A Controversial Review of the Immaculate

[Ajax 777]

Who said salvation in Christ is second to Mary? Nobody has said that! Look who's waxing provincial now! lol

How is insisting Christ alone is sufficient for our redemption in any way provincial?

Do you know what provincial means?

Claiming it's "my way" versus "your way" is indeed provincial. Asserting He alone is the Way, is anything but. It is called "the Gospel". You should read it sometime.

 

[Goatee]

How is insisting Christ alone is sufficient for our redemption in any way provincial?

Do you know what provincial means?

Claiming it's "my way" versus "your way" is indeed provincial. Asserting He alone is the Way, is anything but. It is called "the Gospel". You should read it sometime.

Again, your interpretation!

Maybe you should read the Gospel with the right glasses on next time! 1000s of protestant denominations with 1,000s of their 'OWN' interpretations, all running away from the narrow gate towards the wide one!

Maybe one day you will turn to the truth, just like Steve Ray. (Crossing the Tiber). Read that and it will open your eyes to the 'real' truth about the CC. Come out of the darkness my dear buddy into the light!

God bless you buddy

 

[Linet Kihonge]

The Bible says she will be called blessed, the Bible did not say, bless MARY, Venerate Mary or Canonize.

 

[fat wee robin]

It's a difficult theology right there. All I am saying, for God to have been 100% man and 100% God he needed a 100% mortal man! I don't find anything wrong in it because at the end "He crucified all the desires of the flesh on the cross, had them washed away in his blood and the death signified the death of the mortal man and his resurrection the rising of the immortal, perfect and imperishable man or rather a God-like being in every sense of it!

Don't you mean a 100% mortal HU MAN , not Man ?

 

[Linet Kihonge]

Don't you mean a 100% mortal HU MAN , not Man ?

Yes, 100% mortal human and also 100% God. He had the Spirit of God and He had the flesh of MAN.

 

[FaeryChild]

[QUOTE="Albion, post: 69830349, member: 93831

Do you think that belief in the Bible as God's word, the triune nature of God, the Incarnation of his divine son, the Sacrifice of the Cross, the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection and Ascension, the Sermon on the Mount, Baptism and the Lord's Supper, Salvation by Grace, etc. etc. are incidentals?! If not, where do you get off saying something so ridiculous as "wholesale destruction and outright denial of virtually every important thing that defined Christianity??"[/QUOTE]

The Bible as God's Word teaches that Communion is THE Body and Blood of Jesus. The Incarnation of His Divine Son, if true, means that Mary was all-Immaculate. The Sacrifice of the Cross is applied through eating the Body and drinking the Blood. The Virgin Birth is linked to the Perpetual Virginity. The Resurrection and the Ascension vindicate that Jesus was who He said He was - meaning He is to be believed about the Eucharist. The Sermon on the Mount does teach us how to live - but you can find out how to be in a good person in most of the world's religions. "Salvation by Grace" needs to be qualified in order to be accurate.

As for baptism - granted some Protestant sects retain baptismal regeneration, many do not.
As for Lord's Supper - with rare exception, Protestants do not believe in the Real Presence (I know some Lutherans do, and I'm allowing room for this).

When looked at as a whole, it is looks like a wholesale destruction. What do we get with denial of the Sacraments?
-Things like rebaptism and a - no pun intended - watering down of baptism.
-Confirmation either becomes a mere rite of passage or it is not practiced at all.
-Confession is almost universally abandoned in Protestantism leaving those lost in mortal sin with virtually no way out. Why say "I believe in the forgiveness of sins" if you don't...
-The Lord's Supper, though initially retained by Luther, has become virtually trashed in Protestantism as a whole. While some are respectful, many are not. The idea of "well, what if a Protestant does believe in the Real Presence, do they still get it?" is very rare because, for the most part, Protestants deny the Real Presence and deny that is what they want. Well, if you don't want Jesus' Body and Jesus' Blood, then what is the point of being Christian? You cannot deny the single most important thing in a religious faith and still claim to be that religion... can you?
-Marriage has been reduced from a Sacrament to a rite of passage and well... I'm just saying... there are few places in the Bible where the language is so strong as to say "God hates..." but divorce is one of them. God hates divorce. And while there are many good loving marriages in Protestantism - once again, many Protestant religions, openly, honestly do not see an issue with divorce. Again, not saying all... but some. Further, many allow contracepting within marriage... but I digress...Granted Catholics, like anyone, are just as prone to fail marriage - it doesn't help to start off with the Standard being diminished. At least start off with the right ideal...
-Then there is Holy Orders, the Episcopacy, Apostolic Succession and the like... Protestants could have retained Apostolic Succession yet with extremely rare exception, this got trashed as well. So, much for the "apostolic" part of the Church...
-Last Rites / Anointing of the Sick. Well, taking a cue from Luther, Protestants, for the most part, do not actually agree with the Book of James anyways...

And, what do we get when gut Mariology? An implied denial of the Incarnation!

Yep, wholesale destruction of Christianity.

 

[fat wee robin]

Jesus needed to be born of man to have the authority to save mankind. He had to be of our "family." Let's hope he was born from a very human Mary; this is how he acquired his human nature. Jesus needed to be sinless to save mankind. Let's hope that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit.

I'm not sure what need there ever was to exalt Mary. Our whole lives are supposed to be filled with God himself. I can only guess that it came as a result of people seeing God as harsh and distant and being afraid of him. Jesus is the mediator between God and man. If you're afraid of Jesus, then you'd look for a mediator between Jesus and man.

Jesus spoke of Mary and everyone before:
I tell you the truth: Among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. (Matthew 11:11, 1984 NIV)

Paul spoke of her, as well:
for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, (Romans 3:23, 1984 NIV)

As was said, Mary is due honor, but not because of who she was, because she didn't choose who she was, but because she loved and trusted God as a result of her choices. (You really don't see people genuinely loving God much in the NT.) She and Joseph believed what God told them and were obedient to some pretty unsettling things. Is a person honoring her too much (sometimes an accusation of worshiping her)? (Luke 4:8) Be careful not to assume a definition of worship. What behaviors does Scripture show constitute worship?

God will reward us for our good deeds. How do you think about Paul? It is likely that he earned more reward from God than Mary. Paul worked harder than all the apostles.

But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them—yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me. (1 Corinthians 15:10, 1984 NIV)

But everyone has idolatry in their hearts in some way. Some Christians, through their actions, demonstrate they love a certain football player, basketball player, or other person more than God. I don't see why there is such vehemence about Mary. I honor Paul in my heart because of the extreme suffering he had to endure. Also James the brother of Jesus, because he turned from his unbelieving ways and became a great man of God. Moses was the most humble person on the planet, which means he suffered much. Living by faith in God is so worth honoring, that God included a list of mere humans in Hebrews 11 that had lived by faith. Anyone who lives by faith in God under trial is great in the eyes of God, and Mary and Joseph were two of them.

But none of them were divine. (What does it mean to be divine?) Mary wasn't present at the creation of the world, she was born to fallen parents, which means she had a sinful nature. Being holy is different. God set apart Mary for one of the greatest things that ever happened on earth. But for this we praise God, because every good thing about her was given to her by God.

This use of ' needed to be born of man' ,(by certain sola scriptura ) is a big give away about their roots ,which are fundamentally patriarchal politically ,and historically , and it had nothing to do with God ,but about meaness of spirit, and their need to control through power .


JESUS needed to born pf Woman . Only women give birth to children ,as of yet .It is the devils desire to change that ,but it is not of GOD.

 

[Albion]

Actually they are not. Even they claim to be separated from the RCC.

You and others appear to be unable to handle this religious fact of life, but I'll say it one more time for you.

Churches are classified as either Catholic or Protestant (plus some that are neither because their theology is so different from traditional Christianity, such as the Mormons), according to some basics of their beliefs.

In the Catholic category are the usual churches with Apostolic Succession, seven sacraments, salvation by Faith and Works, etc. -- the RCC, EO, OO, OC, Independent Catholic churches and so on. In the Protestant category are those that descend from the Reformation -- the Lutherans, Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, and so on. Some of them use as their standard name a general one like the Catholic Church or The Episcopal Church or The Methodist Church (now the UMC). But they're all in one category or the other.

When you try to make out that your own denomination is special because it is "united" while all those in the other group are divided, you're simply taking one denomination out of that category and claiming that it is one and united, whatever, while "they" are "divided." Of course "they" are. One is always going to look more "united" than a bunch. But it's an illusion since the Roman Catholic Church has had the largest and most longstanding schisms in all church history and you're not comparing its category with the other category.

This argument could just as well be used with a comparison between, say, the 'Churches of Christ' and all the Catholic churches (RC, EO, etc), with the resulting claim, "Look, we of the CsOfC are one and united, but all you Catholics of different sorts are in disagreement and divided, so obviously you can't be teaching the truth. The truth is one, etc." In fact, that claim IS made, and it's no different than the one made by Roman Catholics in reverse.

 

[Albion]

Of course we do (the Orthodox Catholic Church). We just do not agree with certain doctrines invented within the schismatic church of Rome.

No you don't. You don't agree with the Old Catholic churches or the Ethiopian church; and the Russian Orthodox Church(es) have been split into three different, rival parts in recent years. The Ukrainian Orthodox are split--in the USA alone--three or four different ways. The EO (if that's what you are referring to) are divided internally and from the other Catholic churches just like everyone else.

 

[Albion]

And, what do we get when gut Mariology? An implied denial of the Incarnation!

Yep, wholesale destruction of Christianity.

Weird. Very weird. But that's the nature of extreme sectarianism. Any departure at all from the peculiarities of one's own denomination is thought of as a wholesale rejection of Christianity.

Your own church -- the one you think you are defending -- doesn't teach such nonsense! In fact, it specifically rejects such a thing. Other Catholics went to pains just yesterday here to post selections from the Catechism which specifically and unequivocally reject your POV. But here it is again.

 

[Linet Kihonge]

I will contest the Mariology doctrine (please, this is not denial of the LORD's incarnation it's the questioning of the veneration, however, by reason and well-thought out conclusion it's anathema). The fact that no scripture supports it including the Apocrypha. It is, "Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom."

 

[JacksBratt]

We are all the children of God. That is why Jesus taught us to pray, "Our Father...."

Joseph married Mary as part of God's plan and under instructions from an angel.

Yes, of course we are all children of God. This would group us with Mary. Not set her apart as some "daughter" specifically.

Yes, Joseph was instructed not to divorce Mary and explained the situation. However, do you think, then, that he just carried on as a celibate husband of Mary and Step father to Christ? I doubt it. They had a normal family and life, with Jesus as the eldest child.

 

[Cis.jd]

Dream on! The Orthodox are Catholic. The only reason the church of Rome "calls" itself catholic is because at one point it was part of The Church but has since broke away and since it broke away has gone against Church Council rulings and has entered other Patriarchal territories. It had no authority to do so.

What i am trying to tell Albion is that the EO is not another branch of Catholics. EO is it's own major branch with in Christianity just like Protestantism in general. The split that happened between both us - the East and the West is not in the same type of categorization as to the Protestant denominations and sects that appeared after it was born.

As i said earlier, there are sections with in Christianity that hold the name "catholic" but are not. For example the Church of England. They are considered Protestant but they refer to themselves as "Anglo-Catholic".

Show me any link in where the EO consider themselves a different denomination with in Catholicism? When anybody hears the name "Catholic" they automatically know that person is Roman Catholic, not EO. That is why even in this forum on the Faith section of our profile just has Catholic because automatically the person knows this is Roman Catholic. That is why almost all of the historical descriptions of the branches with Christianity will say that the EO separated from Rome.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

No you don't. You don't agree with the Old Catholic churches or the Ethiopian church; and the Russian Orthodox Church(es) have been split into three different, rival parts in recent years. The Ukrainian Orthodox are split--in the USA alone--three or four different ways. The EO (if that's what you are referring to) are divided internally and from the other Catholic churches just like everyone else.

All of the churches within the Eastern Orthodox Church are united in faith.

 

[Cis.jd]

deleted

 

[Albion]

What i am trying to tell Albion is that the EO is not another branch of Catholics.

I know that that is what you're trying to tell me. But you are wrong. And I'm not saying that EO is a branch of the Roman Catholic Church, if that's what you imagine. It's simply one of the church bodies classified as Catholic as opposed to Protestant and which is classified that way on the basis of certain beliefs common to all in the group.

However, the same point might be made from the opposite direction.

If anyone persists in thinking that his own denomination (1) is united and true because it is "not divided" like all the churches in the opposite category (1000s), that is an artificial comparison.

It would be just the same as if a member of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod were to say "We (in the WELS) are united. But look at the divisions among you Catholics, i.e. Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Old Catholics, Arminians, Copts, etc. We must be right."

 

[Albion]

All of the churches within the Eastern Orthodox Church are united in faith.

No, they're not. You are simply trying to say that they are all united on the most important matters. But if that is so, the same can easily be shown to be true among the Protestants.

Again, we can argue this forever, but the fact will remain that to put one denomination/church/communion up against a large number of separate church bodies, at once, and say "Look! We are united, but 'they' aren't" is an invalid comparison.

 

[Albion]

Actually they are not. Even they claim to be separated from the RCC.

Being separated from the RCC is not the issue. The Lutherans and the Anglicans are separated from the RCC too, and yet it's commonly said by their opponents that "they" (as if they're all the same) are disunited for being different churches, supposedly unlike the RC (or EO) as the case may be.

You simply cannot group different and separate churches for purposes of calling them "divided," and then compare them to a single other denomination/church body/communion...which then is extolled as united and, therefore, true.

 

[Magnus Maximus]

All of the churches within the Eastern Orthodox Church are united in faith.

Really--Then why did some churches boycott the pan Orthodox meeting/council.

 

[FaeryChild]

The Bible says she will be called blessed, the Bible did not say, bless MARY, Venerate Mary or Canonize.

How can she be called blessed if no one ever blesses her?