Please forgive if this comes off as a foolish question.

[RC_NewProtestants]

Sorry, but you are mixing up two different things. It is almost as if you calling apples and oranges (different things) as both apples.

Perhaps the most accurate thing that you wrote is the following sentence, beginning with "So, I call myself..." OK, you ar a modalist, believing that God manifests Himself as only one divine person at once. However, that still does not get back to the OP: WHAT DO THE SDAs BELIEVE??

Please reply to that.

No I did not say I believe "that God manifests Himself as only one divine person at once."

You and RND should get along better as you both have similar problems. It has already been stated what the official SDA belief is. Did you miss that too?

 

[sentipente]

The fact is that it is almost impossible to give a clear answer. One can say what is taught in the 28 FBs that has been adopted by the modern church. However, early Adventists did not believe in the Trinity. This presents a problem for traditional and historic Adventists who accept the Trinity because on some points they present as truty only what was first taught by the church.

 

[RND]

The fact is that it is almost impossible to give a clear answer. One can say what is taught in the 28 FBs that has been adopted by the modern church. However, early Adventists did not believe in the Trinity. This presents a problem for traditional and historic Adventists who accept the Trinity because on some points they present as truty only what was first taught by the church.

This is very true.

 

[RND]

No I did not say I believe "that God manifests Himself as only one divine person at once."

I actually have to defend RC in this case. He did not state this.

You and RND should get along better as you both have similar problems.

Um, Ron, this I can not defend. You still have a comprehension problem that must be dealt with.

It has already been stated what the official SDA belief is. Did you miss that too?

Evidently

 

[JohnT]

No

Originally the defining post was this:

modalism, which denies the coexistence of the three divine persons by teaching that God exists and manifests Himself as only one divine person at once

You responded and attempted to redefine the terms thus:

Modern modalism accepts that idea. So modern modalism is now more in line with Trinitarianism
and
So I call myself a modalist or a modalist Trinitarian

As a nice correction, I wrote

Sorry, but you are mixing up two different things. It is almost as if you calling apples and oranges (different things) as both apples.

That is because one can not be both, simultaneously, according to the original (proper) definition

Then you wrote:

No I did not say I believe "that God manifests Himself as only one divine person at once.

I wonder if you have difficulty understanding what people write. That is not a flame, but a sincere question. What you assume, and fight against is obviously nor what I wrote.

Finally, I consider this a gratuitous insult (so should RND)

You and RND should get along better as you both have similar problems.

You should be reported for such personal attacks. I began this on a positive note, but your comments have seriously degraded the dialog.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Quote:
No I did not say I believe "that God manifests Himself as only one divine person at once.

I wonder if you have difficulty understanding what people write. That is not a flame, but a sincere question. What you assume, and fight against is obviously nor what I wrote.

I did not say you flamed I posted to correct your assertion of what I said. I already know you have problems with comprehension, if you want I can point to the ending dialong of a conversation on the Prog forum where I showed your confusion.

Now Modalism is defined as the different faces of God it is not defined by the old useage that God could only be in one face at a time.

Meaning and origins

God was said to have three "faces" or "masks" (Grk. prosopa). The question is: "is God's threeness a matter of our falsely seeing it to be so (Sabellianism/modalism), or a matter of God's own essence revealed as three-in-one (orthodox trinitarianism)?" Modalists note that the only number ascribed to God in the Holy Bible is One and that there is no inherent threeness ascribed to God explicitly in scripture. The number three is never mentioned in relation to God in scripture, which of course is the number that is central to the word "Trinity". http://www.reference.com/search?r=13&q=Modalism#wiki

At one time that was apparently the view that God could only show one face at one time, but it is not now the view.

Quote:
Sorry, but you are mixing up two different things. It is almost as if you calling apples and oranges (different things) as both apples.
That is because one can not be both, simultaneously, according to the original (proper) definition.

I thought I was pretty clear in saying what was wrong with the original definition and that I and others don't go by the original definition as you surely know most all theological terms have a progression in understanding.

Today Trinity has, because of penal substitutionary atonement lost the God is One function of the original Trinitarian formula. Because how could one part of God pour out His wrath on another part of God. How does one part of God pay a penalty to another part of God. It is equally a changed doctrine from the Trinitarian formulation.

As such the Trinitarian formula has changed so that it has to be modified to show that it is not meant to indicate tri theism.(which is frankly the view of most Christians today) Of course at the time of the Trinitarian formulation there was not Penal Substitutionary doctrine and they did not have to worry about one part of God paying a penalty to God.

This is a good quote though the site is against modalism:

Modalism offered a simple and enticing solution. Its proponents taught that God is a mono-personal being that can change “modes,” assuming the role of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit at different times. Webster’s metaphysical definition for mode is “the form, or way of being, of something, as distinct from its substance.” Modalism teaches that God has one substance, but several “ways of being.” The common illustration that the Trinity is like the forms of water–ice, liquid, and steam–unfortunately is an exact representation of Modalism rather than Trinitarianism.
http://www.basictheology.com/definitions/Modalism/

 

[Pythons]

I'm sorry, but that's simply your POV. I've never suggested that Jesus was adopted. That is your statement, you own it. You are trying to put words into my mouth that I didn't say.

By default you suggest exactly that, it certainly isn’t my POV. Your refusal to admit Mary is the Mother of God is also your admission that the human and Divine natures of Jesus are not united into one Person “according to the flesh”. When Thomas addresses Jesus in John 20,28 is he addressing Jesus or is he addressing the Divine Nature of Jesus!

“Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God”.

Is a mother the mother of a nature or of a person?

Survey says?

While Jesus was certainly God on earth, in purposely put His Godly "nature" away to live as a man.

If by this and the Scriptures you quoted you mean that Jesus didn’t abuse His supernatural power for His own benefit then I would agree with that. If you are suggesting His two natures were not fully united and in anyway were subservient in any combination then I do not agree.

Christ was one person with two natures, that of God and that of Man. This is simple, basic Christianity. You think I'm saying one thing but if you just followed simple logic and scripture you would see differently.

It is simple basic Christianity so why are you bringing up the two Natures that make up the Incarnation when the “Word became flesh”? I’m following simple logic here. Apply your same principle to John 20,28 or Matthew 16,16 and tell me you are following simple logic?

“Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God”.
Vs.
Simon Peter answered (addressing the Divine Nature of Jesus), you are the Christ, the Son of the Living God.

Mary did not exist as a human prior to Christ.

Are you suggesting she existed as something else? Again, bizarre, I’ve not heard anyone other then you suggest us dull Catholics believed that Mary existed as a part of Divinity and the Godhead prior to being born.

This isn't Catholic teaching, this is scriptural teaching. The scriptures existed long before the Catholic church and the nature of Christ is clearly defined in those scriptures

.

Then why do you refuse to call Mary the Mother of God. I’m starting to get the feeling this has nothing to do with Mary and everything to do with your view of Christ.

Yes, the word became flesh, but Mary was not devine. Marianism teaches that Mary is devine, that is part of the Godhead. There is nothing "infallable" about the church, Catholicism or the Pope.

The point should be taken that the church says one thing and believes in another

The best way to sort this out in your mind is to quote some doctrinal documents of the Catholic Church and I assure you that just like the last time you did it again will you find Catholic teaching that refutes your assertion. You quoted that council thinking it confirmed your position and when I pointed out that it did the opposite and refuted your thinking you then claim that while the Catholic Church may say the truth it actually believes something else. Bizarre.


Once we establish our respective Christology’s we can move onward to your “evidence” of paganism, sun-worship and whatever else you would like to discuss.

 

[RND]

By default you suggest exactly that, it certainly isn’t my POV.

Brother, it is your "fault" that you believe that is what I was saying, not mine.

Your refusal to admit Mary is the Mother of God is also your admission that the human and Divine natures of Jesus are not united into one Person “according to the flesh”. When Thomas addresses Jesus in John 20,28 is he addressing Jesus or is he addressing the Divine Nature of Jesus!

Mary is the mother of Christ the human, not as Christ existed before Mary.

I think I have been quite clear on that. Christ devine nature was "set aside" while on earth, even though He had the power to act as God on earth, He chose not to make Himself of any reputation.

Phl 2:7
But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

Phl 2:8
And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

Phl 2:9
Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:

“Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God."

Jesus was indeed God.

Is a mother the mother of a nature or of a person? Survey says?

What was the nature of that person?

If by this and the Scriptures you quoted you mean that Jesus didn’t abuse His supernatural power for His own benefit then I would agree with that. If you are suggesting His two natures were not fully united and in anyway were subservient in any combination then I do not agree.

What do you think? How did I word it before? Obviously you read things and make conclusion based on what you think as opposed to what is actually said.

It is simple basic Christianity so why are you bringing up the two Natures that make up the Incarnation when the “Word became flesh”? I’m following simple logic here. Apply your same principle to John 20,28 or Matthew 16,16 and tell me you are following simple logic?

“Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God”.
Vs.
Simon Peter answered (addressing the Divine Nature of Jesus), you are the Christ, the Son of the Living God.

When I say "nature" I am not referring to "personality." You do understand that don't you? Jesus as the Eternal God with the Father in heaven is a different "nature" than the "flesh" God Jesus in the form of a man.

Are you suggesting she existed as something else?

I think you know what I meant. But for clarrification: Mary did not exist in any form prior to Jesus Christ as He existed with the Father.

Again, bizarre, I’ve not heard anyone other then you suggest us dull Catholics believed that Mary existed as a part of Divinity and the Godhead prior to being born.

I didn't suggest that, you misread the intentions of my comment.
But I cleaned it up for you so you could understand it better. Mary did not exist in any form prior to Jesus Christ as He existed with the Father.

Then why do you refuse to call Mary the Mother of God. I’m starting to get the feeling this has nothing to do with Mary and everything to do with your view of Christ.

Mary is the mother of the flesh nature, the man Jesus Christ. She is not the mother of His existence of God as He existed before coming to earth in the flesh.

No where in scxripture in fact is Mary called the mother of God. Elisabeth says, mother of "my Lord..."

Again, this is very much a situation like that of David.

The best way to sort this out in your mind is to quote some doctrinal documents of the Catholic Church and I assure you that just like the last time you did it again will you find Catholic teaching that refutes your assertion. You quoted that council thinking it confirmed your position and when I pointed out that it did the opposite and refuted your thinking you then claim that while the Catholic Church may say the truth it actually believes something else. Bizarre.

PART ONE
THE PROFESSION OF FAITH

SECTION TWO
THE PROFESSION OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH

CHAPTER TWO
I BELIEVE IN JESUS CHRIST, THE ONLY SON OF GOD

ARTICLE 3
"HE WAS CONCEIVED BY THE POWER OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, AND BORN OF THE VIRGIN MARY"

Paragraph 1. The Son of God Became Man

I. WHY DID THE WORD BECOME FLESH?

Christ existed in heaven before He was born to Mary here on earth. He was with the Father and the Holy Ghost before any of the Angels were created. He was instrumental in the creation of the universe and all the creatures including mankind. There is nothing in the universe or even in the regions beyond (as our finite mind theorizes concerning infinity) that he does not have access to, because he spoke the word, whereby matter materialized in places where before was nothing. He was and He is the only begotten Son of God.

He came to our world, to make it possible for fallen mankind to be reconciled to the Father and to inherit eternal life. Transgression of the Law requires the death penalty of the transgressor. Even if we by some means should attain to perfection of character in our life, so that we would not sin anymore, we still would not be admitted to heaven because of our past transgressions; and there is no future life to make things good, and there is no second chance to start all over again. If anybody is trying to convince you otherwise, trust him not, because you would be believing a lie.

http://www.benabraham.com/html/nature_of_christ.html

The Nature of Christ

Signs of the Times 17 June 1987, 390
Had He not been fully human, Christ could not have been our substitute. He could not have worked out in humanity that perfection of character which it is the privilege of all to reach.

Signs of the Times 17 June 1987, 390
He took human nature. He became flesh even as we are . . . While in this world, Christ lived a life of complete humanity in order that He might stand as a representative of the human family.

Once we establish our respective Christology’s we can move onward to your “evidence” of paganism, sun-worship and whatever else you would like to discuss.

We'll need another thread for that.

 

[thecountrydoc]

Gentleman, I've been watching this exchange from it's inception. I give both of you great credit for being able to express your opinions so well. However it seems to me that there is one most important aspect to this entire discussion that is being overlooked, and that is "the mystery of Godliness.

There are a number of subjects and topics related to the plan of salvation, of which this present topic is but a single enity, that we as mortal human beings will never fully understand while on this earth. If we could establish without question the answers to these topics they would not be reffered to as a "mystery." There is much more that could be said but for now I think I've said enough.

Enjoy your discussion.

Respectfully, your brother in Christ,
Doc

 

[RND]

Gentleman, I've been watching this exchange from it's inception. I give both of you great credit for being able to express your opinions so well. However it seems to me that there is one most important aspect to this entire discussion that is being overlooked, and that is "the mystery of Godliness.

There are a number of subjects and topics related to the plan of salvation, of which this present topic is but a single enity, that we as mortal human beings will never fully understand while on this earth. If we could establish without question the answers to these topics they would not be reffered to as a "mystery." There is much more that could be said but for now I think I've said enough.

Enjoy your discussion.

Respectfully, your brother in Christ,
Doc

Actually Doc, I appreciate your POV and thoughts very much. Thanks! As for saying too much I don't think that is possible for you considering your comments always seem right on the money.

David

 

[thecountrydoc]

Hi David,

Thanks for the vote of comfidence. However it seems a little foolish to water the lawn when it's raining. You guys are doing just fine without me playing second base.


Your brother in Christ,
Doc

 

[RND]

Hi David,

Thanks for the vote of comfidence. However it seems a little foolish to water the lawn when it's raining. You guys are doing just fine without me playing second base.


Your brother in Christ,
Doc

Ah, but every good team is strong up the middle! Without a strong secondbaseman a team can't win the pennant!

 

[Pythons]

Hmmm, something seems to be wrong with the dialog box. My post didn't come through correctly.

 

[Pythons]

Another bad post

 

[Pythons]

Gonna have to have some help after all.

 

[Pythons]

Mary is the mother of Christ the human, not as Christ existed before Mary.

For what is it, the third time RND? No Catholic teaching “anywhere” has suggested Mary was the mother of Jesus prior to the incarnation or prior to Christ the human as you put it (very interesting indeed). Let me help you put this helpless quadriplegic idea / argument of yours (and yours alone), to bed.

“And since the holy Virgin brought forth corporally God made one with flesh according to nature, for this reason we also call her Mother of God, not as if the nature of the Word had the beginning of its existence from the flesh.” Cryil to Nestorious /written in A.D. 431 within the documents of the Council of Ephesus

There you go my friend, that is the Catholic Church formally declaring that Mary is not the Mother of Christ, or more properly the 2nd Person of the Godhead prior to the birth of Christ. You’ve erected and destroyed your own straw man with this assertion because it’s not Catholic teaching and my argument all along was that the Word (God) was made flesh (man).

Your argument seems to rest on your assertion that Mary is the Mother of Christ the human. What in the world are you saying! There was never a Christ the human. There was only Jesus the Christ who was born 100% God and 100% man. Jesus had both Divine and human natures that were “united” in ONE PERSON. The 3rd General Council of Ephesus (the very one you tried to use against me) plainly stated that. As do numerous Scriptures

“Christ Incarnate is a single, that is, a sole Person. He is God and man at the same time”.

“Christ is not the bearer of God, but is God really”.

“The Jews then said to Him, “you are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?”. Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am”. So they took up stones to throw at him; but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple”. John 8,57

“To them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed for ever”. Romans 9,5

“None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory”. 1 Corinthians 2,8

“But when the time had fully come, God sent forth His Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons”. Galatians 4,4

“But you denied the Holy and Righteous One and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, and killed the author of life, whom God raised from the dead”. Acts 3,15
“Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you guardians, to feed the church of the Lord which he obtained with his own blood”. Acts 20,28
Jesus unites in Himself two different “natures”, not two different persons. And you say Christ the human! Wow! This is a huge piece of the problem and exactly why you abhor calling Mary the Mother of God. Something is telling me to quote some Scriptures again.

“And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father”. John 1,14

“Have you this mind among yourselves, which was in Christ Jesus, who, THOUGH HE WAS IN THE FORM OF GOD, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on the cross”. Philippians 2,5

I think I have been quite clear on that. Christ devine nature was "set aside" while on earth, eventhough He had the power to act as God on earth, He chose not to make Himself of any reputation.

Phl 2:7
But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

Phl 2:8
And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

Phl 2:9
Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:

You have indeed been quite clear on that and I’ve been explicitly clear that Christ’s divine nature was not set aside. Read John 1,14 and Phl 2,6-9 again. The identity of both the natures remained intact so that the divine spirit performed His works in Him (miracles and signs) and that the human nature of the flesh went through all the sufferings of the flesh. Both natures, each in it’s own condition of being, acted in distinct ways and each performed the feats and achieved the successes peculiar to it. Tertullian can be thanked for helping me say this!

As I said previously, your rejection of Mary as the Mother of God has forced you to ignore that Scripture is replete with examples of Christ being “one” person that is fully God with both a divine and human nature that are 100% united that continues unimpaired, untransformed and unmixed with the other.

Belief of Seventh-day Adventists = Because Mary is the mother of Jesus the human, she obviously can’t be the Mother of God because God existed in eternity and Mary was a child of Adam and while Jesus does have a human and divine nature they are not united, despite all the miracles He performed while He was on earth the Bible says He “made Himself” of no reputation”, so that means he set aside his divine nature while on earth. Oh boy, I may have to get some help in this thread. In fact, HELP!!!!

Jesus was indeed God.

It’s very clear our idea of God is not the same and that is why I said I would keep engineering questions until our difference surfaced. I’m thinking it has surfaced.

I asked you if a mother was a mother of a nature, or of a person. You respond with the question

What was the nature of that person?

My answer is 100% human nature and 100% divine nature as in the Word made Flesh = God Himself. I’m being totally honest here when I say I was sitting staring at this question with my mouth hanging open and that was after I thought you were playing some kind of joke on me. In your view the answer would be human because Jesus set aside his divine nature while on earth. How do you seriously square that up with the Bible?

What do you think? How did I word it before? Obviously you read things and make conclusion based on what you think as opposed to what is actually said.

No, you cited Phl 2,7 and used that as a proof text to say “Jesus was God on earth but he purposely put his Godly nature away to live as a man”.

I said, “If by this and the Scriptures you quoted you mean that Jesus didn’t abuse His supernatural powers for His own benefit then I would agree with that. If you are suggesting His two natures were not fully united and in anyway were subservient in any combination then I do not agree”.

Obviously I read what you wrote and made conclusions based on what you said. Go back and read what I wrote and do me the courtesy of explaining yourself here.

When I say "nature" I am not referring to "personality." You do understand that don't you? Jesus as the Eternal God with the Father in heaven is a different "nature" than the "flesh" God Jesus in the form of a man.

I’m not referring to personality either and no, it is not. Jesus as the Eternal God with the Father had the exact same divine nature in heaven as He did Incarnate. That is 101 Christianity. The Trinity is totally of the same substance and of the same mind. The only difference in them is the relationships.

“He will be great, and will be called the Son of the most high; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there will be no end”. Luke 1,33

I think you know what I meant. But for clarrification: Mary did not exist in any form prior to Jesus Christ as He existed with the Father.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know that, and again, you will find zero Catholic teaching saying that she did.

I didn't suggest that, you misread the intentions of my comment.

But I cleaned it up for you so you could understand it better. Mary did not exist in any form prior to Jesus Christ as He existed with the Father.

Golly mister, really? How many times do I need to tell you I don’t believe that Mary DID EXIST IN ANY FORM PRIOR TO JESUS CHRIST AS HE EXISTED WITH THE FATHER!

Mary is the mother of the flesh nature, the man Jesus Christ. She is not the mother of His existence of God as He existed before coming to earth in the flesh.

BINGO. That was exactly what I was just knew was coming, I just wasn’t sure when and where it would surface. You say Jesus is God, however you have poured a different meaning into your use of an established term then attempted to “blend in”.

No where in scxripture in fact is Mary called the mother of God. Elisabeth says, mother of "my Lord..."

Again, this is very much a situation like that of David.

Ahhhhh, no.

“All this took place to fulfil what the Lord had spoken by the Prophet; Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel (WHICH MEANS, GOD WITH US)

“Therefore, as it is written, “Let him who boasts, boast of the Lord”. 1 Corinthians1,31

“But the Lord said to him, “Go for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel”. Acts 9,14

“And as they were stoning Stephen, he prayed, “LORD JESUS, receive my spirit”. Acts 7,59

“For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the SAME LORD is LORD of all and bestows his riches upon all who call upon the name of the Lord will be saved”.

Kyrios = Jehovah= God the Father in the Old Testament and Kyrios Jesus Christus = God the Son in the New Testament.

“Inflicting vengeance upon those who do not obey the gospel of our LORD JESUS”. 2 Thess 1,9

The list goes on and on so I’m very certain when Elizabeth said, “Mother of my Lord” and Mary was evidently convinced that henceforth “all generations would call her blessed” it is exactly as the Catholic Church says it is.

I’ve got the Catechism of the Council of Trent sitting right next to me so like I said feel free to quote some official Catholic teaching.

RND, I know we get a little rattled up when our belief is not taken as true to others as we see it ourselves. My blood starts to boil when I see what I consider to be pot shots about paganism being adopted into the Catholic Church just the same as you no doubt take some of my statements. I do think that perhaps you have spent a significant amount more time in the study of prophecy then the basics like the Trinity and Incarnation. Jeeze, and we haven’t even started to actually debate yet.

I’ll flat out admit that I’m a sinner and I worry about Hell more than a little so even though I believe I have been given the truth and am held to a higher standard than a person who has not been given the truth I could easily not be in any better shape then I think you are or anyone else for that matter.
Doc did bring things into perspective for me as well so Doc, if you are reading this it will not hurt my feelings at all if you want to make some comments.

 

[reddogs]

Well lets just say the Catholic Church elevates Mary ceaselessly above Jesus Christ, its almost as if He is a afterthought.......

"...From the very beginning, and before time began, the eternal Father chose and prepared for his only-begotten Son a Mother in whom the Son of God would become incarnate and from whom, in the blessed fullness of time, he would be born into this world. Above all creatures did God so lover her that truly in her was the Father well pleased with singular delight. Therefore, far above all the angels and all the saints so wondrously did God endow her with the abundance of all heavenly gifts poured from the treasury of his divinity that this mother, ever absolutely free of all stain of sin, all fair and perfect, would possess that fullness of holy innocence and sanctity than which, under God, one cannot even imagine anything greater, and which, outside of God, no mind can succeed in comprehending fully...."

http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_pi09id.htm

 

[JohnT]

For what is it, the third time RND? No Catholic teaching “anywhere” has suggested Mary was the mother of Jesus prior to the incarnation or prior to Christ the human as you put it (very interesting indeed). Let me help you put this helpless quadriplegic idea / argument of yours (and yours alone), to bed...

Python:

From my dealings with RND on other threads, I believe that he actually hates any sort of "Catholic doctrine".

Q:And what exactly is "Catholic doctrine"
A: Whatever he alone determines it to be, end of discussion.

​

 

[RND]

Well lets just say the Catholic Church elevates Mary ceaselessly above Jesus Christ, its almost as if He is a afterthought.......

"...From the very beginning, and before time began, the eternal Father chose and prepared for his only-begotten Son a Mother in whom the Son of God would become incarnate and from whom, in the blessed fullness of time, he would be born into this world. Above all creatures did God so lover her that truly in her was the Father well pleased with singular delight. Therefore, far above all the angels and all the saints so wondrously did God endow her with the abundance of all heavenly gifts poured from the treasury of his divinity that this mother, ever absolutely free of all stain of sin, all fair and perfect, would possess that fullness of holy innocence and sanctity than which, under God, one cannot even imagine anything greater, and which, outside of God, no mind can succeed in comprehending fully...."

http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_pi09id.htm

RD, it is evident that when discussing such things with a member of the catholic church that what is said is usually much, much different than what is believed.

Should any Catholic knowingly deny the statement you provided above, they seriously would have their church status called into question.

The fact that the quote you provided has absolutely zero Biblical evidence behind it is irrelevant.

 

[Pythons]

Well lets just say the Catholic Church elevates Mary ceaselessly above Jesus Christ, its almost as if He is a afterthought.......

"...From the very beginning, and before time began, the eternal Father chose and prepared for his only-begotten Son a Mother in whom the Son of God would become incarnate and from whom, in the blessed fullness of time, he would be born into this world. Above all creatures did God so lover her that truly in her was the Father well pleased with singular delight. Therefore, far above all the angels and all the saints so wondrously did God endow her with the abundance of all heavenly gifts poured from the treasury of his divinity that this mother, ever absolutely free of all stain of sin, all fair and perfect, would possess that fullness of holy innocence and sanctity than which, under God, one cannot even imagine anything greater, and which, outside of God, no mind can succeed in comprehending fully...."

http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_pi09id.htm

That isn't true reddog, you may see something and not understand it. If you would be so kind as to cite some examples of Catholic Teachiing from Scripture / Tradition to support this I would certainly look at it.