"To Be in Heaven, You Must be Catholic"

[1Co13]

Well, after you birth, nurse and raise God in the flesh then tell me she played no role. St.Joseph was not His natural father but even he played a role in our salvation.

Im referring to her role as co redeemer, not her role as mother.

Using your line of reasoning my own mother is my co redeemer.

 

[1Co13]

Were we baptized in the name of Mary? Was she crucified for us?

1Co 1:13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

1Co 1:29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.
1Co 1:30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:
1Co 1:31 That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

 

[Gospel Guy]

To Be in Heaven, You Must be Catholic

I don't think they even teach that you are supposed to be born-again, do they.

Jesus said you did, so I'm thinking He is correct in His position... you know, being the risen Lord of Glory, King of Kings, and all.

Im referring to her role as co redeemer

The Bible doesn't teach that Jesus has any "co-redeemer"... it teaches that He alone is Lord and the Name of Jesus is the only name under Heaven given among men that you can call upon and be born-again.

Trying to put someone on the same level as Jesus is idolatry and is not recommended by the Father (God, not some cat wearing wired clothes )

 

[1Co13]

I don't think they even teach that you are supposed to be born-again, do they.

Jesus said you did, so I'm thinking He is correct in His position... you know, being the risen Lord of Glory, King of Kings, and all.

The Bible doesn't teach that Jesus has any "co-redeemer"... it teaches that He alone is Lord and the Name of Jesus is the only name under Heaven given among men that you can call upon and be born-again.

Trying to put someone on the same level as Jesus is idolatry and is not recommended by the Father (God, not some cat wearing wired clothes )

I agree. I dont wish to rail against anyone or get puffed up into contention or leave my proper place, but i must object to RC doctrine.

 

[Rev Randy]

Im referring to her role as co redeemer, not her role as mother.

Using your line of reasoning my own mother is my co redeemer.

My reasoning? I call Her an intercessor, a Saint and blessed. Even the Roman Church does has not made co redemption a Dogma. Some tried but it did not come to pass. It's a concept and not really what it sounds like. It states Her unequal role in the salvation process. When translated to English (from Latin) the sound of it promotes a meaning other than it was meant to mean.
Now as to my line of reasoning, it's an Orthodox Church view. The Orthodox believe that there should be no further(new) proclamation about Mary, since her place is in the secret heart of the mystery of the Church

 

[Standing Up]

True, but how do you account for the deletion of complete Scriptural texts from the Canon after 1500?

We agree on the 27 NT books.

The OT canon question goes back long before 1500. The earliest Christian reference is from Melito whose OT coincides with Josephus' (except perhaps for Esther). The other books (apocrphy) when they were written distinguish themselves from inspired by saying there were no prophets (to write or to "approve" books). So, Josephus, of course rejects them and has 22; Melito also understands the difference between inspired and not inspired and thus has "the same". Melito was in Asia Minor.

The real question is when did the expanded OT make it into Rome and why? Not when was it removed or why.

 

[1Co13]

My reasoning? I call Her an intercessor, a Saint and blessed. Even the Roman Church does has not made co redemption a Dogma. Some tried but it did not come to pass. It's a concept and not really what it sounds like. It states Her unequal role in the salvation process. When translated to English (from Latin) the sound of it promotes a meaning other than it was meant to mean.
Now as to my line of reasoning, it's an Orthodox Church view. The Orthodox believe that there should be no further(new) proclamation about Mary, since her place is in the secret heart of the mystery of the Church

The holy Spirit is our intercessor (Romans 8). Mary cannot be intercessor or co redeemer. Both roles belong to God who existed before Mary. Mary was not crucified for us.

 

[Root of Jesse]

The holy Spirit is our intercessor (Romans 8). Mary cannot be intercessor or co redeemer. Both roles belong to God who existed before Mary. Mary was not crucified for us.

Since God is everything, how is it we can be anything, since God is? In other words, why does the Holy Spirit, being an intercessor (I disagree, God is not an intercessor, and the Holy Spirit is God), preclude someone else for being an intercessor? Or redeemer. Mary is not co-redeemer, BTW. She is an intercessor, as seen in John 2.

 

[Root of Jesse]

We agree on the 27 NT books.

The OT canon question goes back long before 1500. The earliest Christian reference is from Melito whose OT coincides with Josephus' (except perhaps for Esther). The other books (apocrphy) when they were written distinguish themselves from inspired by saying there were no prophets (to write or to "approve" books). So, Josephus, of course rejects them and has 22; Melito also understands the difference between inspired and not inspired and thus has "the same". Melito was in Asia Minor.

The real question is when did the expanded OT make it into Rome and why? Not when was it removed or why.

Who is Josephus, to determine Christian canon of Scripture? You're right, though, the OT Canon was determined and settled pretty much, in the early 4th century. The Canon, as determined by the Christian Church hierarchy, is simply what is approved to be read in liturgy. Again, there was no Jewish Canon, until there was a proposed Christian Canon. It was agreed upon until the Revolt of the Protesters, at which time, the Church set it in stone...

 

[Standing Up]

Who is Josephus, to determine Christian canon of Scripture? You're right, though, the OT Canon was determined and settled pretty much, in the early 4th century. The Canon, as determined by the Christian Church hierarchy, is simply what is approved to be read in liturgy. Again, there was no Jewish Canon, until there was a proposed Christian Canon. It was agreed upon until the Revolt of the Protesters, at which time, the Church set it in stone...

Josephus wasn't setting our OT canon, he simply repeated the reason for the difference between inspired and uninspired that Maccabees itself gives as the reason it is not inspired. Thus, their canon was 22 books.

Melito reiterates this (except for Esther). And the discussion continued through the centuries.

The real question is why did Rome differ from Asia Minor over the OT canon?

PS This reminds me that Rome and John of Damascus (Asia Minor) for awhile held to a 28 NT canon. But yes, eventually we all agreed on the 27.

 

[Erose]

When last apostle, one of the sons of thunder, to die, closed the canon, the God-breathed word. Thus no new doctrine and no different source, including those from Tradition.

One must admit, however, that if you're going to claim a vision, better it to be Christ, than various alternatives (Mary for example).

I am sure the devil can convince someone that he is Christ. It is good advice to test all visions.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Now that is a valid question. I'd be disappointed in him if I couldn't predict his answer.
If one does not feel they are a part of the One true church, I'd hope they'd be seeking it elsewhere.
If Mr. Many B's told me his Church was the one true Church, I wouldn't get upset. I might not be convinced but I'd expect that from you. I mean what Christian would desire to be a part of the fake Church?

Good question. It reminds of the Church of the Good Shepherd, which is a fairly typical title. I have yet to see a Church of the Bad Shepherd.

Believing that your church is the best available to you is far from believing that it is the One, True Church to the exclusion of all other churches.

 

[Erose]

Josephus wasn't setting our OT canon, he simply repeated the reason for the difference between inspired and uninspired that Maccabees itself gives as the reason it is not inspired. Thus, their canon was 22 books.

But the problem that you have here is what books were included? The Hebrew canon during this time sometimes had Esther missing as a Sacred book, and normally had the Epistle of Jeremiah and/or Baruch included. Only Esther made it in the Pharisaic canon that is used by Jews and Protestants today.

Melito reiterates this (except for Esther). And the discussion continued through the centuries.

Yep Melito and others show that there were still writings bouncing in and out of the Pharisaic canon, in the first 4 centuries at least.

The real question is why did Rome differ from Asia Minor over the OT canon?

That question is easy. Rome was not beholden to the Pharisees, but rather the Holy Spirit. The real question is, why did most Protestants reject the Christian OT for the Bible of the Pharisees? That is the real question.

PS This reminds me that Rome and John of Damascus (Asia Minor) for awhile held to a 28 NT canon. But yes, eventually we all agreed on the 27.

The epistle of Laodicea was never considered canonical by the Roman Church. Never SU. There is not one single list of canonical books from the Roman Church that had this epistle included. Not one. Just because there has been some codex's with this apocryphal writing included, doesn't make it canonical. In the Latin codex's one can also find 3rd and 4th Esdras, Ps 151, and the Prayer of Manasseh, and probably a few others. This never made them Sacred Scripture.

 

[Rev Randy]

Good question. It reminds of the Church of the Good Shepherd, which is a fairly typical title. I have yet to see a Church of the Bad Shepherd.

Believing that your church is the best available to you is far from believing that it is the One, True Church to the exclusion of all other churches.

So who besides the CoC believes that? To the exclusion of all others?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Yes, your point is quite valid. I see a spectrum of beliefs on this issue and do not see it in black and white terms. At one end of the spectrum are churches and individuals who exclude all others from even being Christian in any sense of the word and see themselves as being the one, true church (yes, it is possible for a single person to think of himself in that light). At the other end of the spectrum are universalists who profess that "all truth is God's truth" and that it is vain and arrogant to hold any religious doctrines as true. The Catholic Church IMO is right of center on the spectrum, but certainly not at the exclusive end of the spectrum. How do you see the Catholic Church on this spectrum?

At the place it ought to be in today's world. That is, affirming that there is an objective truth to believe, that the Catholic Church proclaims it, that one can find it in the Church, and that others have truth yet the full truth is to be found in the Catholic Church.

 

[Rev Randy]

The holy Spirit is our intercessor (Romans 8). Mary cannot be intercessor or co redeemer. Both roles belong to God who existed before Mary. Mary was not crucified for us.

An intercessor is a go between or in the context we are speaking of; One who prays to God on your behalf. Now how is God a go between man and God? An advocate? yes but not an intercessor.

 

[Root of Jesse]

At the place it ought to be in today's world. That is, affirming that there is an objective truth to believe, that the Catholic Church proclaims it, that one can find it in the Church, and that others have truth yet the full truth is to be found in the Catholic Church.

I wonder why it is that, when most people complain about the Catholic Church, their primary complaints are about people who don't act according to their faith?

 

[prodromos]

Good question. It reminds of the Church of the Good Shepherd, which is a fairly typical title. I have yet to see a Church of the Bad Shepherd.

I've seen a New Apostolic Church, which seems a bit of an oxymoron at best. If it is new, it can hardly be apostolic.

 

[Rev Randy]

I don't think they even teach that you are supposed to be born-again, do they.

Jesus said you did, so I'm thinking He is correct in His position... you know, being the risen Lord of Glory, King of Kings, and all.

The Bible doesn't teach that Jesus has any "co-redeemer"... it teaches that He alone is Lord and the Name of Jesus is the only name under Heaven given among men that you can call upon and be born-again.

Trying to put someone on the same level as Jesus is idolatry and is not recommended by the Father (God, not some cat wearing wired clothes )

To the bolded part; Who told you that lie? The RCC indeed teaches that you must be born again.

I agree on the co-redeemer section but that is not what co-redeemer means in the proposed teaching.
on the last section: Who (meaning what christian Church)puts anyone except the Father and holy Spirit, on the same level as Christ?
These are bold statements but I would need to see some evidence.
The Eastern Orthodox church teaches that you must be born again in the same way the RCC does.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Not that i want a debate but i need to ask, what is this co redeemer doctrine about? It sounds scary. Christ alone is all that we should glory in, no man or woman should share in that glory (1Co 3:21) This sounds like a different Gospel, and im not sure if it agrees with the Creed either.

Can you find that doctrine in the Catechism of the Catholic Church? I doubt it. But what folks tend to forget is that any honor we give Mary must, must, must reflect back to Jesus and His Father. Mary herself said "My soul magnifies the Lord, my spirit rejoices in God, my savior, for he has looked with favor on his lowly servant. From this day all generations will call me blessed." Also, "I am the handmaid of the Lord, let it be done to me according to Thy word."