The Immaculate Conception?

[Athanasias]

Perhaps. But then Calvinists believe that OBOB is biblical - and yet you insist that it's not, so what a single denomination "believes" is, by your own rubric, meaningless and moot.






The "problem" with such extremely creative typology (used extensively by the LDS) is that ANYTHING can be viewed as a "type" if no antitype exists (but is simply assumed).

PAUL'S inspired statement in the NT of a "type" in the OT means we have a stated fulfillment; such is entirely lacking in your (and all LDS) "typing."







... again, completely and totally baseless. You have NOTHING to support this "type" - just (and only) a "belief" that such is. Dr. Hahn's statement makes Mormon typology seem absolutely convincing; it's too weak to even be considered.








... because it's all you've got. Amazing!

If any Protestant offered anything even ten times stronger than this, I have a hunch you'd laugh at it. Seriously.

And it's dogma, not doctrine.






Except you have none. The NT NEVER states this as a type at all. You are simply ASSUMING the type and ASSUMING the fulfillment. It's all your ASSUMPTION - there's nothing in the Scriptures that remotely so indicates. It's a case of pure exegesis and of an assumption used as the substantiation for the self-same, a perfect circle. I'd be more open to this if the RCC permittted others to use the same rubric, but it doesn't.







So? Do "types" have to be equal? If so, was Noah equal to Jesus and also sinless and also divine? I find this apologetic not only baseless but moot.





Hello, Mary is never once so much as even mentioned in Revelation. No Mary at all. This is nothing more than PURE exegesis; ANYTHING is "proven" if we can just insert whatever into whatever text and then use our insertion as "substantiation" for the self-same.







"Could" is not dogma. It's theoretically possible that Mary was 10 feet tall, had pink hair and lived almost entirely on fish tacos - but that's hardly dogmatic proof that such is true. "Could be" is not substantiation of anything, on any level.


The dogma is entirely on your end. It's absurd to argue that if it's not "dogma" that Mary was conceived sinless, therefore it's dogma that she was. I wonder why the RCC is so extremely adversive to mystery? There is no dogma of "Mary was conceived with sin." Never has been, still isn't, not in ANY of the 35,000 denominations Catholics around here say exists. The ONLY dogma about Mary and her state at her conception is YOURS. The substantiation must be yours. To the level of dogma. Your time trying to indicate that the arguments against it are less than convincing does NOTHING to supply dogmatic substantiation for the only dogma on this issue that exists - yours.




.

Yes this is all good and well Josiah. And this is just one reason showing why you are Lutheran and not Catholic. Fair enough. I am sorry that you do not beleive that the scripture suggest these typologies or the sinlessness of Mary. I think your view of scriptural hermeneutics is very limited( you view of hermeneutics is only about 500 years old) compared to the many Spiritual truths of the bible via typology and spiritual interpretation the Holy Spirit gives to the Catholic Church and has throughout the ages and has since the earliest times. You miss out on alot of the bigger picture in scripture. But hey you prefer it that way. To each his own.

Catholic scripture scholars, theologians, and the apostolic Fathers of the Church do hold to these things. And I know many protestants and protestant scholars who also are convinced of these typologies once they look at them and as a result many do convert to the Catholic faith, Dr. Scott Hahn being one of them. As a matter of fact I already received private confirmation that at least one protestant on here sees the connection. So my post are here for those people who will look into the reasons and anyone interested in truly wanting to understand why Catholic beleive what they do.

I cannot nor will not try to convince you of these typologies or Mary's sinlessness. Your mind is made up. But Catholics do beleive that we have plenty of biblical reasons to beleive in the Immaculate conception. Sorry you don't.


God bless you Josiah,

In Jesus through Mary,
Athanasias

 

[rosenherman]

And some Catholics are pushing for Mary to be declared a co-redepmtrix/co-redeemer

That's blasphemous! We need a A! (as in 1) redeemer. That redeemer is Jesus Christ who died for us and who God raised from the dead. Mary was a sinful human being who died and is now dust. She ain't co nothin'. She's just dead.

 

[Athanasias]

That's blasphemous! We need a A! (as in 1) redeemer. That redeemer is Jesus Christ who died for us and who God raised from the dead. Mary was a sinful human being who died and is now dust. She ain't co nothin'. She's just dead.

Co comes from Cum which means with. We all act with Christ to redeem others when we lead others to him(Matt 28:19-20).

What is meant by co-redemptrix is that she took part in the redemption of mankind by accepting God's will(Be it done unto me according to your will LK 1:38) and giving Jesus birth. Of course Jesus is the redeemer. His blood paid for our sins. It is through his resurrection that we all have life! He has redeemed us ultimately!

When any of us lead another person to Christ whether in prayer or preaching we act as co-redeemers. We save them in a secondary sense which means we lead them to Jesus. St Paul used this kind of language

"Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry in order to make my fellow Jews jealous, and thus Save some of them. " (Romans 11:13-14)

"Take heed to yourself and to your teaching; hold to that, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers. "( 1 Tim 4:16)

Now no one reads these passages and claims that Paul himself or others Christians can save themselves or redeem themselves apart from Christ. But if read literally they seem to look like that. But what is implied is that every one who preaches or prays or teaches takes part in the salvation and redemption of man with God by leading them to Christ! The same is true for the understanding of co-redemprix with Mary. Mary led us to Christ in s special way by giving birth to him.

It is Jesus that ultimately saves and redeems that person but God uses people (and Mary in a special way ie giving birth to him) to lead them to him and in that way we are all co-redeemersI hope you understand.

 

[katholikos]

The stupidity prevalent throughout the first page of this thread is astounding. You dig up some old hag who went apostate then quote her ad infinitum, ad absurdem. Then comes the old grade-school tactic of comparing pictures, as if that proves anything. Nowhere are there any facts. It the typical SDA tactic. They are the lowest of the low when it comes to this type of misinformation and disinformation.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Perhaps. But then Calvinists believe that OBOB is biblical - and yet you insist that it's not, so what a single denomination "believes" is, by your own rubric, meaningless and moot.






The "problem" with such extremely creative typology (used extensively by the LDS) is that ANYTHING can be viewed as a "type" if no antitype exists (but is simply assumed).

PAUL'S inspired statement in the NT of a "type" in the OT means we have a stated fulfillment; such is entirely lacking in your (and all LDS) "typing."







... again, completely and totally baseless. You have NOTHING to support this "type" - just (and only) a "belief" that such is. Dr. Hahn's statement makes Mormon typology seem absolutely convincing; it's too weak to even be considered.








... because it's all you've got. Amazing!

If any Protestant offered anything even ten times stronger than this, I have a hunch you'd laugh at it. Seriously.

And it's dogma, not doctrine.






Except you have none. The NT NEVER states this as a type at all. You are simply ASSUMING the type and ASSUMING the fulfillment. It's all your ASSUMPTION - there's nothing in the Scriptures that remotely so indicates. It's a case of pure exegesis and of an assumption used as the substantiation for the self-same, a perfect circle. I'd be more open to this if the RCC permittted others to use the same rubric, but it doesn't.







So? Do "types" have to be equal? If so, was Noah equal to Jesus and also sinless and also divine? I find this apologetic not only baseless but moot.





Hello, Mary is never once so much as even mentioned in Revelation. No Mary at all. This is nothing more than PURE exegesis; ANYTHING is "proven" if we can just insert whatever into whatever text and then use our insertion as "substantiation" for the self-same.







"Could" is not dogma. It's theoretically possible that Mary was 10 feet tall, had pink hair and lived almost entirely on fish tacos - but that's hardly dogmatic proof that such is true. "Could be" is not substantiation of anything, on any level.


The dogma is entirely on your end. It's absurd to argue that if it's not "dogma" that Mary was conceived sinless, therefore it's dogma that she was. I wonder why the RCC is so extremely adversive to mystery? There is no dogma of "Mary was conceived with sin." Never has been, still isn't, not in ANY of the 35,000 denominations Catholics around here say exists. The ONLY dogma about Mary and her state at her conception is YOURS. The substantiation must be yours. To the level of dogma. Your time trying to indicate that the arguments against it are less than convincing does NOTHING to supply dogmatic substantiation for the only dogma on this issue that exists - yours.


.

I think your view of scriptural hermeneutics is very limited compared to the many Spiritual truths of the bible via typology and spiritual interpretation the Holy Spirit gives to the Catholic Church and has throughout the ages and has since the earliest times.

A non-existent apologetic; it's no substantiation AT ALL. You are just ASSUMING that one denomination is right - therefore it's right. Now, if you permitted the LDS to do as you support as best, I'd give you some credibility but you don't. "I'm right so I'm right" is not a rubric you yourself permit - so why should I when the RCC insists on it (and you use such as your apologetic)?

Catholic scripture scholars, theologians, and the apostolic Fathers of the Church do hold to these things.

LDS scholars, theologians and Fathers of the Church hold to all the LDS officially teaches - is THAT substantiation that such is true? Is it an apologetic you accept?

Dr. Scott Hahn being one of them.

... his opinion shared by you is so incredibly weak as to not be considered at all. Amazing he would actually write it, IMHO.

Catholics do beleive that we have plenty of biblical reasons to beleive in the Immaculate conception.

Catholics believe this, Mormons that. Is a belief in something the apologetic for the self-same? Do you accept whatever a Mormon "believes" because he/she believes it as dogmatic substantiation that such is a matter of highest importance and certainty? Do you reject OBOB in spite of the fact that many Calvinists believe it to be true?

God bless you Josiah,

And also you.





.

 

[Athanasias]

A non-existent apologetic; it's no substantiation AT ALL. You are just ASSUMING that one denomination is right - therefore it's right. Now, if you permitted the LDS to do as you support as best, I'd give you some credibility but you don't. "I'm right so I'm right" is not a rubric you yourself permit - so why should I when the RCC insists on it (and you use such as your apologetic)?




LDS scholars, theologians and Fathers of the Church hold to all the LDS officially teaches - is THAT substantiation that such is true? Is it an apologetic you accept?






... his opinion shared by you is so incredibly weak as to not be considered at all. Amazing he would actually write it, IMHO.







Catholics believe this, Mormons that. Is a belief in something the apologetic for the self-same? Do you accept whatever a Mormon "believes" because he/she believes it as dogmatic substantiation that such is a matter of highest importance and certainty? Do you reject OBOB in spite of the fact that many Calvinists believe it to be true?





And also you.





.

.....Yawn!..............

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.....Yawn!..............

That's what I think of your apologetic. You reject it if any other does it and yet use it as if it's suppose to mean something if YOU use it.



.

 

[Tu Es Petrus]

.....Yawn!..............

...double yawn...

 

[ASquared]

i understand the typology, unfortunately, it just doesn't hold water. Part of the trouble with typology in general is that it leads to poor conclusions. Mary does not deserve praise from man, nor does she "reign in heaven". She isn't part of the Godhead, nor does she intercede for people. for that matter, neither do the "saints" or priests, there simply isn't a need.

Man has but one Mediator, that is Jesus. His blood cleansed believers, once and for all. If you desire salvation, you go to Him. If you seek forgiveness, you go to Him. To do otherwise is idolatry.

BTW, I was born and raised catholic, attended catholic school right thru HS, and very nearly went to catholic seminary. these issues are much, much broader, as they touch on the very core of Christianity. I'd be happy to debate with anyone, but please don't try doublespeak.

the Ave Maria is a designed to praise and glorify Mary, by which I mean she is elevated to a staus co-equal with the Godhead, in direct contradiction to the 1st commandment. It's not a simple "good job" like Paul gives to the Corinthians, or as the Father says will be bestowed on Judah by his brother. Also, just because the Father chooses to give praise to someone (Deut 26:18-19 was used in an above example), you can by no means take that to mean we should do the same. What your doing is called "proof texting", or removing a passage of Scripture from it's context and using it to justify a belief not related to the passage. this is also a problem for typologists, as it leads to very confusing and incorrect results, BTW.

Here's a term introduced to me at Bible college, and one that I think is overlooked even in Protestant churches. Hermenutics, which has to do with the study of interpretations. If you want to be consistent in your hermenutic, or interpretation, of the Bible, you absolutely MUST take into account the context of a passage (there are several levels to this, as me more later), the intended recipients of the passage(s), historical & cultural background, as well as an understanding of the original languages in which the passage was written.

I don't profess to be an expert, but I do know the process, and can apply it as well as any non-academician can. the catholic concept of Mary simply doesn't stand up to intense, Biblical scrunity. If you can step outside the catholic box for a moment and apply some basic logic to the issue, you will come up with the same conclusions.

 

[ASquared]

i understand the typology, unfortunately, it just doesn't hold water. Part of the trouble with typology in general is that it leads to poor conclusions. Mary does not deserve praise from man, nor does she "reign in heaven". She isn't part of the Godhead, nor does she intercede for people. for that matter, neither do the "saints" or priests, there simply isn't a need.

Man has but one Mediator, that is Jesus. His blood cleansed believers, once and for all. If you desire salvation, you go to Him. If you seek forgiveness, you go to Him. To do otherwise is idolatry.

BTW, I was born and raised catholic, attended catholic school right thru HS, and very nearly went to catholic seminary. these issues are much, much broader, as they touch on the very core of Christianity. I'd be happy to debate with anyone, but please don't try doublespeak.

the Ave Maria is a designed to praise and glorify Mary, by which I mean she is elevated to a staus co-equal with the Godhead, in direct contradiction to the 1st commandment. It's not a simple "good job" like Paul gives to the Corinthians, or as the Father says will be bestowed on Judah by his brothers. Also, just because the Father chooses to give praise to someone (Deut 26:18-19 was used in an above example), you can by no means take that to mean we should do the same for Mary. What your doing is called "proof texting", or removing a passage of Scripture from it's context and using it to justify a belief not related, or related in a very broad sense, to the original passage. this is also a problem for typologists, as it leads to very confusing and incorrect results, such as we have here.

Here's a term introduced to me at Bible college, and one that I think is overlooked even in Protestant churches. Hermenutics, which has to do with the study of interpretations. If you want to be consistent in your hermenutic, or interpretation, of the Bible, you absolutely MUST take into account the context of a passage (there are several levels to this, ask me more later), the intended recipients of the passage(s), historical & cultural background, as well as an understanding of the original languages in which the passage was written.

I don't profess to be an expert, but I do know the process, and can apply it as well as any non-academician can. the catholic concept of Mary simply doesn't stand up to intense, Biblical scrunity. If you can step outside the catholic box for a moment and apply some basic logic to the issue, you will come up with the same conclusions.

 

[Athanasias]

i understand the typology, unfortunately, it just doesn't hold water. Part of the trouble with typology in general is that it leads to poor conclusions. Mary does not deserve praise from man, nor does she "reign in heaven". She isn't part of the Godhead, nor does she intercede for people. for that matter, neither do the "saints" or priests, there simply isn't a need.



the Ave Maria is a designed to praise and glorify Mary, by which I mean she is elevated to a staus co-equal with the Godhead, in direct contradiction to the 1st commandment. It's not a simple "good job" like Paul gives to the Corinthians, or as the Father says will be bestowed on Judah by his brothers. Also, just because the Father chooses to give praise to someone (Deut 26:18-19 was used in an above example), you can by no means take that to mean we should do the same for Mary. What your doing is called "proof texting", or removing a passage of Scripture from it's context and using it to justify a belief not related, or related in a very broad sense, to the original passage. this is also a problem for typologists, as it leads to very confusing and incorrect results, such as we have here.

......I don't profess to be an expert, but I do know the process, and can apply it as well as any non-academician can. the catholic concept of Mary simply doesn't stand up to intense, Biblical scrunity. If you can step outside the catholic box for a moment and apply some basic logic to the issue, you will come up with the same conclusions.

Hi Yes I understand that many protestants reject the spiritual senses of sacred scripture as historically the protestant revolt and its leaders one by one rejected the levels of spiritual interpretation as part of their hermeneutic. This is one of the differences in protestant and Catholic hermeneutics and thought and it indeed is sad for those protestants who lost alot of the historical traditional interpretations of the Holy writ given to us by Christ Catholic Church throughout is 2000 years of existence. It is a shame you reject typological interpretations though because Jesus and St. Paul both utilized this form of typological hermeneutic. So I would like like to follow Paul and Jesus in the way they understood the bible.

One thing I do not understand is your understanding of Catholicism. I am a life long Catholic and a graduate student in Catholic theology. I have also been astray (or stepped out side the Catholic box for a few years) from the Catholic church for about a period of two years. In that time I went to a baptist church. Several of the College professors I am, taught by are former Protestants turned Catholic. My Scripture professor is a former Lutheran who upon deeper study of scripture and Church history found the truth in the Catholic faith.

If you say you know so much then when is The blessed Virgin Mary ever given equal status to God at all in any of our official documents or councils?? Where is the declaration by the popes that say she is God?? What local Catholic Chruch or priest show its congregation a statue of Mary and says "Here o Catholics is your Godess.. Worship- her"! I want to see it!

How is giving another human being glory or honor against biblical teaching??? The bible seems to teach it in many areas as i mentioned! And Honor is does not always connote worship as the bible shows.


also you misunderstand the entire co-redemptrix issue probably because you never read any official Catholic documents on the issue and you use your non-Catholic bias instead of trying to understand the Churches position. So I will say it again. Co comes from Cum which means with. We all act with Christ to redeem others when we lead others to him(Matt 28:19-20).

What is meant by co-redemptrix is that she took part in the redemption of mankind by accepting God's will(Be it done unto me according to your will LK 1:38) and giving Jesus birth. Of course Jesus is the redeemer. His blood paid for our sins. It is through his resurrection that we all have life! He has redeemed us ultimately!

When any of us lead another person to Christ whether in prayer or preaching we act as co-redeemers. We save them in a secondary sense which means we lead them to Jesus. St Paul used this kind of language

"Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry in order to make my fellow Jews jealous, and thus Save some of them. " (Romans 11:13-14)

"Take heed to yourself and to your teaching; hold to that, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers. "( 1 Tim 4:16)

Now no one reads these passages and claims that Paul himself or others Christians can save themselves or redeem themselves apart from Christ. But if read literally they seem to look like that. But what is implied is that every one who preaches or prays or teaches takes part in the salvation and redemption of man with God by leading them to Christ! The same is true for the understanding of co-redemprix with Mary. Mary led us to Christ in a special way by giving birth to him.

It is Jesus that ultimately saves and redeems that person but God uses people (and Mary in a special way ie giving birth to him) to lead them to him and in that way we are all co-redeemersI hope you understand.

 

[DArceri]

Co comes from Cum which means with. We all act with Christ to redeem others when we lead others to him(Matt 28:19-20).

What is meant by co-redemptrix is that she took part in the redemption of mankind by accepting God's will(Be it done unto me according to your will LK 1:38) and giving Jesus birth. Of course Jesus is the redeemer. His blood paid for our sins. It is through his resurrection that we all have life! He has redeemed us ultimately!

When any of us lead another person to Christ whether in prayer or preaching we act as co-redeemers. We save them in a secondary sense which means we lead them to Jesus. St Paul used this kind of language

"Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry in order to make my fellow Jews jealous, and thus Save some of them. " (Romans 11:13-14)

"Take heed to yourself and to your teaching; hold to that, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers. "( 1 Tim 4:16)

Now no one reads these passages and claims that Paul himself or others Christians can save themselves or redeem themselves apart from Christ. But if read literally they seem to look like that. But what is implied is that every one who preaches or prays or teaches takes part in the salvation and redemption of man with God by leading them to Christ! The same is true for the understanding of co-redemprix with Mary. Mary led us to Christ in a special way by giving birth to him.

It is Jesus that ultimately saves and redeems that person but God uses people (and Mary in a special way ie giving birth to him) to lead them to him and in that way we are all co-redeemersI hope you understand.

Listen, redemption comes down to an atonement. Mary did NOT atone for anyone's sins...not one single person, PERIOD..... By the RCC magnifying Mary with statues, songs, and prayers as a co-redeemer, they are essentially creating an idolotrous situation whether they mean to or not, and potentially causing one to stumble into actual idolotry, and thus, damnation. Also, I question whether the RCC even believes in what it pushes, ie. the "co-redeemer' concept as you just laid out. We see Popes saying such things as Mary our Hope, Mary our Mediatress, Mary our Advocate, Mary our Guardian, Mary our Salvation,....etc.,etc,...As a matter of record, we saw Pope John Paul II crediting Mary for saving him from an assassins bullet. It is also known that his personal motto was 'Totus Tuus sum Maria', which means 'Mary, I am totally yours', and had it inscribed on his so called coat of arms that displayed a huge M (for guess who?). If this isn't idolotrous behavior, then I must admit that I don't know what is.

Coat of Arms


image by António Martins, 8 November 2001
John-Paul II has a blue shield with golden cross off-centered towards dexter chief, with a golden 'M' in sinister base field. The 'M' stands for Mary.



.

 

[Athanasias]

ALL honor and glory goes to God alone. Mary had been given the honor to bear Jesus in her womb, but she takes no credit for it ever in scripture. By the RCC magnifying Mary with statues, songs, and prayers as a co-redeemer, they are essentially creating an idolotrous situation whether they mean to or not (ie. potentially causing one to stumble into actual idolotry, and thus, damnation). Also, I question if the RCC even believes in the "co-redeemer' concept you just laid out. We see Popes saying such things as Mary our Hope, Mary our Mediatress, Mary our Advocate, Mary our Guardian, Mary our Salvation,....etc.,etc,...As a matter of record, we see Pope John Paul II crediting Mary for saving him from an assassins bullet. It is also known that his personal motto was 'Totus Tuus sum Maria', which means 'Mary, I am totally yours'.

Does all glory and honor go to God alone according to the bible?? No it doesn't.

"And you shall make holy garments for Aaron your brother, for glory and for beauty" (Ex 28:2)

Here Aaron is having Priestly Garments made for him for the glory of his office and person.

How about this passage from the old testament.


"So Bathshe'ba went to King Solomon, to speak to him on behalf of Adoni'jah. And the king rose to meet her, and bowed down to her; then he sat on his throne, and had a seat brought for the king's mother; and she sat on his right. Then she said, "I have one small request to make of you; do not refuse me." And the king said to her, "Make your request, my mother; for I will not refuse you."( 1 Kings 2:19-20).


Here solomon is giving the Queen mother Bathsheba glory and honor (Or veneration) and even bowing down to her and putting aside a sacred place for her at his right side. Yet he is not worshipping her is her?? She is not God is she? We Catholics view Mary as a typological fullfillment of the davidic queen mother as Jesus come from David's Throne(Matt 1:1) and is our King and since his Mother parralells the action of Davidic Queen mother in the Gospel(Jn 2:3-5) and is presented as Queen of Heaven and the Church in Rev 12:1-17). This is the Kind of honor we give her and the church teaches we give her. Not worship!



Likewise in the new testament we are to give honor to other human beings(not just God) in the Church.


"Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching"( 1 Tim 5:17)


Even Jesus tells us that the synogogues of Satan will bown down before the church of Sardis(Rev 3:9). Now does htis mean that Jesus is going to make someone worship someone who is not God himself?? Of course not. Honor, glory, or we call it veneration can and does go also to human being who are in God's covenant in scripture and this does not violate anything in scripture nor does it automatically imply that the people are being worshipped as Gods.


Knowiing the context of the whole of scripture helps us see this.


Now Why is Mary called savior by the popes or saints sometimes. There are two answers to this. The first is poetic. We beleive in Jesus Christ as personal Lord and savior but we also beleive in Mary as our personal Mother(Rev 12:7, Jn 19:26-27). Because we have a love for Jesus our savior and brother and his and our Mother and the Whole Body of Christ we speak in love language sometimes.

It is like saying to your Wife "Oh honey I love you so much thank you for rescuing me from loneliness, your my savior". This comes out in ancient and modern poetry.

The second reason is theological and biblical. There are two types of saviors according to the bible. Temporal saviors and Eternal saviors. God is the only Eternal Savior who can save our souls. We can just be temporal saviors and lead other to God or a purpose he has for us. God sometimes sends us temporal saviors to deliver his people from temporal consequences of their sin.

Here is a example:

"And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he gave them continually into the hand of Haz'ael king of Syria and into the hand of Ben-ha'dad the son of Haz'ael. Then Jeho'ahaz besought the LORD, and the LORD hearkened to him; for he saw the oppression of Israel, how the king of Syria oppressed them. (Therefore the LORD gave Israel a savior, so that they escaped from the hand of the Syrians; and the people of Israel dwelt in their homes as formerly."(2 Kings 13:3-5)

a person also becomes a temporal savior with Christ when they act in Gods will toward redemption and pray teach and preach for others. Mary acts a a temproal savior in two ways. 1). she took part in the redemption of mankind by accepting God's will(Be it done unto me according to your will LK 1:38) and giving Jesus birth. Of course Jesus is the redeemer. His blood paid for our sins. It is through his resurrection that we all have life! He has redeemed us ultimately! 2). By praying for the Church.

When any of us lead another person to Christ whether in prayer or preaching we act as co-redeemers or temporal saviors too. We save them in a secondary sense which means we lead them to Jesus. St Paul used this kind of language

"Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry in order to make my fellow Jews jealous, and thus Save some of them. " (Romans 11:13-14)

"Take heed to yourself and to your teaching; hold to that, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers. "( 1 Tim 4:16)

Now no one reads these passages and claims that Paul himself or others Christians can save themselves or redeem themselves apart from Christ. But if read literally they seem to look like that. But what is implied is that every one who preaches or prays or teaches takes part in the salvation and redemption of man with God by leading them to Christ! The same is true for the understanding of co-redemprix with Mary. Mary led us to Christ in a special way by giving birth to him.


I have no doubt that P J PII attributes to Mary the Role of Temporal savior or co-redemptrix. I also have no doubt that he does beleive she was sent by God to rescue him from his temporal condition(Being shot) and not his eternal condition(Going to heaven , which although Mary may act as a co-redeemer and pray for him, JPII in his writings know Jesus redeems in a primary way by his blood).

I just do not see or why you think this contradicts anything Christian or biblical.

May God bless you,

In Jesus through Mary,

Athanasias.

 

[DArceri]

REDIRECTION ATHANASIAS....REDIRECTION!!!!

Does all glory and honor go to God alone according to the bible?? No it doesn't.

For REDEMPTIVE AND SALVITIC purposes ...YEESSSSS!!!!

"And you shall make holy garments for Aaron your brother, for glory and for beauty" (Ex 28:2)

Here Aaron is having Priestly Garments made for him for the glory of his office and person.

Did the garments display a big A on it for Aaron or a big M on it for Moses stating, "Moses I am totally yours"????.

How about this passage from the old testament.


"So Bathshe'ba went to King Solomon, to speak to him on behalf of Adoni'jah. And the king rose to meet her, and bowed down to her; then he sat on his throne, and had a seat brought for the king's mother; and she sat on his right. Then she said, "I have one small request to make of you; do not refuse me." And the king said to her, "Make your request, my mother; for I will not refuse you."( 1 Kings 2:19-20).


Here solomon is giving the Queen mother Bathsheba glory and honor (Or veneration) and even bowing down to her and putting aside a sacred place for her at his right side. Yet he is not worshipping her is her?? She is not God is she? We Catholics view Mary as a typological fullfillment of the davidic queen mother as Jesus come from David's Throne(Matt 1:1) and is our King and since his Mother parralells the action of Davidic Queen mother in the Gospel(Jn 2:3-5) and is presented as Queen of Heaven and the Church in Rev 12:1-17). This is the Kind of honor we give her and the church teaches we give her. Not worship!

What does this have to do with anything I've discussed???? Mary is a spirit in Heaven (who is not omni-anything) and is not to be worshiped as a co-redeemer.. She wasn't an atonement for anyone's sin.

Likewise in the new testament we are to give honor to other human beings(not just God) in the Church.


"Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching"( 1 Tim 5:17)


Even Jesus tells us that the synogogues of Satan will bown down before the church of Sardis(Rev 3:9). Now does htis mean that Jesus is going to make someone worship someone who is not God himself?? Of course not. Honor, glory, or we call it veneration can and does go also to human being who are in God's covenant in scripture and this does not violate anything in scripture nor does it automatically imply that the people are being worshipped as Gods.

Giving honor to a king or queen or President is not the discussion here. Giving honor to someone as CO-REDEEMER IS!!!!!! PLEASE do not redirect!!!....Athanasias, providing over-generalized 'canned' commentary without addressing my specific comments is a little annoying to say the least. Not that I mind a canned comment here and there. I've used some myself at times. But please address my points, don't go off topic with generalized commentary.





.

 

[prodromos]

Mary is a spirit in Heaven (who is not omni-anything) and is not to be worshiped as a co-redeemer.. She wasn't an atonement for anyone's sin.

Ah, the Strawman Fallacy never gets old does it.

Giving honor to a king or queen or President is not the discussion here. Giving honor to someone as CO-REDEEMER IS!!!!!! PLEASE do not redirect!!!....

I thought the topic of the discussion was the "Immaculate Conception"?

John

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

...double yawn...

Me, too. All you have for an apologetic is, "My denomination says it's dogma so it is." IF you accepted that apologetic from anyone else, it would have some credibility from you - but you yawn at it. So, following your lead and rubic, we have no choice but to yawn at your apologetic here. What has been presented here is, perhaps, the weakest, most pathetic, most UNcompelling apologetic I've seen seen the discussion of the Mary Never Once Had Sex dogma. SAD, I think; here we have a divisive DOGMA - an issue claimed to be of highest importance and certainty - with an apologetic SO weak as to be unworthy of consideration and of a nature you yourself reject, thus following your own viewpoint, we should, too. And we do.



.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Hi Yes I understand that many protestants reject the spiritual senses of sacred scripture as historically the protestant revolt and its leaders one by one rejected the levels of spiritual interpretation as part of their hermeneutic. This is one of the differences in protestant and Catholic hermeneutics and thought and it indeed is sad for those protestants who lost alot of the historical traditional interpretations of the Holy writ given to us by Christ Catholic Church throughout is 2000 years of existence. It is a shame you reject typological interpretations though because Jesus and St. Paul both utilized this form of typological hermeneutic. So I would like like to follow Paul and Jesus in the way they understood the bible.

I understand WELL the perfect circle of Catholicism. But the "issue" with your "apologetic" is that it's simply an assumption forced upon Scripture - it's eisegesis, not exegesis and thus is not "hermeneutics" AT ALL. Yes, I understand your "typology" arguement - the problem is, you ASSUME the type and then use your ASSUMPTION to substantiate the ASSUMPTION. In typology, the type must have an antitype - a fulfillment. You are ASSUMING the type and then ASSUMING the fulfillment - Scripture does neither. Have you studied Mormonism? Have you studied the GREAT use of typology in Mormonism? If you have, then you know it uses EXACTLY the same type of "hermeneutic" you are using - and you'll see where that leads them. It can (and does) lead ANYWHERE and EVERYWHERE, as you'll learn if you get outside your box just a bit and if you examine eisegesis the RCC is using here to TRY to defend a DOGMA. ANYONE can claim "this is a type and this is the fulfillment - Scripture indicates NEITHER but I do so it must be the case, and therefore I declare that I'm right." ANYONE can do what you are doing here to defend ANYTHING. And the LDS certainly does. Now, does typology have a role in HERMENEUTICS? Certainly, Jesus looked to Jonah and His Resurrection as type/antitype, BUT THIS IS A TYPOLOGY OF SCRIPTURE, not forced into Scripture. Apples and oranges.

Now, an apologetic (?) that has a LOT more credibility is for the RCC to insist, "I say it's dogma so it's dogma cuz I'm right so when I say I'm right, I'm right. End of discussion, accept it with docility." This conservative, traditional form of Catholicism simply "holds up" a lot better than TRYING to make these unique, divisive RCC dogmas seem substantiated by Scripture (and even the RC denomination's OWN "tradition" and "fathers" - we often see the RCC doesn't even have that). In these divisive, unique dogmas of the RCC - apologists typically just prove to noncatholics just how AMAZINGLY unsupported, unsubstantiated, empty the DOGMA is. And as we see you reject exactly the same apologetics and arguements and eisegesis from others, we are compelled to agree with you are reject the same from you.




.

 

[rosenherman]

Mary is a spirit in Heaven (who is not omni-anything) and is not to be worshiped as a co-redeemer.. She wasn't an atonement for anyone's sin.
​

Ah, the Strawman Fallacy never gets old does it.

Factually, "strawman fallacy" is redundant:

A fallacy is an argument which provides poor reasoning in support of its conclusion. Fallacies differ from other bad arguments in that many people find them psychologically persuasive. That is, people will mistakenly take a fallacious argument to provide good reasons to believe its conclusion. An argument can be fallacious whether or not its conclusion is true.
​

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.
​

And since

Mary is a spirit in Heaven (who is not omni-anything) and is not to be worshiped as a co-redeemer.. She wasn't an atonement for anyone's sin.
​

is not a misrepresentation, but an accurate statement of the views of some catholics.

It is neither a strawman nor a fallacy.

Giving honor to a king or queen or President is not the discussion here. Giving honor to someone as CO-REDEEMER IS!!!!!! PLEASE do not redirect!!!....

​

I thought the topic of the discussion was the "Immaculate Conception"?

John

​

The title is "The Immaculate Conception". It migrated from that a month ago.

 

[prodromos]

What does this have to do with anything I've discussed???? Mary is a spirit in Heaven (who is not omni-anything) and is not to be worshiped as a co-redeemer.. She wasn't an atonement for anyone's sin.

is not a misrepresentation, but an accurate statement of the views of some catholics.

It is neither a strawman nor a fallacy.

Forgive me, but there is not a Catholic on the planet who believes that that Mary atoned for anyone's sins, therefore it is by definition a strawman fallacy.

John

 

[rosenherman]

Forgive me, but there is not a Catholic on the planet who believes that that Mary atoned for anyone's sins, therefore it is by definition a strawman fallacy.

John

What do you call the Catholics who are agitating for Mary to be called
co-reedemer? They certainly call themselves Catholics. And atone is a synonym of reedem.