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:
|
1. Mary is the Mother of God. |
|
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:
|
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. |
|
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:
|
In ancient times:
|
||||||
|
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 | ||||||
|
1935: Pope Pius XI gave the title co-redemptrix to Mary during a radio broadcast. 1 | ||||||
|
Circa 1965: The Chapter 8 of the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church, passed by the Vatican Council II states, in part:
|
||||||
|
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 | ||||||
|
1987-MAR-25: In his encyclical Redemptoris Mater, Pope John Paul II "referred to Mary as 'Mediatrix' three times, and as 'Advocate' twice." 1 | ||||||
|
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.
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:
|
Mary is co-redemptrix with Jesus. She participates in people's redemption. |
|
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. |
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
Exactly says RN *smiling*...When there was a discussion of John 6 I kept asking "What did the hearers of the discourse hear and understand?"
They understood Jesus was saying Yahawh (I am) the bread that came down from heaven to give you life.
They were shocked...First he said the "personal name "of God out loud...the name NO man said Yahawh..then he said Yahaw was the manna and HE was the manna....they understood..He was claiming he was God..He was the bread of life to that kept the Jewish people alive in the desert..and He was the way to eternal life then ...not the rules or traditions that they thought would earn them heaven...
The manna a type of Gods mercy and provision...a type of Christ
Are you suggesting that it is Mary that that despenses mercy and judgement? Are you suggesting that Mary held the sold place in the Holy of Holies? That the High Priest had to go to HER for the sins of the Jews?
Nope. I'd suggest that the Ark in this sense acted as a type of altar, so I would expect it, in this sense, to be a type for some kind of superior altar in the New Testament.
But the Ark acted primarily as a chest containing Aaron's staff, the manna and the stone tablets, each a type for Christ. Therefore, in the sense that the Ark was a chest or container for things foreshadowing Christ, I would look for a superior chest or container for Christ in the New Testament. Mary's womb is the only "container" for Christ that comes to mind. Moreover, as a sinless woman, she would be superior in holiness to the Ark which foreshadowed her.
I think that is said but not really believed...Catholics have a complicated sacramental system to be justified by and Purgatory is an example of that it is a kind of self justification
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.
Born again believers believe they are justified by the atonment of Christ..All our sin is coverd by the blood of Christ..it is the righteousness of Christ that allows us to come before God ..not our righteousness ..but the righteousness of the perfect lamb...
All sin seperates us from God...but it is not sin that puts you in hell..it is not having a Savior that puts you there.
How does the world KNOW that you are His? By what they see..that is what James was addressing..
The dead sea is dead not because it does not take in clean water..it is dead because it has no outlet...God's grace saves us , justifies us and makes us righteous..God's grace santifies us and makes us holy...but the grace of God also makes us desire to "work" for Him...
Our works flow out of our salvation...they do not cause it
If it was nothing more than a chest to carry things why was it behind the curtain..with only the High Priest allowed in? Why was the blood poured on it once a year ?Why when Jesus died was that veil rent..giving all men access to the Holy of Holies directly?No more intermediary needed..are you saying the access given was to mary?
Ps can you prove she was sinless ? Because that is not what the bible says and not what she says
Thank you Rnmom.
Totus, I sense that you have no desire to discuss our deep and truly strong differences, as in your fairly long reply to me you did not once address either the links I provided you with or the statements I made about doctrine.
You would do well to re-read the statement above which Rnmom has made so well...
Your sarcasm in suggesting I convert was typical overall, along with the lack of dicussion about the issues, of the catholics here on FR. Attack, divert, use sarcasm, whatever.
Rnmom and I have had discussions about things in which we disagree, such as original sin, and have come away friends and with respect for each other. Probably because we simply discuss doctrine and Scripture, and are able to stay on topic with each other.
Mutual respect goes a long way. Mutual respect does not include, btw, statements that "we are the same church" about other churches, nor does it include statements made in extreme ignorance about the church of another being absorbed into your church soon. And it does not include implying that one who is posting is simply ignorant about their own faith - dismissal - a demeaning way to treat another.
These typical and highly consistent defense mechanisms have brought many of us, of all faiths here on FR, to serious concern about what is happening to the RC church.
There is a new attitude these days and it reeks of arrogance, pride, and delusion. Humility is your friend. May the Lord our God have mercy on you now and forever.
The teaching of the Catholic Church on the matter of salvation is quite clear. It would be quite a conspiracy for a church of over 1 billion members and hundreds of thousands of priests and religious to go "wink, wink, that's what we say but not what we mean". You do not know the hearts of men, so I don't think you can say this with any authority.
We are not justified by the Sacraments.
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
161 Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One who sent him for our salvation is necessary for obtaining that salvation.[42] "Since "without faith it is impossible to please [God]" and to attain to the fellowship of his sons, therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will anyone obtain eternal life 'But he who endures to the end.'"]There are many, many more explanations on grace and justification. The Sacraments are outward signs of our communion in the body of Christ:We can lose the gift of faith:
162 Faith is an entirely free gift that God makes to man. We can lose this priceless gift, as St. Paul indicated to St. Timothy: "Wage the good warfare, holding faith and a good conscience. By rejecting conscience, certain persons have made shipwreck of their faith."[44] To live, grow and persevere in the faith until the end we must nourish it with the word of God; we must beg the Lord to increase our faith;[45] it must be "working through charity," abounding in hope, and rooted in the faith of the Church.[46]On faith:
166 Faith is a personal act - the free response of the human person to the initiative of God who reveals himself. But faith is not an isolated act. No one can believe alone, just as no one can live alone. You have not given yourself faith as you have not given yourself life. The believer has received faith from others and should hand it on to others. Our love for Jesus and for our neighbour impels us to speak to others about our faith. Each believer is thus a link in the great chain of believers. I cannot believe without being carried by the faith of others, and by my faith I help support others in the faith.1992. "JUSTIFICATION has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ who offered himself on the cross as a living victim, holy and pleasing to God, and whose blood has become the instrument of atonement for the sins of all men. JUSTIFICATION is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who makes us inwardly just by the power of his mercy. Its purpose is the glory of God and of Christ, and the gift of eternal life:[Cf. Council of Trent (1547): DS 1529.] But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from law, although the law and the prophets bear witness to it, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins; it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies him who has faith in Jesus.[Rom 3:21-26 .] "
1993. "JUSTIFICATION establishes cooperation between God's grace and man's freedom. On man's part it is expressed by the assent of faith to the Word of God, which invites him to conversion, and in the cooperation of charity with the prompting of the Holy Spirit who precedes and preserves his assent: When God touches man's heart through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, man himself is not inactive while receiving that inspiration, since he could reject it; and yet, without God's grace, he cannot by his own free will move himself toward justice in God's sight.[Council of Trent (1547): DS 1525.] "
739. "Because the Holy Spirit is the anointing of Christ, it is Christ who, as the head of the Body, pours out the Spirit among his members to nourish, heal, and organize them in their mutual functions, to give them life, send them to bear witness, and associate them to his self-offering to the Father and to his intercession for the whole world. Through the Church's SACRAMENTS, Christ communicates his Holy and sanctifying Spirit to the members of his Body. (This will be the topic of Part Two of the Catechism.) "There are many, many more explanations in different contexts and in explaning each of the seven sacraments. But to summarize, we are justified by the grace of God, and sacraments are the outward signs of God's grace. No man instituted the sacraments, but Jesus Christ as a means of conveying grace and working grace within us. But we are participants in this because we have the free will to accept or reject the gift of grace God has freely given us.774. "The Greek word mysterion was translated into Latin by two terms: mystenum and sacramentum. In later usage the term sacramentum emphasizes the visible sign of the hidden reality of salvation which was indicated by the term mystenum. In this sense, Christ himself is the mystery of salvation: 'For there is no other mystery of God, except Christ.'[St. Augustine, Ep. 187,11,34: PL 33, 846.] The saving work of his holy and sanctifying humanity is the sacrament of salvation, which is revealed and active in the Church's SACRAMENTS (which the Eastern Churches also call 'the holy mysteries'). The seven SACRAMENTS are the signs and instruments by which the Holy Spirit spreads the grace of Christ the head throughout the Church which is his Body. The Church, then, both contains and communicates the invisible grace she signifies. It is in this analogical sense, that the Church is called a 'sacrament.'"
God bless.
When it wasn't reserved in the Holy of Holies the Ark protected Aaron's staff, the manna, and the tablets. Certainly these things could have placed in the Holy of Holies without the Ark, but the contents would have had to have been placed in a vessel superior to the Ark in construction and significance (since the Holy of Holies was the Holy of Holies). As you say, the Ark had also been used as a kind of altar and was certainly a sacred object.
Why was the blood poured on it once a year ?
It seems to me that the blood would better represent Christ than the thing over which the blood was poured.
Why when Jesus died was that veil rent..giving all men access to the Holy of Holies directly?
The tearing of the veil of the Temple at the death of Christ marked the end of the Jewish religion as the true religion. This Jewish religion had been a figure of the True Church and, when the Church was established, was no longer needed; types and figures had to give way to reality. The veil of the Temple concealed the Holy of Holies, the most sacred part of the Temple.
It doesn't necessarily follow from this that the Ark was a type for Jesus.
No more intermediary needed..are you saying the access given was to mary?
No. Types can have several senses. For example, the Temple can be a figure for Christ or it can be a figure for Jesus' Churches. Catholic Churches all have the superior "Holy of Holies" where Jesus' Body and Blood is reserved.
The Ark is a type for Mary since it acted primarily as a container for three types which foreshadowed Jesus. Mary's womb is the only thing in the New Testament that acted comparably or analogously (except for perhaps the Holy Grail).
For in Mary "the Word became flesh and dwelt [literally "tabernacled" or "pitched his tent"] among us" (Jn 1:14).
But because the Ark can be said to be a type for Mary doesn't mean that every aspect of the Ark has to correspond exactly with Mary, just as every aspect of the Temple doesn't necessarily, exactly correspond with Jesus.
Ps can you prove she was sinless ? Because that is not what the bible says and not what she says.
Argument from Scripture alone here.
Some historical background and arguments here
In some sense God was in the cloud above the Ark. God was not the mercy seat or Ark.
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.
See above.
So was it Marys voice he heard? Is it Mary that gives mercy?
Was it the Ark's voice he heard? Did the mercy seat speak? Or did God (in the cloud) speak?
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?
As God led the Israelites by a pillar of smoke and a column of fire by night, so does Christ's Church (the Body of Christ), the "pillar and foundation of truth" lead Christians.
I love ya A ..but that is a "silly" statement..
It was made and intended to be the ONLY article in the Holy of Holies.
I never said it was used as an altar YOU said that ...no animals were sacrificed on it...the High priest brought the blood in and poured it on the Mercy seat...
Was Mary the Mercy seat?
The tearing of the veil of the Temple at the death of Christ marked the end of the Jewish religion as the true religion. This Jewish religion had been a figure of the True Church and, when the Church was established, was no longer needed; types and figures had to give way to reality. The veil of the Temple concealed the Holy of Holies, the most sacred part of the Temple.
Read the word..it was the veil that kept anyone but the High Priest mediator out of the Holy of Holies..it was a barrier between God and man.. The mediator was the High Priest. The only one allowed in there to make an offering for the people. ANY one else entering would be struck dead.
When Christ died men no longer need the High priest the mediate for them (or any priest) The veil was opened to allow all of us to come to God directly through Jesus
Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom—Matthew 27:50-51.
Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way, which be hath consecrated for us, through the, veil, that is to say, his flesh—Hebrews 10:19-20.
1Ti 2:5 For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
Hbr 12:24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than [that of] Abel.
Is Mary your mediator? Or is it the mediator that God has sent?
Luk 1:46 And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord,
Luk 1:47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. Mary need a saviour because she was a sinner
Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin;>font color=blue> and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
All Aquinas ALL..not some...not most.... not all except Mary...ALL
The Torah, the Word of God, Jesus Christ, The Word in the flesh( the manna come down from Heaven) is the ARK of the New Covenant. Jeremiah 31:31. Luke 22:20, Hebrews 8:8-12, 1 Cor.11:25, Ezekiel 37:26.
You are a disciple of the Lord's or you wouldn't have so much interest in getting it right. Therefore, you have the keys to the Kingdom. Go in, and remember, don't prevent others from going in as well.
The major premise begs the question. How do we identify a prophet?
In the dictionary, the first definition of a prophet is "1. A person who speaks by divine inspiration or as the interpreter through whom the will of a god is expressed." Certainly that would include any inspired author of Scripture. So the question then becomes, Who are the inspired authors of Scripture? And we're back where we started from.
This theory also flies in the face of numerous New Testament passages which reference passages in the Deuterocanonical books of Scripture.
Here is a partial list of New Testament passages referencing the Deuterocanonical books of Scripture. Some samples:
Matt. 22:25; Mark 12:20; Luke 20:29 - Gospel writers refer to the canonicity of Tobit 3:8 and 7:11 regarding the seven brothers.The story of the mother who watches all of her sons being tortured (dismembered and thrown into a frying pan) for refusing to denounce their faith is one of the most compelling stories in the Bible and is missing from Luther's abbreviated canon:Matt. 9:36 - the people were "like sheep without a shepherd" is same as Judith 11:19 - sheep without a shepherd.
Matt. 12:42 - Jesus refers to the wisdom of Solomon which was recorded and made part of the deuterocanonical books.
"The Queen of the South will rise at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for she came from the ends of the earth to listen to Solomon's wisdom, and now one greater than Solomon is here."Mark 4:5,16-17 - Jesus' description of seeds falling on rocky ground and having no root follows Sirach 40:15.
Mark 9:48 - description of hell where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched references Judith 16:17.
Luke 2:29 - Simeon's declaration that he is ready to die after seeing the Child Jesus follows Tobit 11:9.
Luke 13:29 - the Lord's description of men coming from east and west to rejoice in God follows Baruch 4:37.
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."
"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
No not in "some sense" God dwelt above the Mercy seat...not mary
Was it the Ark's voice he heard? Did the mercy seat speak? Or did God (in the cloud) speak?
God spoke from the cloud and His dwelling place.
Exd 25:21 And thou shalt put the mercy seat above upon the ark; and in the ark thou shalt put the testimony that I shall give thee.
Exd 25:22 And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubims which [are] upon the ark of the testimony, of all [things] which I will give thee in commandment unto the children of Israel. .
Let God define the ark
Hbr 9:6 Now when these things were thus ordained, the priests went always into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the service [of God].
Hbr 9:7 But into the second [went] the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and [for] the errors of the people:
Hbr 9:8 The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:
Hbr 9:9 Which [was] a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;
Hbr 9:10 [Which stood] only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed [on them] until the time of reformation.
Hbr 9:11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;
Hbr 9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption [for us].
Hbr 9:13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
Hbr 9:14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
Hbr 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions [that were] under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
Rev 21:2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. Rev 21:3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God [is] with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, [and be] their God.
How are the staff and tablets a type of Christ?
I know the RC's think she is sinless but... oh nevermind.
Well, don't agree with me, but here is what an Orthodox priest says.
"Most Orthodox, in attempting to distinguish between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, usually mention the Pope or Purgatory, sometimes the filioque. Historically, the differences, however, are far more numerous and quite profound".
Amen...Mat 5:6 Blessed [are] they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
I have to think on it,,but I think I would agree with you but add the spiritual death to it..It does impacts on how you see the atonment ...
That might explain the Jews' reaction.
But why did His disciples say, "This is a hard saying. Who can accept it"?
Why did Jesus say to the Apostles, "Do you want to leave me too?" Why would they be shocked after having seen his many miracles?
Why would "Simon Peter answer him, 'Lord, to whom shall we go?'" when in the next line he says that "You have the words of eternal life. We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God," when in your interpretation the whole problem is that "He was claiming he was God..He was the bread of life to that kept the Jewish people alive in the desert..and He was the way to eternal life."
The question, "To whom shall we go" only makes sense if Jesus is speaking literally, that unless you eat His flesh and drink his blood you have no life in you. Jesus asks, Are you going to leave me too? Peter answers "To whom else should we go" or in effect: Where else can we go? We know that you're the Holy One of God, so we're going to trust you on this one.
(And notice Peter's preeminent position in speaking for the Apostles collectively)
Totus, I sense that you have no desire to discuss our deep and truly strong differences, as in your fairly long reply to me you did not once address either the links I provided you with or the statements I made about doctrine.
True. I'm very busy right now and this thread is at the bottom of my list of TTD. I've been doing these Posts in little 5 and 10 minute bursts. In truth, I haven't had time to read your links, but will do so. Thank You for them. Maybe I can get back to you later on them...
Your sarcasm in suggesting I convert was typical overall, along with the lack of dicussion about the issues, of the catholics here on FR. Attack, divert, use sarcasm, whatever.
I truly was not trying to be sarcastic. I guess this is part of the problem with computer posts - and not face to face personal contact. I guess I needed much more info concerning you and read into your original comment to me wrong ideas. I don't feel I have attacked anyone, but did get pulled down to a little sarcasm because of my experience with RnMom. Sarcasm isn't all bad, but she is the one trying to attribute and dictate to the Catholic Church false beliefs that She, the Church, doesn't believe. I have answered her questions, or tried to anyway, but she doesn't seem to want to consider mine, or others. Which is a shame. In the setting of another thread, with valid discussion, comparing exegesis of the Holy Scriptures that we both love could be beneficial.
The "Marianism" comment truly shocked me - I really did wonder if you were Orthodox or not at that one. This is, or was, a thread about Mary. Remember? It has went off course to topics that should be on their own threads.
Mutual respect does not include, btw, statements that "we are the same church" about other churches...
I specifically never said that!
...nor does it include statements made in extreme ignorance about the church of another being absorbed into your church soon.
Nor did I say this! I don't know, perhaps you have confused some of my statements with another poster, "collasping" them together? I say this without sarcasm.
And it does not include implying that one who is posting is simply ignorant about their own faith - dismissal - a demeaning way to treat another.
Forgive me. I didn't mean for it to be understood in that manner. As far as "dismissal", see above. This thread was supposed to be about a specific topic concerning Mary the most Holy Mother of God! You're the first Orthodox I've run into, and I understand from you and others that there have been problems... True, I don't want to go there...
Concerning RnMom Post:
Some of the things the Reformers fought were never part of the EO.
Umm, well, Okay. Very general statement here. Some things, probably all of them nondoctrinal issues in the "customs", that is "traditions" with a small "t", category. Care to give details? (But only if they're correct). I'll admit that I, like most others, am not a professional historian, and I will not pretend to reject this statement outright. I suppose a detailed analysis of this would require a thread of it's own. That's where the real learning would occur.
TRUTH is ALWAYS the issue.
Yea, yea, yea,...yawn. I would hope that MerMema is intelligent enough to understand that this is always the case, or is attempt a better word?, in all my posts. RnMom, this was a side issue of a contingent matter in this thread. Why the preachiness? Did I ever say Truth wasn't important?
The issue is not "liturgical "vs "non liturgical."..the issue is the truth of God's word...
You never did get back to me on how you specifically define "word" as per my response concerning St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans. (Oh yea, it was written primarily by the Holy Spirit, least I get lectured again on that - Besides, it's more words to type).
Has it occurred to you that, objectively speaking, within the Catholic Church and Orthodox Churches, Liturgical matters are very much issues of God's Truth and Word? This, from the Churches themselves, and not your personal opinions of them, or acceptance of their self belief resulting from their interpretation of the Word?
The Easter Rite was not as affected by the errors of Rome because they were removed from them.
I didn't correct this one because there is an "Easter Rite" and I could get jumped for that. I will take it you mean the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church. Rome? Do you mean the Catholic Church? What errors? What errors doctrinally speaking? As a Calvinist you probably can come up with a LOT of "errors". And I think this is what I was getting at with MarMema. Are you now a Church historian to so authoritatively address this in the context of my Posts to MarMema? Care to give details? The Catholic Church is One in Faith! Any "errors" of the Latin Rite would have to affect the Eastern Rites.
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
Personal opinions that you have, and general too. How well they stand up to objective criteria, truth in the natural order, is another matter. Don't get me wrong, I'm smart enough to know how involved this can get. You give no details. This could easily be another thread. I still say that doctrinally, the Catholic Church and Orthodox Churches are much, much closer to each other as opposed to the Calvinists.
MarMema, I don't know what to say. I'm glad you and RnMom get along well. Maybe I will too eventually. No offense to her, and I don't understand, but is she your teacher? Typical Christians would admit that they don't understand the history of the Protestant Reformation well enough to make statements like these, but RnMom just plops answers down at the drop of a hat. Where's her sources for these statements? Maybe she is a trained historian? Are they true because she says they are?
RnMom, I'm sorry about my "attitude problem" with you in this Post, but I'm really tired right now. Your terse treatment of me and others throughout this thread doesn't help either. You don't agree with the teachings, or shall I say, the interpretation of the Word, of the Catholic Church and that is fine. At times you seem to feel that you own the Word and others don't. You ignore certain Posts, questions asked of you, while questioning others in order to preach and lecture to them - not as an equal, as a superior. I've read Posts where you have twisted other posters words and put them in their mouths. You have accused them of "stating" things that they did not in fact state. Maybe I'm taking it all out on you because you're not the only one, others have been worse. Light sarcasm and good wit I can understand on a Religious Forum, but this thread is the pits.
May God Bless You both, Totus Tuus
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.
