Mary Mediatrix (sp?) and Co-redeemer

[Rick Otto]

In the same way no one can be saved except through the Church,

What way is that?
No one is a member of the church (the body of Christ) unless they are saved.

Looks like the context was every bit as skewed as the part shinbits quoted.

Can we please stop misleading ourselves? Just because a person denies what they believe when confronted, doesn't mean it's any more true than when a person says their Christian & they ain't.

 

[Rick Otto]

Do you believe that no one can know of Jesus except by the Bible? If you do, then that would mean that no one can come to Jesus except through the Bible. Assuming that you do, would that not mean that, using your logic, John 6:44 would mean that you believe that the Bible is God. So then you would be guilty of Bibliolatry.

Do you believe that no one can correctly interpret the scriptures differently than your Church? If you do, then that would mean you give more authority to men than to The Holy Spirit.

 

[shinbits]

*offers the quote in actual context*




Can we please avoid being misleading about what others say? Eucharisted explicitly denied believing what you said she claimed, but you ignored that, for some reason.

He said no one can come to Christ, except through Mary. Nothing in that post, including what you bolded, indicates that he doesn't believe that.

And the fact that he does believe this, is sad.

 

[shinbits]

Do you believe that no one can know of Jesus except by the Bible? If you do, then that would mean that no one can come to Jesus except through the Bible. Assuming that you do, would that not mean that, using your logic, John 6:44 would mean that you believe that the Bible is God. So then you would be guilty of Bibliolatry.

Did I ever say this? No. So what your post is a strawman.

 

[Standing Up]

What way is that?
No one is a member of the church (the body of Christ) unless they are saved.

Looks like the context was every bit as skewed as the part shinbits quoted.

Can we please stop misleading ourselves? Just because a person denies what they believe when confronted, doesn't mean it's any more true than when a person says their Christian & they ain't.

 

[laconicstudent]

He said no one can come to Christ, except through Mary. Nothing in that post, including what you bolded, indicates that he doesn't believe that.

And the fact that he does believe this, is sad.

We aren't discussing the "no one can come to Christ but through Mary bit", what we are discussing is your accusing Eucharisted of regarding Mary as deity when he specifically denied that.


You said:

I guess Catholics believe Mary is God now.

In response to a post in which Eucharisted said:

Mary dose not unite souls to Jesus in the way Jesus unites souls to God - she is not a goddess-woman, not a hypostatic union, and not a savior - but prays for souls to Jesus, asking Him for graces just as she asked Him for a miracle at Cana. In this way she is our exemplar of how to pray, and it is because she is an exemplary Christian at Cana, at Calvary, and throughout her life that we look to her for the example of how to imitate God in Jesus, who is the Model of Holiness as Holiness Incarnate.

Laconicstudent(would love to see an explanation of how Shinbit got "You believe Mary is a god" out of "She is not a goddess-woman". )

 

[Rick Otto]

Explanation: "Denial".

You're welcome.

 

[laconicstudent]

Explanation: "Denial".

You're welcome.

Yes, I would agree that a lot of people from non-Apostolic churches are in denial over the fact that the Apostolic Churches don't worship saints and icons. Just look at my example, a Roman Catholic specifically says that Mary isn't a goddess, and the immediate response is "Wow so you think Mary is a god?!"

 

[Rick Otto]

Denial of Mary worship & worship of the saints is a popular form of denial.
It's realy sad too, because if they would own up to it, they could use the opportunity to show their sophistication by explaining the latria/dulia distinction, but alas, their committment isn't usualy that deep & a lot of them know nothing of their church of preference's teachings even tho ignorance is usualy what they accuse their detractors of.

...So the apostles worshipped Mary too?

 

[laconicstudent]

Denial of Mary worship & worship of the saints is a popular form of denial.
It's realy sad too, because if they would own up to it, they could use the opportunity to show their sophistication by explaining the latria/dulia distinction, but alas, their committment isn't usualy that deep & a lot of them know nothing of their church of preference's teachings even tho ignorance is usualy what they accuse their detractors of.

...So the apostles worshipped Mary too?

Let me know when you have an argument better then simply insisting you can read other people's souls.

 

[shinbits]

Let me know when you have an argument better then simply insisting you can read other people's souls.

This is the biggest cop-out argument ever, the whole "you don't know what I was thinking, bit". What if you walked in on your wife naked with another man being groped, and she said "he's just massaging me. Don't judge me by what it appears. SEE MY SOUL."

I bet you guys would believe her, and go about your business like nothing happened.

 

[Rick Otto]

Let me know when you have an argument better then simply insisting you can read other people's souls.

Sorry, I forgot you don't like to eat what you dish out.

 

[laconicstudent]

This is the biggest cop-out argument ever, the whole "you don't know what I was thinking, bit". What if you walked in on your wife naked with another man being groped, and she said "he's just massaging me. Don't judge me by what it appears. SEE MY SOUL."

I bet you guys would believe her, and go about your business like nothing happened.

And if it was a massage parlor, the man was a homosexual not attracted to your wife, or a medical professional providing care, or any other one of several possible explanations, I would definitely believe her. That is your problem, you are ignoring the context in which the act occurs.

As someone certified in CPR, if you see me "grope" your wife's chest while she is having a heart attack, are you going to have a meltdown and accuse me of being an adulterer, because I am to some extent groping your wife's chest in the course of compressions?

According to your logic, you should.

 

[laconicstudent]

Sorry, I forgot you don't like to eat what you dish out.

Let me know when.

 

[MamaZ]

I
Let me know when you have an argument better then simply insisting you can read other people's souls.

I don't see where reading other peoples souls came into the picture. We do not come to Jesus through Mary for we do not recoginize man according to the flesh. Therefore Since Mary is Jesus Mother according to the flesh she has no bearing on anyone coming to Christ. It is the Father drawing us to Jesus by His Spirit.

 

[shinbits]

And if it was a massage parlor, the man was a homosexual not attracted to your wife, or a medical professional providing care, or any other one of several possible explanations, I would definitely believe her. That is your problem, you are ignoring the context in which the act occurs.

Ignoring the context? If that example meant to include some "homosexual" professional, the example would've made that clear. The example is just some guy doing it at your home. But apparently, it seems that even then you'd try to rationalize such an obvious action. Sad really.

As someone certified in CPR, if you see me "grope" your wife's chest while she is having a heart attack, are you going to have a meltdown and accuse me of being an adulterer, because I am to some extent groping your wife's chest in the course of compressions?

According to your logic, you should.

If it was the situation you described, I wouldn't have used that as a point, now would I? What you're doing is completely changing the scenerio to include things that would make it better to deal with. My scenerio is just a random guy you found in your home, not some "homosexual" profesional just doing his job. In that situation, it *SHOULD* be obvious what's going on, but it seems you'd just try to rationalize it away, like you did your entire post. Or more accurately, like Catholics have done for centuries with worshipping Mary.

Like I said at the beginning: actions speak louder than words. Your words which try to explain away bowing before a graven image, are drowned out by the defening loudness of Catholics bowing down to Mary and praying to her, which is what's done to a diety. And NO, we're not talking about bowing down as "excersise" in a room where a statue of Mary just happens to be there, or whatever silly rationalization you might come up with. We're talking about bowing before a graven image of someone who's refered to as "Queen of Heaven", and able to hear and even act on prayers, just like a diety can.

 

[laconicstudent]

Ignoring the context? If that example meant to include some "homosexual" professional, the example would've made that clear.

I can't see why. You didn't make it clear that it was a heterosexual, either.

The example is just some guy doing it at your home. But apparently, it seems that even then you'd try to rationalize such an obvious action. Sad really.

But you didn't say "In your home" at all. Perhaps next time you offer an example you'd like to try and define all the parameters to preclude the possible alternate explanations?

If it was the situation you described, I wouldn't have used that as a point, now would I? What you're doing is completely changing the scenerio to include things that would make it better to deal with.

Nah, I'm just offering scenarios that fit the rather loose set of parameters you offer. Try being more specific next time.

My scenerio is just a random guy you found in your home,

But you didn't say that, you said:

This is the biggest cop-out argument ever, the whole "you don't know what I was thinking, bit". What if you walked in on your wife naked with another man being groped, and she said "he's just massaging me. Don't judge me by what it appears. SEE MY SOUL."

I don't see the word "Home" in there anywhere, do you?

not some "homosexual" profesional just doing his job.

But you didn't specify that he was heterosexual or working outside the boundaries of his occupation, either.

In that situation, it *SHOULD* be obvious what's going on,

Except it isn't! It could be a masseuse doing a home call, or an EMT responding to a heart attack

but it seems you'd just try to rationalize it away, like you did your entire post.

Perhaps next time you will specify that he is a heterosexual adulterer, and not leave me the option of defining him as a homosexual masseuse or medical responder?

Or more accurately, like Catholics have done for centuries with worshipping Mary.

Except they don't. Your argument consists of nothing more then judging external appearances without context.

Like I said at the beginning: actions speak louder than words.

Yes, when taken in proper context, which you are ignoring.

Your words which try to explain away bowing before a graven image, are drowned out by the defening loudness of Catholics bowing down to Mary and praying to her, which is what's done to a diety.

How many times have I posted this now? I don't know why I bother, since your actions make it clear that you would rather ignore the theological reasoning behind the act in favor of holding to your simplistic misconception of "Catholics worship Mary!"

We, therefore, following the royal pathway and the divinely inspired authority of our Holy Fathers and the traditions of the Catholic Church (for, as we all know, the Holy Spirit indwells her), define with all certitude and accuracy that just as the figure of the precious and life-giving Cross, so also the venerable and holy images, as well in painting and mosaic as of other fit materials, should be set forth in the holy churches of God, and on the sacred vessels and on the vestments and on hangings and in pictures both in houses and by the wayside, to wit, the figure of our Lord God and Saviour Jesus Christ, of our spotless Lady, the Mother of God, of the honourable Angels, of all Saints and of all pious people. For by so much more frequently as they are seen in artistic representation, by so much more readily are men lifted up to the memory of their prototypes, and to a longing after them; and to these should be given due salutation and honourable reverence (ἀσπασμὸν καὶ τιμητικὴν προσκύνησι&#957, not indeed that true worship of faith (λατρεία&#957 which pertains alone to the divine nature; but to these, as to the figure of the precious and life-giving Cross and to the Book of the Gospels and to the other holy objects, incense and lights may be offered according to ancient pious custom. For the honour which is paid to the image passes on to that which the image represents, and he who reveres the image reveres in it the subject represented. For thus the teaching of our holy Fathers, that is the tradition of the Catholic Church, which from one end of the earth to the other hath received the Gospel, is strengthened. Thus we follow Paul, who spake in Christ, and the whole divine Apostolic company and the holy Fathers, holding fast the traditions which we have received. So we sing prophetically the triumphal hymns of the Church, “Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Sion; Shout, O daughter of Jerusalem. Rejoice and be glad with all thy heart. The Lord hath taken away from thee the oppression of thy adversaries; thou art redeemed from the hand of thine enemies. The Lord is a King in the midst of thee; thou shalt not see evil any more, and peace be unto thee forever.”

And NO, we're not talking about bowing down as "excersise" in a room where a statue of Mary just happens to be there, or whatever silly rationalization you might come up with.

Yes, heavens forbid I try and cloud the discussion with theology or logic of any kind.

We're talking about bowing before a graven image of someone who's refered to as "Queen of Heaven", and able to hear and even act on prayers, just like a diety can.

Except that isn't what the Roman Catholics or Orthodox do, and therefore it is a strawman.

 

[laconicstudent]

I don't see where reading other peoples souls came into the picture. We do not come to Jesus through Mary for we do not recoginize man according to the flesh. Therefore Since Mary is Jesus Mother according to the flesh she has no bearing on anyone coming to Christ. It is the Father drawing us to Jesus by His Spirit.

Its the implication made by some people in this forum that they know what is in the hearts and minds of Roman Catholics, better then the Roman Catholics themselves.

 

[Rick Otto]

Let me know when.

Every time. And you dudge it every time.
Let me know when you have a real argument with the truth instead of simple denial of it.

 

[Rick Otto]

Its the implication made by some people in this forum that they know what is in the hearts and minds of Roman Catholics, better then the Roman Catholics themselves.

They make that obvious by their cognitive dissonance and their outright denial of explicit RCC policy, which advocates worship of saints.
example:
Originally Posted by shinbits

Or more accurately, like Catholics have done for centuries with worshipping Mary.
​

laconicstudent; Except they don't