The death of the Virgin in RCC imagery

[Rhamiel]

Why is the Gospel not all we are teaching? Why do we think it so important to hold on to teaching whether it be right or wrong, if its not the pure Gospel without any stumbling block of any kind whether that block be true or false?

Wouldn't Mary agree that the plain and simple Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ be pure and not watered down by any other teaching of any kind whether it be true or false?

if it is true, why should we not preach it?

I do not understand this "just preach the Gospel" mindset
why have the Old Testement then? why have the Epistles?
if God wanted "Just the Gospel" we would not have the book of Revelations and the OT
it is not "watered down" if it is true
fullness of truth, that is the goal

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

if it is true, why should we not preach it?

I do not understand this "just preach the Gospel" mindset
why have the Old Testement then? why have the Epistles?
if God wanted "Just the Gospel" we would not have the book of Revelations and the OT
it is not "watered down" if it is true
fullness of truth, that is the goal

The book of Revelation is kewl

THE SYMBOLISM IN BOOK OF REVELATION

One man studied and found 348 allusions (not illusions, Light) in Revelation from the Old Testament.

You see the similarity in wording and the context mirrored in Revelation and the particular Old Testament story, and immediately can recognize the reference source! That’s, IF you know the bible well enough to even notice that.

95 of the 348 plain references used in Revelation as taken from the Old Testament are repeated in Revelation. That makes about 250 Old Testament passages are cited.

How many chapters are in Revelation? 22. That makes about TEN OLD TESTAMENT REFERENCES FOR EVERY CHAPTER!

 

[Standing Up]

The book of Revelation is kewl

THE SYMBOLISM IN BOOK OF REVELATION

One man studied and found 348 allusions (not illusions, Light) in Revelation from the Old Testament.

You see the similarity in wording and the context mirrored in Revelation and the particular Old Testament story, and immediately can recognize the reference source! That’s, IF you know the bible well enough to even notice that.

95 of the 348 plain references used in Revelation as taken from the Old Testament are repeated in Revelation. That makes about 250 Old Testament passages are cited.

How many chapters are in Revelation? 22. That makes about TEN OLD TESTAMENT REFERENCES FOR EVERY CHAPTER!

Believe some made reference to the 22. Weren't there 22 letters in the Hebrew alphabet? Weren't there 22 OT books? Some coincidence

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

YouTube - Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate

http://www.christianforums.com/t7382658/
Mary as Co-redemptrix

quote OP:

Mother Teresa of Calcutta, "Of course Mary is the Co-redemptrix - she gave Jesus his body, and his body is what saved us."

I think this pretty much sums it up. Thoughts, or comments?

 

[godisreal36]

if it is true, why should we not preach it?

I do not understand this "just preach the Gospel" mindset
why have the Old Testament then? why have the Epistles?
if God wanted "Just the Gospel" we would not have the book of Revelations and the OT
it is not "watered down" if it is true
fullness of truth, that is the goal

I think you misunderstand me. I said if it causes others to stumble it should be avoided. The Epistles are part of the Gospel in my opinion and so is Revelations. The old testament too is part of the Gospel. If anything else is part of it, its just too much and waters down the message with doubt and is a stumbling block.

Not to mention much can be said of the Pope that shouldn't even need to be said. I wonder if some of the wisest popes knew this but also had reasons for being silent, wise reasons. The Holy Father is God, Jesus is the Head of the Church and some people need a king outside our Lord Jesus for some unknown reason.

Believe what you want. I just try. Have a good day my brother in Christ. we all belong to Him that we praise, that much i believe.

 

[Optimax]

The book of Revelation is kewl

THE SYMBOLISM IN BOOK OF REVELATION

One man studied and found 348 allusions (not illusions, Light) in Revelation from the Old Testament.

You see the similarity in wording and the context mirrored in Revelation and the particular Old Testament story, and immediately can recognize the reference source! That’s, IF you know the bible well enough to even notice that.

95 of the 348 plain references used in Revelation as taken from the Old Testament are repeated in Revelation. That makes about 250 Old Testament passages are cited.

How many chapters are in Revelation? 22. That makes about TEN OLD TESTAMENT REFERENCES FOR EVERY CHAPTER!

That's pretty good stuff there!

 

[Rhamiel]

I think you misunderstand me. I said if it causes others to stumble it should be avoided. The Epistles are part of the Gospel in my opinion and so is Revelations. The old testament too is part of the Gospel. If anything else is part of it, its just too much and waters down the message with doubt and is a stumbling block.

Not to mention much can be said of the Pope that shouldn't even need to be said. I wonder if some of the wisest popes knew this but also had reasons for being silent, wise reasons. The Holy Father is God, Jesus is the Head of the Church and some people need a king outside our Lord Jesus for some unknown reason.

Believe what you want. I just try. Have a good day my brother in Christ. we all belong to Him that we praise, that much i believe.

I am deeply honored that even though we disagree on theology you still name me as a brother in our Lord Jesus Christ
may God bless you

if you define Gospel as the revelation of God to His Church, then I believe very much that the assumption of Mary into heaven is a legit part of the Gospel

 

[Optimax]

http://www.christianforums.com/t7382658/
Mary as Co-redemptrix

quote OP:

Mother Teresa of Calcutta, "Of course Mary is the Co-redemptrix - she gave Jesus his body, and his body is what saved us."

I think this pretty much sums it up. Thoughts, or comments?

Yep, That was her part in it.

Her only part.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Why is the color blue associated with Mary?

My guess would be Tradition.

 

[DiligentlySeekingGod]

Yep, That was her part in it.

Her only part.

Yes, her only part.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

Greater than John the Baptist?

Luke 7:28
I tell you, among those born of women there is no one greater than John; yet the one who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.”

Did you miss the second half of that verse?

Nope, but if the apostles were there, and it was the resurrection of the mother of Jesus I'd expect it to be in there. Heck, they recorded the resurrection of poor 'ol Lazarus but not Mary? What gives? Unless...it's not true of course.....

The resurrection of Lazarus is in the Gospels because it happened while Jesus was on the earth. Mary's Dormition did not happen during the timeline of the Gospels but later. We also don't see the deaths of the apostles, yet we know they did indeed die, St. Peter's was prophesied but we don't see it come to pass within the Canon. It doesn't mean it didn't happen.

But again, if absence of evidence is evidence of absence, doesn't that mean we should not believe that Mary, Joseph or any of the Apostles ever died because their deaths are not recorded in Scripture?

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

Huh?

I have no idea what you mean by the statement "There are only four Dogmas in the Catholic Church which have been enunciated as dogmas and these are the four Marian Dogmas". First off, there are many, many more (just look at the list of any doctrinal 'anathemas' by a Council) and secondly, only three Marian dogmas have been formally defined (Her Ever-Virginity has never been formally defined but it is still dogmatic).

What I meant to say is that the four Marian dogmas are unique within Catholicism in that they were ratified as ex cathedra statements. I am not aware of any other dogmas that have been declared such by an ex cathedra statement. As a result, the definition of dogma is rather hazy to people such as myself. In other threads here the question has been raised as to what the actual dogmas of the Catholic Church are and there were a wide range of answers going from the Four Maria Dogmas to all the teachings promulgated by the Catholic Church.

If you mean that the Four Marian Dogmas have been promulgated by popes, that is not a true statement. As I said the first Marian dogma (Ever-Virgin) has never been formally defined, yet is considered dogmatic. The second Marian dogma (Theotokos) was defined, not by a pope, but by the Council of Ephesus in 431. Only the last two (Immaculate Conception and Assumption) were defined by popes.

I don't think anyone has claimed that the only dogmatic statements in the Catholic Church are the four regarding Mary, I think you misunderstood whatever the person was saying. There are a great many more dogmatic teachings.

Dr. Ludwig Ott, author of Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, a recognized standard reference work, has come up with 252 (if I counted right) de Fide statements. Dogmas of the Catholic Church, the vast majority of which I'm sure you would agree with. But there is no definitive list.

Also, I do not know what you mean by "there is general concensus that the Catechism of the Catholic Church is dogmatic in nature, it has never been declared to be Dogma". A catechism, by its very nature, is not a dogma but explains dogma and other teachings. There are many different Catholic Catechisms, just because the Catechism of the Catholic Church (to which I assume you are referring) is the newest (1992) doesn't make it the best or most accurate to explain Catholic teaching.

I am aware of the various Cathechism of the Catholic Church.

"Catechism of the Catholic Church" is the name of one book. So your statement would be better as "various Catholic Catechisms".

My statement was intended to convey the meaning you expressed much more clearly, e.g. that the Catechism (containing dogmatic material (e.g. explication of dogmas)) is not Dogma in itself, nor has it been declared to be dogma (which, although conceivable, is rather absurd to consider). There are a variety of opinions regarding the current Cathechism and I am not able to render a valid opinion of my own.

Some things in the CCC are dogmatic, some things are not. It depends on the teaching in question.

"Assumption" means a "taking up into Heaven". (A logical assumption is a "taking up" of an idea). It doesn't matter whether the person has died and been resurrected or not.

But yes, you are right, there is no dogmatic definition about what happened to Enoch and Elijah, we know no more than the Biblical accounts.

But with Mary we do know because it is part of what the Apostles handed down to us.

You only know according to your faith that the Oral Tradition of the Catholic Church is true and infallible. I could counter that I do not know because of my lack of faith in that Oral Tradition.

Well, yes, I know because the Church teaches it and I trust the Church because it has shown evidence of its Divine origin and protection. So I have a greater certainty in it than I think an Orthodox, Anglican or Lutheran who also believes in the Assumption would have. But I think that because it is so widely believed, even beyond the Catholic Church, it is a strong statement to deny it, even for a non-Catholic Christian to do.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

I am pleased that you noted my particular choice of color and will continue to use it. I happen to like it myself, including its association with Mary.

To your statement, every crime is given some form of penalty in human law. For some crimes the penalty may be capital punishment, as in the case of murder. For others it may be simply some form of restitution. We see this explicated in the Old Testament law in its applications to civil government. God has declared that the punishment (or wages) for sin is death so that all sin, being an offense to a holy God, deserves death. He established the punishment and He metes it out as Judge and Ruler of mankind.

The point was the question: If death is the punishment for sin does that mean that everyone who dies is guilty of sin?

If it does, then Christ is guilty of sin. That would be blasphemy. Therefore, your syllogism is false.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Optimax Yep, That was her part in it.

Her only part.

Yes, her only part.

Seems that way to me also

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

Why is the color blue associated with Mary?

Lapis lazuli was a very expensive paint (more expensive than gold) in medieval times, so it was used to paint the Blessed Virgin's robes or mantle. This association has been maintained in more recent times.

Byzantines have a stronger color meanings.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

Why is the Gospel not all we are teaching? Why do we think it so important to hold on to teaching whether it be right or wrong, if its not the pure Gospel without any stumbling block of any kind whether that block be true or false?

Wouldn't Mary agree that the plain and simple Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ be pure and not watered down by any other teaching of any kind whether it be true or false?

The Assumption is part of the Gospel.

We just don't have a minimalistic view of the Faith.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

I think you misunderstand me. I said if it causes others to stumble it should be avoided.

But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews indeed a stumblingblock, and unto the Gentiles foolishness:

Christ is a stumbling block for those who refuse to believe.

There is nothing we can all agree on -- there are always people who reject some part of the Faith. We must preach the Truth because we must preach Jesus Christ crucified. Some people reject some things but that is not a reason to try to "tone down" or make the Gospel more "seeker-friendly".

Jesus taught things that were difficult for some people to accept. He didn't shy away from teaching the Truth simply because some people did not want to hear it. The Gospel reading this past Sunday was the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares. In the sermon, my pastor said that there is a difference between advertising and evangelization. Jesus wasn't just trying to "sell" Christianity, He taught many things that some people found hard to accept. Likewise, we need to be good evangelizers and not good salesmen -- we need to take a vested interest in peoples' conversions and not just try to make a "sale" and part of doing that is teaching the hard truths.

Following the Feeding of the Five Thousand, some people tracked down Jesus:

Jesus answered them, and said: Amen, amen I say to you, you seek me, not because you have seen miracles, but because you did eat of the loaves, and were filled. Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto life everlasting, which the Son of man will give you. For him hath God, the Father, sealed. They said therefore unto him: What shall we do, that we may work the works of God? Jesus answered, and said to them: This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he hath sent. They said therefore to him: What sign therefore dost thou shew, that we may see, and may believe thee? What dost thou work?

Our fathers did eat manna in the desert, as it is written: He gave them bread from heaven to eat. Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say to you; Moses gave you not bread from heaven, but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is that which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life to the world. They said therefore unto him: Lord, give us always this bread. And Jesus said to them: I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall not hunger: and he that believeth in me shall never thirst.

But I said unto you, that you also have seen me, and you believe not. All that the Father giveth to me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me, I will not cast out. Because I came down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him that sent me. Now this is the will of the Father who sent me: that of all that he hath given me, I should lose nothing; but should raise it up again in the last day. And this is the will of my Father that sent me: that every one who seeth the Son, and believeth in him, may have life everlasting, and I will raise him up in the last day.

The Jews therefore murmured at him, because he had said: I am the living bread which came down from heaven. And they said: Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How then saith he, I came down from heaven? Jesus therefore answered, and said to them: Murmur not among yourselves. No man can come to me, except the Father, who hath sent me, draw him; and I will raise him up in the last day. It is written in the prophets: And they shall all be taught of God. Every one that hath heard of the Father, and hath learned, cometh to me.

Not that any man hath seen the Father; but he who is of God, he hath seen the Father. Amen, amen I say unto you: He that believeth in me, hath everlasting life. I am the bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die.

I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever. These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum.

Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it? But Jesus, knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you? If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life. But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning, who they were that did not believe, and who he was, that would betray him.

And he said: Therefore did I say to you, that no man can come to me, unless it be given him by my Father. After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him. Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away? And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we have believed and have known, that thou art the Christ, the Son of God.

Jesus taught things that were hard, even when it caused people to be scandalized and to leave Him. He didn't try to water down the Faith because people were being scandalized but rather taught the hard and divisive Truth.

But all these things they will do to you for my name's sake: because they know not him who sent me. If I had not come, and spoken to them, they would not have sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin. He that hateth me, hateth my Father also. If I had not done among them the works that no other man hath done, they would not have sin; but now they have both seen and hated both me and my Father. But that the word may be fulfilled which is written in their law: They hated me without cause.

Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword. For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's enemies shall be they of his own household./quote]

If we designed a religion that was acceptable to everyone, it would be offensive to Christ. That is why we depend on God's Grace to convince us of the Truth and convert us to the True Faith. "No man can come to me, except the Father, who hath sent me, draw him" (Jn 6:44). Intellectual debate is only part of the equation.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

Yep, That was her part in it.

Her only part.

Not her only part.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

May I ask why this thread is not on the Mariology Board?


I am now unsubscribing

 

[godisreal36]

I was looking for Jesus and found Mary and The Pope...

What are all these complex Vatican teachings?

I think its easier to just continue to be an atheist.