Mary, there's something about her...

[panterapat]

Mediatrix is not "yet" a proclaimed doctrine of the Catholic Church.

Jesus came to earth through the body of Mary. And Jesus continues to come to us spiritually through Mary.

Those who refute the proper role of Mary have not correctly understood the truth of her role. The old, "Catholics pray to Mary" is repeated so often and refuted just as often. It is time for others to move deeper into Maryology and discover the joy in having her as an advocate in heaven.

In Christ through Mary, Patrick

 

[Wolseley]

Listen everyone. I guess what I am really getting at is where did the RCC get its belieft.

We get our beliefs from the teachings of the Apostles. They went all over the ancient world teaching the Christian Faith. In time, some of these teachings were written down; they became the New Testament Holy Scripture. Some of the teachings were not written down; they became Sacred Tradition.

Both of these are divinely inspired, and both are equally the Word of God.

Are you telling me that most of you believe an unispired document like the catechism?

Are you telling me that you believe an uninspired videotape entitled "Messages From Heaven"?

I have only one book that tells me what I need to know about my beliefs, The Holy Bible.

Which you can thank the Catholic Church for putting together for you.

Do you know why it is called "Holy"? Because it was written by God Himself through specifically chosen individuals.

Do you know why Sacred Tradition is called "Sacred"? Because it was inspired by God Himself to be delivered through specifically chosen individuals.

If Mary provided mediation or even assists Jesus with salvation for us, why isn't she mentioned in any of the epistles?

Because she is mentioned quite often in Sacred Tradition. There is nowhere in the Bible where it says you need only the Bible and nothing else. (I am very much aware of 2 Timothy 3:16. That verse doesn't apply; it says "all" Scripture. It does not say "only" Scripture.)

Why are her last recoreded words "Whatsoever her saith unto you, do it".

Because that is a summation of Mary's role in the life of the Christian. Mary always points to Christ---never to herself.

Where does it mention her ascension?

Well, there is a mention of a woman in heaven in Revelation 12, and she had get up there somehow.

Will one of you watch the video "Messages from Heaven"? I think you will get some good information on what the RCC really teaches started with the pope.

I'll make a deal with you. I'll watch your videotape if you read the following books:

Catholic Questions, Catholic Answers; Kenneth Ryan. Servant Publications, 1990.

What Catholics Really Believe; Karl Keating. Ignatius Press, 1992.

Catholicism and Fundamentalism: the Attack on "Romanism" by "Bible Christians"; Karl Keating. Ignatius, 1988.

The Usual Suspects: Answering Anti-Catholic Fundamentalists; Karl Keating. Ignatius, 2000.

Crossing the Tiber: Evangelical Protestants Discover the Historical Church; Stephen K. Ray. Ignatius, 1997.

Catholic and Christian; Alan Schreck. Servant Books, 1984.

Why Do Catholics Do That? Kevin Orlin Johnson. Ballentine Books, 1994.

A Brief For Belief: the Case For Catholicism; Frederick W. Marks. Queenship Publishing, 1999.

Unabridged Christianity; Mario Romero. Queenship, 1999.

Pope Fiction: Answers to 30 Myths and Misconceptions About the Papacy; Patrick Madrid. Basilica Press, 1999.

Not By Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura; Robert A. Sungenis. Queenship, 1997.

Surprised By Truth: 11 Converts Give the Biblical and Historical Reasons For Becoming Catholic; Patrick Madrid, Editor. Basilica Press, 1994.

Surprised By Truth 2: 15 Men and Women Give the Biblical and Historical Reasons For Becoming Catholic; Patrick Madrid, Editor. Sophia Press, 2000.

Rome Sweet Home: Our Journey to Catholicism; Scott and Kimberly Hahn. Ignatius, 1993.

By What Authority? An Evangelical Discovers Catholic Tradition; Mark P. Shea. OSV, 1996.

Born Fundamentalist, Born-Again Catholic; David B. Currie. Ignatius, 1996.

Scripture Alone? 21 Reasons to Reject Sola Scriptura; Joel Peters. TAN, 1999.

Where We Got the Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic Church; Henry G. Graham. TAN, 1977.

Where Is That In the Bible? Patrick Madrid. OSV, 2001.

Why Is That In Tradition? Patrick Madrid. OSV, 2002.


Let me know when you're done.

 

[VOW]

Wolseley,

I love you. Will you marry me?


Peace,
~VOW

 

[kern]

Originally posted by VOW
Wolseley,

I love you. Will you marry me?

gee i guess your worship of mary tells you you can commit adultery because catholics rewrote scriptures and added books one of those apocraphya must tell you you can commit adultery. guess you didnt learn anything from 96 million people killed during inquisition. read your bible i will pray for you. only jesus saves not religion!!!!!!!!!1!!

-Chris

 

[jukesk9]

Originally posted by kern
gee i guess your worship of mary tells you you can commit adultery because catholics rewrote scriptures and added books one of those apocraphya must tell you you can commit adultery. guess you didnt learn anything from 96 million people killed during inquisition. read your bible i will pray for you. only jesus saves not religion!!!!!!!!!1!!

-Chris

And who says Catholics don't have a sense of humor?

 

[ZooMom]

 

[Theresa]

You know, I read one time about the amount of people Protestants say the Catholics killed in the inquisitions, and some of the numbers were so crazy that you couldn't even prove there were that many people on Earth at the time??? Do you even know how much misinformation you guys are digesting?


"rewrote Scriptures and added books" -do you have any idea what you are talking about????
In approx 200 B.C. the Jews started translating the Scriptures into Greek. This copy was called the Septuagint. It was the Bible of Jesus and the Apostles. In 100A.D., some Jewish councils got together and reviewed the Scriptures and decided to keep only the books that met four criteria, one of which was that they had to have original copies in Hebrew. Since they didn't have original copies of the seven books, they booted those books out (ie. books taken out by Martin Luther-Tobias, Baruch, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiastics, I & II Maccabees, 7 chapters of the book of Esther, and 66 verses of the third chapter of Daniel, which, I might add, leaves the Protestant Bible with only 66 books.) By then it was too late, the new Christian Church already had the Septuagint which is the Jewish Scriptures in it's entirety, without being meddled with. The really funny part is that when they discovered the Dead Sea Scrolls they found copies of at least two of those books in Hebrew which proves that there were original Hebrew copies of the booted out books in Palestine at that time. The Jews were wrong to take the books out. Then came Martin Luther and he took those books out as well. From my understanding, he also took out 2 Peter which has the verse, "Above all else, however, remember that no one can explain by himself a prophecy in the Scriptures."2 Pet 1:20 and he thought James was an 'epistle of straw," probably because it says that "faith without works is dead." He also wanted to take out Revelations. He did take out these books but his followers later put them back in, at least from what I've read. Those two verses alone debunct his Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide theology.

Thanx, Luv
Theresa

 

[ZooMom]

Hi, Theresa.

kern was joking. He's Catholic, and has seen much of the same claims you refer to. Which is why he was having some fun with VOW.

Welcome to the Forum, and Peace be with you.

 

[Hoonbaba]

Originally posted by danrobinson_92562
Here are some refs from the RCC catechism which talk about Mary being able to provide salvation to us.

"Taken up to heaven she (Mary) did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation..." Pg. 252, #969

"Being obedient she (Mary) became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race." Pg. 125, #494

And the Bible does not teach of a co-mediatrix - this was invented by the RCC.

Hi Dan,

Though the bible does not clearly mention Mary's immaculate conception it is implied (to some extent).  I know what I'm about to share is a stretch but I think Teresa did a good job explaining it in anycase, check out this link:

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=253007#post253007

Now I don't fully agree that Mary is THE new ark of the covenant, however, I do believe that the parallels between Luke 1 and 2 Sam 6 implies that Mary was conceived immaculately since the ark of the covenant was extremely holy and pure.  So if anything Luke seems to apply these truths about the ark of the covenant to Mary.

There's some food for thought =)

-Jason

 

 

[Hoonbaba]

Originally posted by Wolseley
We get our beliefs from the teachings of the Apostles. They went all over the ancient world teaching the Christian Faith. In time, some of these teachings were written down; they became the New Testament Holy Scripture. Some of the teachings were not written down; they became Sacred Tradition.

Both of these are divinely inspired, and both are equally the Word of God.

Are you telling me that you believe an uninspired videotape entitled "Messages From Heaven"?

Which you can thank the Catholic Church for putting together for you.

Do you know why Sacred Tradition is called "Sacred"? Because it was inspired by God Himself to be delivered through specifically chosen individuals.

Because she is mentioned quite often in Sacred Tradition. There is nowhere in the Bible where it says you need only the Bible and nothing else. (I am very much aware of 2 Timothy 3:16. That verse doesn't apply; it says "all" Scripture. It does not say "only" Scripture.)

Because that is a summation of Mary's role in the life of the Christian. Mary always points to Christ---never to herself.

Well, there is a mention of a woman in heaven in Revelation 12, and she had get up there somehow.


I'll make a deal with you. I'll watch your videotape if you read the following books:

Catholic Questions, Catholic Answers; Kenneth Ryan. Servant Publications, 1990.

What Catholics Really Believe; Karl Keating. Ignatius Press, 1992.

Catholicism and Fundamentalism: the Attack on "Romanism" by "Bible Christians"; Karl Keating. Ignatius, 1988.

The Usual Suspects: Answering Anti-Catholic Fundamentalists; Karl Keating. Ignatius, 2000.

Crossing the Tiber: Evangelical Protestants Discover the Historical Church; Stephen K. Ray. Ignatius, 1997.

Catholic and Christian; Alan Schreck. Servant Books, 1984.

Why Do Catholics Do That? Kevin Orlin Johnson. Ballentine Books, 1994.

A Brief For Belief: the Case For Catholicism; Frederick W. Marks. Queenship Publishing, 1999.

Unabridged Christianity; Mario Romero. Queenship, 1999.

Pope Fiction: Answers to 30 Myths and Misconceptions About the Papacy; Patrick Madrid. Basilica Press, 1999.

Not By Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura; Robert A. Sungenis. Queenship, 1997.

Surprised By Truth: 11 Converts Give the Biblical and Historical Reasons For Becoming Catholic; Patrick Madrid, Editor. Basilica Press, 1994.

Surprised By Truth 2: 15 Men and Women Give the Biblical and Historical Reasons For Becoming Catholic; Patrick Madrid, Editor. Sophia Press, 2000.

Rome Sweet Home: Our Journey to Catholicism; Scott and Kimberly Hahn. Ignatius, 1993.

By What Authority? An Evangelical Discovers Catholic Tradition; Mark P. Shea. OSV, 1996.

Born Fundamentalist, Born-Again Catholic; David B. Currie. Ignatius, 1996.

Scripture Alone? 21 Reasons to Reject Sola Scriptura; Joel Peters. TAN, 1999.

Where We Got the Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic Church; Henry G. Graham. TAN, 1977.

Where Is That In the Bible? Patrick Madrid. OSV, 2001.

Why Is That In Tradition? Patrick Madrid. OSV, 2002.


Let me know when you're done.

 

LOL!!! =)

God bless!

-Jason

 

[Hoonbaba]

Originally posted by Wolseley
I'm always amused when a non-Catholic with issues about the "errors" of the Catholic Faith tries to prove his claims by quoting Catholic documents.

Go back to page 252, #969, dan. You will notice that there is a footnote, specifically number 512. The document this footnote quotes from is from the 2nd Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, dated 21 November 1964, number 62.

Okay, so we go to our copy of Vatican II documents, and we look up the quote from the Catechism which you have provided for us above. Lo and behold! What you have given us above appears to be only a PARTIAL QUOTE from Vatican II!!!

And what does the ENTIRE quote say??? Why, it says this:

"This motherhood of Mary in the order of grace continues
uninterruptedly from the consent which she loyally gave at the
Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross,
until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect. 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.
This, however, is so understood that it neither takes away anything from nor adds anything to the dignity and efficacy of Christ the one
Mediator.

No creature could ever be counted along with the Incarnate Word and
Redeemer; but just as the priesthood of Christ is shared in various ways both by his ministers and the faithful, and as the one goodness of God is radiated in different ways among his creatures, so also the unique
mediation of the Redeemer does not exclude but rather gives rise to a
manifold cooperation which is but a sharing in this one source.

The Church does not hesitate to profess this subordinate role of Mary,
which it constantly experiences and recommends to the heartfelt attention
of the faithful, so that encouraged by this maternal help they may the
more closely adhere to the Mediator and Redeemer."

(Emphasis mine.)

In other words, your quote, taken in context, says exactly the opposite of what you said it says.

Then we have this:

This is also a partial quote, from Irenaeus of Lyons, in his treatise Adversus haereses ("Against Heresies"), Book III, Chapter 22, Part 4, written between 180 and 199 AD. The complete quote:

"In accordance with this design, Mary the Virgin is found obedient, saying, "Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word." But Eve was disobedient; for she did not obey when as yet she was a virgin. And even as she, having indeed a husband, Adam, but being nevertheless as yet a virgin (for in Paradise "they were both naked, and were not ashamed," inasmuch as they, having been created a short time previously, had no understanding of the procreation of children: for it was necessary that they should first come to adult age, and then multiply from that time onward), having become disobedient, was made the cause of death, both to herself and to the entire human race; so also did Mary, having a man betrothed [to her], and being nevertheless a virgin, by yielding obedience, become the cause of salvation, both to herself and the whole human race. And on this account does the law term a woman betrothed to a man, the wife of him who had betrothed her, although she was as yet a virgin; thus indicating the back-reference from Mary to Eve, because what is joined together could not otherwise be put asunder than by inversion of the process by which these bonds of union had arisen; so that the former ties be cancelled by the latter, that the latter may set the former again at liberty. And it has, in fact, happened that the first compact looses from the second tie, but that the second tie takes the position of the first which has been cancelled. For this reason did the Lord declare that the first should in truth be last, and the last first. And the prophet, too, indicates the same, saying, "instead of fathers, children have been born unto thee." For the Lord, having been born "the First-begotten of the dead," and receiving into His bosom the ancient fathers, has regenerated them into the life of God, He having been made Himself the beginning of those that live, as Adam became the beginning of those who die. Wherefore also Luke, commencing the genealogy with the Lord, carried it back to Adam, indicating that it was He who regenerated them into the Gospel of life, and not they Him. And thus also it was that the knot of Eve's disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. For what the virgin Eve had bound fast through unbelief, this did the virgin Mary set free through faith."

(Again, emphasis mine.)

In other words, Eve brought condemnation on mankind through her disobediance, whereas Mary, through her obediance in bearing the Savior of mankind into the world, brought us the means of salvation: Jesus Christ Himself. If she hadn't obeyed God by giving birth to Jesus, we wouldn't have a Savior.

Where is the heterodox doctrine in all of this??? I don't see any.

Make sure you know what you're quoting, where it came from, and what it says, dan, before you start using it to back up anti-Catholic statements.

By the way, do Catechists study these things?  Just curious.

Also, what exactly do Catechists do? =)

God bless!

-jason

 

[Theresa]

One could also add that at the time 2 Tim 3:16 was written, Scripture was still considered to be the Old Testament. I love verse 17, "so that the person who serves God may be fully qualified and equipped to do every kind of good deed." 
 

Notice what else it doesn't say.  It doesn't say that it is "sufficient" for "teaching the truth, rebuking error...", etc.


Thanx, Luv
Theresa

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by VOW

I love you. Will you marry me?

SeE!? Catholics DO support polygamy! This is because they use uninspired sources, like this old book I read once where a guy had seven hundred wives.

 

[Hoonbaba]

Originally posted by danrobinson_92562
Listen everyone. I guess what I am really getting at is where did the RCC get its belieft. Are you telling me that most of you believe an unispired document like the catechism? I have only one book that tells me what I need to know about my beliefs, The Holy Bible. Do you know why it is called "Holy"? Because it was written by God Himself through specifically chosen individuals.
If Mary provided mediation or even assists Jesus with salvation for us, why isn't she mentioned in any of the epistles? Why are her last recoreded words "Whatsoever her saith unto you, do it". Where does it mention her ascension?
Will one of you watch the video "Messages from Heaven"? I think you will get some good information on what the RCC really teaches started with the pope.

Dan,

You have to realize that the Catechism exists to explain Catholic doctrines.  That has all you need to know about the Catholic church, not some video.  Furthermore, catholics have good reason to believe that the 'bible alone' is not enough:  There's many NT references made outside of scripture.  And during the first 3 centuries, there wasn't any NT.  For the most part orally passed down (which is consistent with 2 Thess 2:15).

Here's an link that explains quite a bit about sacred tradition:

http://www.chnetwork.org/journals/sola/sola8.htm

This page is good too:

http://ic.net/~erasmus/ERASMUS3.HTM

God bless!

-jason

 

[Hoonbaba]

Originally posted by Theresa
One could also add that at the time 2 Tim 3:16 was written, Scripture was still considered to be the Old Testament. I love verse 17, "so that the person who serves God may be fully qualified and equipped to do every kind of good deed." 

And there's good reason for it:

verse 15 says so:

<SUP>"</SUP>But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." (2 Tim 3:14-17)

God bless!

-Jason

 

[jukesk9]

I'd like to share today's homily with you all from Father Scott Friend of St. Raphael's Catholic Church (which is where I attend ).&nbsp; The Gospel reading today was from Mark and spoke of being ready for Christ's return.&nbsp; Fr. Friend recently visited the Basilica of Juan Diego in Mexico (Our Lady of Guadalupe).&nbsp; He said that many miracles occur there and at first, he said he was going to ask Mary to pray to God for him that he is healed of Multiple Scolorsis (spelling?).&nbsp; But, after much thought, he asked Mary to intercede before God to remove any barriers that keep him away from Christ.&nbsp; He said MS isn't a barrier so he asked Mary to help him get closer to Christ and to help him prepare for Christ's return.&nbsp;

Now, I thought to myself, what a perfect example of how we are to ask for a saint's help.&nbsp; I wanted to share this especially for the non-catholics to read.&nbsp; Fr. Friend acknowledges that Mary can do absolutely nothing except going to God for him.&nbsp; And what does he want Mary to do?&nbsp; He wants&nbsp;her to pray for him that God removes the barriers that keep&nbsp;him&nbsp;apart from Christ.&nbsp; What is Fr. Friend&nbsp;also saying here?&nbsp; That he wants a closer relationship with Jesus Christ!&nbsp; What an example for us all!&nbsp; Who was the focus of today's homily?&nbsp; Jesus Christ.&nbsp; Get closer to Him and get ready for His return!

 

[Wolseley]

You know, I read one time about the amount of people Protestants say the Catholics killed in the inquisitions, and some of the numbers were so crazy that you couldn't even prove there were that many people on Earth at the time???

Believe it or not, I've been having this very discussion with a devout Fundamentalist gentleman who used to post here; in his last PM to me, he made this statement:

Pope Innocent III killed between 100,000 and 500,000 million, yet the Catholic Church praises him as a great Pope.

To which I replied:

Innocent III was Pope from January 8, 1198 to July 16, 1216; this means it was at the very beginning of the 13th century. The total population of Europe in 1300 was only TEN million, and you're asserting that Innocent III killed 500,000 million people???? The entire population of the whole world didn't reach 500 million until 1650, and the present-day population of England, France, Spain, and Italy combined is only 216 million. What did Innocent do, import people from other planets to kill???? A figure of 100,000 million people killed during an 18-year period in Europe at the start of the 13th century is so completely preposterous that it's actually hilariously funny. Anybody who ties to pass off that kind of number either isn't serious or else is totally insane.

He hasn't replied yet, but I am awaiting his response with bated breath.

 

[Wolseley]

Wolseley, I love you. Will you marry me?

Well, now, that all depends.....how much money are you bringing into this relationship???

I'm always in need of more cash to buy all those indulgences, y'know.

 

[seebs]

100,000 million is indeed a few more than I think anyone could have killed. I don't think there's been 100,000 million people. I mean, since the dawn of written history, possibly further.

Now, that said, perhaps we're nitpicking; perhaps Innocent killed 500,000 ones of people, which would still be a lot, but I'm not aware of the details, and I always take such claims with a grain of salt. Still, don't let an obvious error in the number blind you to the underlying complaint.

 

[Wolseley]

This all had to do with the Albigensian Crusade, which is a fave of the Fundamentalists....the old "Catholic Church killed all these Bible Christians during the Middle Ages" bandwagon.

I pointed out that the Albigensian Crusade was primarily the work of the secular French forces under Simon de Montfort, not the Vatican; and that when de Monfort captured the Albigensian town of Beziers, approximately 15 to 20,000 people were killed. Perhaps another 1,000 to 1500 were killed elsewhere during the course of the Crusade.

Regrettable? Yes. But is 21,500 anywhere even remotely approaching the level of 100 to 500,000 million?

Decidedly not.

I realize his complaint is that "any Church which kills so many people can never be considered a true Christian Church"; which is fine if that's what he thinks, but I helped him along with the following:

Various historians place the number of deaths under various Catholic inquisitions, for example, in the vicinity of 3,000 to 4,000 over the course of approximately 300 years. The number varies since there is no way to ascertain the exact numbers (Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism). By comparison, however, 800 executions a year were carried out in the early post-Reformation period in England, where Catholic inquisitions never operated at all (Sir James Stephens, History of English Criminal Law.) The burning of alleged witches was practically unknown in Catholic countries, but quite common in Protestant countries, such as England, where 30,000 people were burned at the stake for supposed witchcraft; in Germany, the number was 100,000 (William Thomas Walsh, Isabella of Spain; R. Trevor Davies, The Golden Century of Spain: 1501-1621.)

These statistics and sources could be greatly multiplied, but I will forego it simply because I won't convince you anyway, and I'm not going to get into a battle of atrocity figures in any event. The Catholic Church is not evil incarnate, and Protestant churches are not lily-white sinless organizations of stainless purity. Any and all Christian denominations have more than enough dirt under thier fingernails.

He made this statement regarding religious wars and killing:

Christian denominations have never been interested in such evils.

To which I replied:

If what you mean by this is that Protestant denominations have never been interested in such evils, then I guess the Peasant's Rebellion from 1524 to 1526, the Thirty Years War from 1618 to 1648, the Irish Conquest under Cromwell in 1649, the English persecutions under Henry VIII after 1534 and Elizabeth I after 1558, and the Salem Witch Trials in 1692, all of which caused thousands of Christians to die at the hands of other, Protestant Christians, never happened then, huh? They were all just a figment of somebody's imagination? Again: read some history.

I'm surprised he hasn't brought in the old tried-and-true standard of the Catholic Church being in league with the Nazis to wipe out eleven million people.