imitate Susannah" (Commentary on Daniel [A.D. 204]; the story of Susannah [Dan. 13] is not in the Protestant Bible).

  Cyprian of Carthage

"In Genesis [it says], ‘And God tested Abraham and said to him, "Take your only son whom you love, Isaac, and go to the high land and offer him there as a burnt offering . . ."’ [Gen. 22:1–2]. . . . Of this same thing in the Wisdom of Solomon [it says], ‘Although in the sight of men they suffered torments, their hope is full of immortality . . .’ [Wis. 3:4]. Of this same thing in the Maccabees [it says], ‘Was not Abraham found faithful when tested, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness’ [1 Macc. 2:52; see Jas. 2:21–23]" (Treatises 7:3:15 [A.D. 248]). "So Daniel, too, when he was required to worship the idol Bel, which the people and the king then worshipped, in asserting the honor of his God, broke forth with full faith and freedom, saying, ‘I worship nothing but the Lord my God, who created the heaven and the earth’ [Dan. 14:5]" (Letters 55:5 [A.D. 253]; Daniel 14 is not in the Protestant Bible).

  Council of Rome

"Now indeed we must treat of the divine scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book; Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Joshua [Son of] Nave, one book; Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books [that is, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings]; Paralipomenon [Chronicles], two books; Psalms, one book; Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book, Ecclesiastes, one book, [and] Canticle of Canticles [Song of Songs], one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], one book . . . . Likewise the order of the historical [books]: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra and Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books" (Decree of Pope Damasus [A.D. 382]).

  Council of Hippo

"[It has been decided] that besides the canonical scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the canonical scriptures are as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, and a portion of the Psalms], the twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books . . ." (Canon 36 [A.D. 393]).

  Council of Carthage III

"[It has been decided] that nothing except the canonical scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine scriptures. But the canonical scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon, two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon, twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees . . ." (Canon 47 [A.D. 397]).

  Augustine

"The whole canon of the scriptures, however, in which we say that consideration is to be applied, is contained in these books: the five of Moses . . . and one book of Joshua [Son of] Nave, one of Judges; one little book which is called Ruth . . . then the four of Kingdoms, and the two of Paralipomenon . . . . [T]here are also others too, of a different order . . . such as Job and Tobit and Esther and Judith and the two books of Maccabees, and the two of Esdras . . . . Then there are the prophets, in which there is one book of the Psalms of David, and three of Solomon. . . . But as to those two books, one of which is entitled Wisdom and the other of which is entitled Ecclesiasticus and which are called ‘of Solomon’ because of a certain similarity to his books, it is held most certainly that they were written by Jesus Sirach. They must, however, be accounted among the prophetic books, because of the authority which is deservedly accredited to them" (Christian Instruction 2:8:13 [A.D. 397]).

"We read in the books of the Maccabees [2 Macc. 12:43] that sacrifice was offered for the dead. But even if it were found nowhere in the Old Testament writings, the authority of the Catholic Church which is clear on this point is of no small weight, where in the prayers of the priest poured forth to the Lord God at his altar the commendation of the dead has its place" (The Care to be Had for the Dead 1:3 [A.D. 421]).

  The Apostolic Constitutions

"Now women also prophesied. Of old, Miriam the sister of Moses and Aaron [Ex. 15:20], and after her, Deborah [Judges. 4:4], and after these Huldah [2 Kgs. 22:14] and Judith [Judith 8], the former under Josiah and the latter under Darius" (Apostolic Constitutions 8:2 [A.D. 400]).

  Jerome

"What sin have I committed if I follow the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating [in my preface to the book of Daniel] the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susannah [Dan. 13], the Song of the Three Children [Dan. 3:29–68, RSV-CE], and the story of Bel and the Dragon [Dan. 14], which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. I was not relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they are wont to make against us. If I did not reply to their views in my preface, in the interest of brevity, lest it seem that I was composing not a preface, but a book, I believe I added promptly the remark, for I said, ‘This is not the time to discuss such matters’" (Against Rufinius 11:33 [A.D. 401]).

  Pope Innocent I

"A brief addition shows what books really are received in the canon. These are the things of which you desired to be informed verbally: of Moses, five books, that is, of Genesis, of Exodus, of Leviticus, of Numbers, of Deuteronomy, and Joshua, of Judges, one book, of Kings, four books, and also Ruth, of the prophets, sixteen books, of Solomon, five books, the Psalms. Likewise of the histories, Job, one book, of Tobit, one book, Esther, one, Judith, one, of the Maccabees, two, of Esdras, two, Paralipomenon, two books . . ." (Letters 7 [A.D. 408]).


730 posted on 10/11/2002 4:56:48 AM PDT by Aquinasfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 718 | View Replies]

To: xzins
LOL agreed. I do think it funny as all get out - but they are serious...
731 posted on 10/11/2002 6:08:30 AM PDT by Catholicguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 697 | View Replies]

To: TotusTuus; MarMema
I don't know, from your Post, maybe you want to convert to Calvinism? Maybe discuss your Faith in other venues if personalities are that bad? I'm not here to fight, but MarMema, while the Churches of Apostolic Succession are not the same, doctrinally they are similar, much more so than compared to Calvinism.

Conversion is NEVER the issue..TRUTH is ALWAYS the issue. The issue is not "litergical "vs "non litergical."..the issue is the truth of Gods word...

The Easter Rite was not as affected by the errors of Rome because they were removed from them.

Some of the things the Reformers fought were never part of the EO.

I believe the EO is between the Reformers and the RC. Doctrinally in some ways they are closer to the Presbyterians than the RC..in others they are closer to the RC's

BUT no one is asking any one to change churches...This is about rightly dividing the word of God.

732 posted on 10/11/2002 7:15:36 AM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 727 | View Replies]

To: xzins; CCWoody; Matchett-PI
Oh yeah, could you ask Woody and Rnmom who're gonna win? (I think woody admitted to be "ambassador" once, but my memory could be faulty on this.)

Ask the Calvinists that believe in the election of Gods people....as opposed to the "Free Will" Wesleyan..interesting isn't it?

Go watch Football

733 posted on 10/11/2002 7:28:06 AM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 697 | View Replies]

To: JesseShurun
That was a wonderful post on the ARK today by the way. Pink had great spiritual insight. I wonder how many read it.

I did. Let's compare Arthur's typology regarding the manna to Jesus' explanation of the manna's typology. Arthur says:

Thus the amount preserved was the measure of a man; but the golden pot which contained it tells us that this Man is now glorified, the same thought being found in the "crown of gold which was round about the ark." This is confirmed by a comparison of Exodus 25:18 with Hebrews 9:5 where the cherubim of "gold" are called the cherubim of "glory." It is, then, in the Man Christ Jesus, now crowned with glory and honor, that God’s food for His people is to be found.

Now compare Arthur's typology regarding the manna to Christ's simple explanation of what the manna foreshadowed:

(John 6)
48 I am the bread of life.
49 Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died.
50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die.
51I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."

I leave it to you to correlate the following scriptural passages:

(John 6)
52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"
53 Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.
57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.
58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever."
59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?"
61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, "Does this offend you?
62 What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before!
63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit[5] and they are life.
64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him.
65 He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him."
66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.
67 "You do not want to leave too, do you?" Jesus asked the Twelve.
68 Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.
69 We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God."

(Matthew 26)
26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body."
27 Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you.
28 This is my blood of the[2] covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."

(Luke 22:19)
And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me."

(1 Corinthians 11)
23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread,
24and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me."
25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me."
26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.
27 Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.
28 A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29
For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.
30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep [died].


734 posted on 10/11/2002 8:02:55 AM PDT by Aquinasfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 719 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
His Church

Key words here

Why?

735 posted on 10/11/2002 8:08:36 AM PDT by Aquinasfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 710 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
The Ark of the covenant had the mercy seat where God "rested" (seen as a pillar of fire or a cloud of smoke)

Exodus 13:21

By day the LORD went ahead of them in a pillar of cloud to guide them on their way and by night in a pillar of fire to give them light, so that they could travel by day or night.

1 Timothy 3:15

God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.


736 posted on 10/11/2002 8:16:01 AM PDT by Aquinasfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 708 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan; RnMomof7; drstevej; theAmbassador; Wrigley; Jerry_M; OrthodoxPresbyterian; CCWoody; ...
M-PI: "All canonical books of the OT were written by prophets; none of the apocryphal books were written by any prophets: therefore they are not canonical."

Aquinasfan: "Thus sayeth Matchett-PI? Where's that in the Bible?"

The Major premise rests on Scripture: Peter says the OT is the “prophetic word.” (2 Peter 1:19);

Paul calls it the “scriptures of the prophets” (Romans 16:26);

Zacharias the priest says “As he spake by the mouths of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began.” (Luke 1:70);

“They have Moses and the Prophets” as Abraham said (Luke 18:39);

Luke wrote, “Beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the Scripture the things concerning himself.” (Luke 24:24; cf. Rom. 1:2);

Heb. 1:1, “God spake in divers manners by the prophets.”;

the church is built upon the “apostles and prophets” (Eph. 2:20);

“All things must be fulfilled which are written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me:” and it follows immediately, “And he opened their understanding, that they might understand the Scriptures.” (Luke 24:44-45);

Paul asks Agrippa, “Believest thou the prophets?” – that is the Scriptures. (Acts 26:27);

When Paul dealt with the Jews at Rome he tried to convince them “out of the law of Moses and the prophets.” (Acts 28:23).

From these we see that the major assertion is true, that the whole OT was given to us by God’s prophets.

There is no part of the OT which was not given by the prophets.

The entire OT canonical Scriptures are deemed in the following way:

1) the prophets; 2) Moses and the prophets; 3) Moses, the prophets, and the psalms.

Augustine so shows this in his writings against Cresconius the grammarian: “Not without cause was the canon of the church framed with so salutary a vigilance, that certain books of the prophets and apostles should belong to it.” (Lib. 2. cap. 31);

also “Let them shew us their church, not in the rumors of the Africans, but in the injunction of the Law, in the predictions of the prophets, in the songs of the Psalms; that is, in all the canonical authorities of the sacred books.” (De Unit. Eccles. C. 16.)

That the apocryphal books were not written by the prophets are clear and certain.

All confess that Malachi was the last Jewish prophet. Between Malachi and John the Baptist, no other Jewish prophet arose, but the writers of the apocryphal books lived after Malachi. Even the RCC does not deny this.

More later. Gotta run!
737 posted on 10/11/2002 8:52:52 AM PDT by Matchett-PI
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 730 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
Yes I see the manna as a type of Christ...a type of Gods provision for His people..A type of Gods mercy...

I see it as Jesus expressed it: "I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."

738 posted on 10/11/2002 8:59:59 AM PDT by Aquinasfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 708 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
No if you believe that you have to keep laws and traditions and do good works to go to heaven you make God your debtor because he owes you for the fruit of your labor... RN, you know that isn't true. As Catholics, we believe that we did NOTHING and can DO NOTHING to merit salvation, and ONLY through the grace of God do we have a chance for eternal life.

We do believe that mortal sin, even as a believer, separates a Christian from the kingdom of Heaven because no one unclean can see God. Therefore, it is important to keep God's commandments and seek forgiveness when we sin.

No knowledgeable Catholic believes that God "owes" us anything for our labor. But "faith without works is dead", meaning that if you have faith but do not show your faith through your actions, your faith is meaningless or non-existent, because if you had faith in the first place you would automatically, through faith, try your hardest to live your life in the manner commanded by our Lord.

God bless.

739 posted on 10/11/2002 9:04:05 AM PDT by Gophack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 706 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan
Exodus 13:21 By day the LORD went ahead of them in a pillar of cloud to guide them on their way and by night in a pillar of fire to give them light, so that they could travel by day or night.

Read the word..

Lev 16:2 And the LORD said unto Moses, Speak unto Aaron thy brother, that he come not at all times into the holy [place] within the vail before the mercy seat, which [is] upon the ark; that he die not: for I will appear in the cloud upon the mercy seat.

read the word

Num 7:89 And when Moses was gone into the tabernacle of the congregation to speak with him, then he heard the voice of one speaking unto him from off the mercy seat that [was] upon the ark of testimony, from between the two cherubims: and he spake unto him.

So was it Marys voice he heard? Is it Mary that gives mercy?

1 Timothy 3:15 God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

So is Mary the pillar of the church?

740 posted on 10/11/2002 9:59:42 AM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 736 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 701-720721-740741-760761-777 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson