Catholic views

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Don't be a hater... I've put in countless hours of study and then some.

my religious credentials

[smeagol]

However, the Bible does say this: "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16, NIV) And the words for "thoroughly equipped" in Greek are "artios exartizo," from which we are meant to understand that Scripture is sufficient.

No.

All it says is that Scripture is useful for teaching (I've read translations that say "Scripture is profitable for teaching. . .").

How does this verse = sufficient?

Is this really what Protestants use to base one of their most important Doctrines?

Because of verse 63.

So one verse in the middle of a dozen that say otherwise is enough to set Doctrine?

Here's John 6: 50-58 which is the most explicit part on the Real Presence:

"50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die.

51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"

53 Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.

54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.

55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.

56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.

57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.

58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever."



It does not get more explicit than that. I hope ES , 101A or Pheno address this point.

One thing I don't understand: Protestants are always great at pointing out how the Bible must be read literaly (the "brothers" of Christ, Babylon is not a code word for Rome, etc) but when it comes to these verses then literaly does not work for them.

How can Jesus have been talking fuguratively when even his listeners understood perfectly well he was meant to be the bread and wine?

(John 6: 60 "On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?").

Why would some of his 'till then disciples leave him uttering the words found in the above quoted verse? Because they thought it should be understood figuratively?

No, it does not add up.

And Pheno, none of that tradition that bugs you so much is inolved in this one. Just the Bible.

[Extra Stout]

No.

All it says is that Scripture is useful for teaching (I've read translations that say "Scripture is profitable for teaching. . .").

How does this verse = sufficient?

No.

The word picture is of one completely and fully equipped to do a task. There is no need for anything else.

what Protestants use to base one of their most important Doctrines?

No. I selected one verse of many.

Furthermore,

1. You have not chosen to respond to the example of the Bereans, who "received the Word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily, to see whether these things were so." (Acts 17:11)

And for this they were called "noble."

2. Paul admonishes the Corinthians "not to exceed what is written" in 1 Cor. 4:6.

3. Take the example of Judaism.

Judaism in Jesus' day followed the same formula as the RCC: Scripture + tradition. The traditions of the Talmud were held as at least as authoritative as the Law and the Prophets.

But when Jesus taught, did he teach from tradition? No. He taught from Scripture (Luke 10:26, 16:29, John 5:39, Luke 24:25, among many).

And what did Jesus say about these traditions? "Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men." (Mark 7:8)

4. When Paul stood before Agrippa, he claimed not that he was teaching from a new tradition, but that he was testifying "nothing but what the Prophets and Moses said was going to take place." (Acts 26:22)

5. When Paul speaks of the foundation of the church, God's household, it is "the apostles and the prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the corner stone." (Eph. 2:20) In "the apostles" we have the apostolic teaching of the New Testament. In "the prophets" we have the Old Testament.

6. In 2 Peter 1, Peter sums up the authority of his eyewitness by saying, "And so we have the prophetic word made more sure." (1:19a) And is this prophetic word oral tradition? No. He continues, "But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." (1:20-21)

So one verse in the middle of a dozen that say otherwise is enough to set Doctrine?

Since in that verse, Jesus explains the meaning of his teaching to his disciples, of course it does.

In bold, big letters:

It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing

Christ had to die.
His body had to be broken.
His blood had to be shed.
We have to partake of his sacrifice to live.
There is no life apart from the sacrifice of Christ.
We cannot live without his body.
We cannot live without his blood.
It is the Spirit that gives life.
The flesh profits nothing.
He had to die. We have to partake of his sacrifice to live. There is no life apart from it.
It has nothing to do with the elements of the Eucharist becoming his physical body and blood.

By your hermeneutic, do Christians have actual "living water" flowing out of them when filled by the Holy Spirit? (John 7:38) If I sweat while worshipping, is that sweat the actual Holy Spirit?

One thing I don't understand: Protestants are always great at pointing out how the Bible must be read literaly (the "brothers" of Christ, Babylon is not a code word for Rome, etc) but when it comes to these verses then literaly does not work for them.

How can Jesus have been talking fuguratively when even his listeners understood perfectly well he was meant to be the bread and wine?

Nice strawman there on the whole "literal" thing, since of course I am quite the fundamentalist.

Wouldn't Christ's teaching have become abundantly clear when he had the Last Supper with his disciples? So if this has to be interpreted literally, how do you explain Jesus sitting right there among them? Do you really think they understood they were eating his flesh and drinking his blood as he sat there among them?

Or would it not have become obvious that the elements were meant to represent his upcoming sacrifice? This was the time they were coming to understand that he must die.

(John 6: 60 "On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?").

Why would some of his 'till then disciples leave him uttering the words found in the above quoted verse? Because they thought it should be understood figuratively?

No, because they did not understand who Jesus was, where he came from, why he was there, or where he was going. As it says in verse 64, "For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe."

That is why Jesus said to them,

It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing

Those who did not believe could only think in terms of actually eating Jesus' body and drinking his blood. They thought he was going to be an earthly king who overthrow the Romans and re-established Jewish rule over Israel. They did not understand that he was to sacrifice himself, and that all men had to partake of that sacrifice in order to receive eternal life. His words were incomprehensible to them.

[travis2]

No.

The word picture is of one completely and fully equipped to do a task. There is no need for anything else.

Not true. Otherwise he would not have had to write things like...

"I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2).

"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." (2 Thess. 2:15)

2. Paul admonishes the Corinthians "not to exceed what is written" in 1 Cor. 4:6.

Except that "what {was} written" was only the Old Testament. Paul was most definitely not talking about his own letters, and the Gospels were not yet down either. The entire New Testament was non-existent at that point.

3. Take the example of Judaism.

Judaism in Jesus' day followed the same formula as the RCC: Scripture + tradition. The traditions of the Talmud were held as at least as authoritative as the Law and the Prophets.

But when Jesus taught, did he teach from tradition? No. He taught from Scripture (Luke 10:26, 16:29, John 5:39, Luke 24:25, among many).

And what did Jesus say about these traditions? "Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men." (Mark 7:8)

Note the difference...they neglected the scriptures. We do NOT NOT NOT hold Tradition higher than the Bible. Not one single Tradition goes against anything Biblical...now, there may be nothing explicit in the Bible to support a particular Tradition, but nothing is contradictory.

4. When Paul stood before Agrippa, he claimed not that he was teaching from a new tradition, but that he was testifying "nothing but what the Prophets and Moses said was going to take place." (Acts 26:22)

5. When Paul speaks of the foundation of the church, God's household, it is "the apostles and the prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the corner stone." (Eph. 2:20) In "the apostles" we have the apostolic teaching of the New Testament. In "the prophets" we have the Old Testament.

OK, that's nice, but I honestly do not see what these two passages have to do with the topic.

6. In 2 Peter 1, Peter sums up the authority of his eyewitness by saying, "And so we have the prophetic word made more sure." (1:19a) And is this prophetic word oral tradition? No. He continues, "But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." (1:20-21)

Actually, here you've just proven the need for the Church to provide guidance in reading the Bible, and not just leave it to us to define on our own.

Since in that verse, Jesus explains the meaning of his teaching to his disciples, of course it does.

In bold, big letters:

It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing

Christ had to die.
His body had to be broken.
His blood had to be shed.
We have to partake of his sacrifice to live.
There is no life apart from the sacrifice of Christ.
We cannot live without his body.
We cannot live without his blood.
It is the Spirit that gives life.
The flesh profits nothing.
He had to die. We have to partake of his sacrifice to live. There is no life apart from it.
It has nothing to do with the elements of the Eucharist becoming his physical body and blood.

By your hermeneutic, do Christians have actual "living water" flowing out of them when filled by the Holy Spirit? (John 7:38) If I sweat while worshipping, is that sweat the actual Holy Spirit?

Sorry, but it has everything to do with the elements of the Eucharist. He's not retracting His words. Rather than post an entire article, just read this...
http://www.catholic.com/library/Chri..._Eucharist.asp

Nice strawman there on the whole "literal" thing, since of course I am quite the fundamentalist.

Wouldn't Christ's teaching have become abundantly clear when he had the Last Supper with his disciples? So if this has to be interpreted literally, how do you explain Jesus sitting right there among them? Do you really think they understood they were eating his flesh and drinking his blood as he sat there among them?

Or would it not have become obvious that the elements were meant to represent his upcoming sacrifice? This was the time they were coming to understand that he must die.

Are you honestly saying that Jesus was not capable of sitting there,handing them something that looked like a piece of bread, proclaiming "THIS IS MY BODY"...and not have it be so?

Go back and read the article who's link I posted.

The fact they they did understand that they were eating and drinking of Christ's Body and Blood is borne out in the epistles. Paul wrote "Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord." (1 Cor. 11:27). Not a symbol...the Body and Blood. Further, in the Greek, the words being translated as "answer for the body and the blood" do so in a literal manner, as speaking of murder or assault. You can't murder or assault a symbol. No, Paul most certainly knew from the Apostles that the Eucharist is the true Body and Blood of Christ.

And, as mentioned in the article, the early Church fathers, many of whom were instructed by the Apostles, certainly knew the Eucharist was the true Body and Blood.

No, because they did not understand who Jesus was, where he came from, why he was there, or where he was going. As it says in verse 64, "For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe."

That is why Jesus said to them,

It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing

Those who did not believe could only think in terms of actually eating Jesus' body and drinking his blood. They thought he was going to be an earthly king who overthrow the Romans and re-established Jewish rule over Israel. They did not understand that he was to sacrifice himself, and that all men had to partake of that sacrifice in order to receive eternal life. His words were incomprehensible to them.

Which is why on EVERY OTHER OCCASION, he took the time to explain Himself...except this one. Why? Because there was nothing to explain. You are completely misreading that one verse.

[101A]

Watch the video

You will feel silly.

Seriously, if a picture is worth a thousand words, this video is worth a million words.

LMAO

touche.

[101A]

BTW

Travis, Smeagol, Pheno & ES

Thank you.

Very Enlightening.

I am busy today, but when I have a chance I will add my (relatively uneducated) 2 cents.

[Phenomanul]

Note the difference...they neglected the scriptures. We do NOT NOT NOT hold Tradition higher than the Bible. Not one single Tradition goes against anything Biblical... now, there may be nothing explicit in the Bible to support a particular Tradition, but nothing is contradictory.

Again, cite from scripture alone that Mary remained perpetually virgin. The fact that other sources have to be considered means that the RCC gives them equal merit and worth. Equating non-inspired literature to inspired works is just wrong.

Cite from scripture alone that we are to pray to Mary. Again, giving equal credence to tradition on this matter, despite the Bible's silence on the same suggests that tradition in fact has superceded GOD's Word in this instance.

No one refuted the post

More like when you do pray to Mary, you are relinquishing the priviledge by deferment....

We are to pray to the Father in Jesus' name. He is NOT too busy to hear our prayers.


Psalm 5:2 Hearken unto the voice of my cry, my King, and my God: for unto thee will I pray.

Psalm 140:6 I said unto the LORD, Thou art my God: hear the voice of my supplications, O LORD.

Isaiah 59:1 Behold, the LORD'S hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither his ear heavy, that it cannot hear:

John 14:13-14 [Jesus said] "And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it."

John 15:16 [Jesus said] Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.

John 16:23-24 [Jesus said] And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you. Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name: ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full.

Matthew 6:6 [Jesus] But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

We are not instructed to pray to Mary either.

Says to do??? In what context?.... doesn't Luke also say that Mary also recognizes that JESUS was her Savior as well (Luke 1:47)... If she needed a Savior, she needed remission of her sins just like the rest of us. She found favor in the eyes of GOD - not an easy task, no less. That doesn't mean I need to, or should feel compelled to pray to her.


Three questions then:

IS MARY OUR INTERCESSOR?

No, I don't believe so; the Bible says that Jesus is our Intercessor.


Romans 8:34 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.

Hebrews 7:25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.

The Bible also states the Holy Spirit is interceding for us:


Romans 8:26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.

Romans 8:27 And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.


IS MARY CO-MEDIATOR?

No. The Bible says that Jesus is our Mediator. Scripturally speaking, Jesus is the ONLY Mediator.


1Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Hebrews 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

Hebrews 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

Hebrews 12:24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.


IS MARY CO-REDEEMER?

No. The Bible clearly states that there is no Savior but the Lord. Nowhere in Scripture does it remotely suggest that Mary is co-redemptrix. God deserves all praise! There is no redeemer but the Lord. GOD will not share His glory with another....


Isaiah 44:24 Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;

Isaiah 43:11 I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Hosea 13:4 Yet I am the LORD thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know no god but me: for there is no saviour beside me.

us 2:13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

Philemon 3:20 For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ:

Acts 5:31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.


And again, for re-emphasis...

Luke 1:47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.

Mary, herself, acknowledged God as her Savior. Should not we do the same? We are to worship the Lord and Him only.

In the book of Revelation we have John, the Apostle, wanting to worship an angel and here is what is said:


Revelation 19:10 "And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship GOD: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy."

Note: some references were looked up online, but I believe them all to be King James Version.

This is highly important because Catholic leaders have in fact claimed that Mary is our Heavenly Co-Mediator and/or Co-redemptrix.

Here's what the late Pope John Paul II said:

John Paul II, Allocution at the Sanctuary of Our Lady of Guayaquil, given on Jan 31, 1985, reported in L'Osservatore Romano Supplement of Feb. 2, 1985 and in English L'Osservatore Romano, March 11, 1985, p. 7.

"Crucified spiritually with her crucified Son (cf. Gal 2:20), she contemplated with heroic love the death of her God, she 'lovingly consented to the immolation of this Victim which she herself had brought forth' (Lumen gentium #58) ... as she was in a special way close to the Cross of her Son, she also had to have a privileged experience of his Resurrection. In fact, Mary's role as co-redemptrix did not cease with the glorification of her Son."

What gives?

[Extra Stout]

Not true. Otherwise he would not have had to write things like...

"I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2).

"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." (2 Thess. 2:15)

The traditions as delivered and taught by Paul and the apostles? To my Protestant ears, those traditions are contained entirely within Scripture.

And what were the occasions of the epistles to the Corinthians and Thessalonians? The former hed strayed from the teachings of the apostles, and the latter were distraught and confused by the hearing of false teaching about the end times.

So what did Paul do? He reminded them of the doctrines and traditions he had taught them, which are recorded in the epistles.

[quote]=travis2]Note the difference...they neglected the scriptures. We do NOT NOT NOT hold Tradition higher than the Bible. Not one single Tradition goes against anything Biblical...now, there may be nothing explicit in the Bible to support a particular Tradition, but nothing is contradictory.

How can that be, if the Bible can only be interpreted through church tradition? If the Catholic Church is the only en y capable of interpreting Scripture for the entire Body of Christ, then what authority does Scripture have to you apart from the Church and its traditions?

Actually, here you've just proven the need for the Church to provide guidance in reading the Bible, and not just leave it to us to define on our own.

No, what I've shown is the authors of Scripture were divinely inspired, and did not interpret things on their own.

Sorry, but it has everything to do with the elements of the Eucharist. He's not retracting His words. Rather than post an entire article, just read this...
http://www.catholic.com/library/Chri..._Eucharist.asp

I'm familiar with the Catholic doctrine on the subject; I just vehemently disagree with it.

Are you honestly saying that Jesus was not capable of sitting there,handing them something that looked like a piece of bread, proclaiming "THIS IS MY BODY"...and not have it be so?

I think you may have included an extra "not" in there, since I clearly believe Jesus was capable of saying that without it being literal, just as when he said he would destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, he was not talking about Herod's temple.

Jesus taught in parables and symbols to confound those who did not believe (Matthew 13:10-18).

Paul wrote "Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord." (1 Cor. 11:27). Not a symbol...the Body and Blood. Further, in the Greek, the words being translated as "answer for the body and the blood" do so in a literal manner, as speaking of murder or assault. You can't murder or assault a symbol.

If one eats the bread or drinks the cup unworthily, he is still in his sins and incurs judgment. To take communion without faith is blasphemy. "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son." (John 3:18)

So who is it who has killed Jesus, who is guilty of his murder? What does Scripture say?

Acts 2:36 -- "Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ." And who is Israel? We can take this either as the church, the audience of the Gospel, or mankind in general. In any of those, the point is the same -- WE are liable for the death of Christ.

So since we are under grace, who specifically falls under this judgment?

Hebrews 6:4-6 -- "It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace."

Since here we would not think that the apostate is literally taking Jesus and nailing him to the cross again, we understand that the guilt is for Calvary.

And, as mentioned in the article, the early Church fathers, many of whom were instructed by the Apostles, certainly knew the Eucharist was the true Body and Blood.

Of these patristic writings, if one reads them from the perspective of believing in transubstantiation, one will see transubstantiation. But even a Protestant writer would refer to the bread and wine as the body and blood of Christ, the flesh of the Word of God. That they refer to them in these terms does not make their assent to transubstantiation conclusive.

As to the refutation of the Gnostics, note that they abstained from the Eucharist because they did not believe. Their heresy was full-blown dualism, not a dispute on the nature of the elements.

Which is why on EVERY OTHER OCCASION, he took the time to explain Himself...except this one. Why? Because there was nothing to explain. You are completely misreading that one verse.

No, I would be reading verses 61-63 as his explaining Himself. "The words I have spoken to you are S(s)pirit, and they are life."

You likely read this as something along the lines of the believer's inability to comprehend the Real Presence without the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit. I read it as Jesus explaining that when he spoke of eating his flesh and drinking his blood, he spoke in the sense of the spiritual.

[Extra Stout]

Here's what the late Pope John Paul II said:

John Paul II, Allocution at the Sanctuary of Our Lady of Guayaquil, given on Jan 31, 1985, reported in L'Osservatore Romano Supplement of Feb. 2, 1985 and in English L'Osservatore Romano, March 11, 1985, p. 7.

"Crucified spiritually with her crucified Son (cf. Gal 2:20), she contemplated with heroic love the death of her God, she 'lovingly consented to the immolation of this Victim which she herself had brought forth' (Lumen gentium #58) ... as she was in a special way close to the Cross of her Son, she also had to have a privileged experience of his Resurrection. In fact, Mary's role as co-redemptrix did not cease with the glorification of her Son."

What gives?

The official position on Mary as Co-mediatrix comes from Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 62. So as not to appear as contradicting Scripture, it is phrased to say that Mary's role as Mediatrix should not be construed to mean anything but that Jesus is the sole Mediator (1 Tim. 2:5) To my reading, this position is incoherent, "A AND NOT A=TRUE."

[smeagol]

Again, cite from scripture alone that Mary remained perpetually virgin.

Cite from Scripture where it says that everything related to Christianity and its doctrine is included in the Bible

ES gave it a try, but he was not successful (in my view).

The fact that other sources have to be considered means that the RCC gives them equal merit and worth.

How many times have I said other sources (Tradition) complements what the Bible says? Do you do this on purpose or you simply don’t read what I post?

Equating non-inspired literature to inspired works is just wrong.

It is wrong, but the RCC does not do this so I’m not worried.

Cite from scripture alone that we are to pray to Mary.

I think I have said more than 5 times, on this and on the “other” thread, that we don’t pray to Mary. At this point, bringing up this type of lie regarding the Church is frankly insulting.

[Phenomanul]

I think I have said more than 5 times, on this and on the “other” thread, that we don’t pray to Mary. At this point, bringing up this type of lie regarding the Church is frankly insulting.

You claim that under Papal leadership Catholic views are genous... In fact one of your greatest knocks against the Protestant perspective is that you believe we are all over the board when it comes to doctrinal interpretation. I've never disagreed with you on that -- we are. What I'm trying to show you is that while you may believe that praying to Mary is not something sanctioned by the RCC... I'm trying to point out that millions of Mexicans do, millions of Venezuelans, and Guatemalans do, millions of Columbians do... I have seen it. I have been to their masses and witnessed it first hand.

In either case, even though the Catholic doctrine is more geneous than Protestant doctrine due to the structured nature of the RCC's hierarchy... it is not entirely genous... There is still a great degree of difference between Marian influences in the U.S. Catholic Church and the Catholic Church in Latin American countries as a whole. How is that insulting?

Furthermore, what you just wrote doesn't really refute why scriptures don't speak about Mary's alleged Co-redemptrix or co-mediator positions. Those les were ascribed to her well after the Apostolic Age... requiring solely tradition to hold any weight.

[Phenomanul]

The following article describes it better than I ever could.... but let me guess, rather than read it; some of you will dismiss it as outright anti-catholic rhetoric. But before you do I would have you know that at least half of the quotes referenced emanate directly from Popes - not the author.


Hail, Mary, Co-Redeemer?
by James G. McCarthy

According to the Roman Catholic Church, when Mary accepted God's invitation for her to bear His Son, she ". . . was already collaborating with the whole work her Son was to accomplish" (1):

The Father of mercies willed that the Incarnation should be preceded by assent on the part of the predestined mother, so that just as a woman had a share in bringing about death, so also a woman should contribute to life. . . . Rightly, therefore, the Fathers see Mary not merely as passively engaged by God, but as freely cooperating in the work of man's salvation through faith and obedience. For, as St. Irenaeus says, she "being obedient, became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race." Hence not a few of the early Fathers gladly assert with him in their preaching: "the knot of Eve's disobedience was untied by Mary's obedience: what the virgin Eve bound through her disbelief, Mary loosened by her faith." Comparing Mary with Eve, they call her "Mother of the living," and frequently claim: "death through Eve, life through Mary." - - Second Vatican Council(2)

According to the Roman Catholic Church, Mary's participation in the incarnation was only the beginning of her role in salvation. The Church teaches that "it was God's design that the Blessed Virgin Mary, apparently absent from the public life of Jesus, should assist him when he was dying nailed to the Cross."(3) United with Christ, Mary offered Him as a sacrifice to God on the cross:

She it was who, immune from all sin, personal or inherited, and ever more closely united with her Son, offered him on Golgotha to the Eternal Father together with the holocaust of her maternal rights and motherly love. . . . - - Mystici Corporis(4)

Not only did Mary offer her Son to God, but she remained at the cross to suffer with Christ [964]:

Thus the Blessed Virgin advanced in her pilgrimage of faith, and faithfully persevered in her union with her Son unto the cross, where she stood, in keeping with the divine plan, enduring with her only begotten Son the intensity of his suffering, associated herself with his sacrifice in her mother's heart, and lovingly consenting to the immolation of this victim which was born of her. - - Second Vatican Council(5)

According to the Church, Mary's sufferings were so intense that they brought her to the very threshold of death. She, says the Church, "participated with Jesus Christ in the very painful act of redemption"(6):

Mary suffered and, as it were, nearly died with her suffering Son; for the salvation of mankind she renounced her mother's rights and, as far as it depended on her, offered her Son to placate divine justice; so we may well say that she with Christ redeemed mankind. - - Inter Sodalicia(7)

Thus Mary, in a subordinate role to Christ, had a "part with him in the redemption of the human race."(8) She is, therefore, called by the Church the "the co-operatrix in man's redemption,"(9) "our coredemptor."(10) For at the cross, Mary triumphed "utterly over the ancient serpent."(11)

Following the death and resurrection of Christ, says the Church, Mary was a major force in the spread of the gospel [965]:

It is no exaggeration to say that it is due chiefly to her leadership and help that the wisdom and teachings of the Gospel spread so rapidly to all the nations of the world in spite of the most obstinate difficulties and most cruel persecutions and brought everywhere in their train a new reign of justice and peace. - - Adiutricem Populi(12)

Finally, the Roman Catholic Church teaches that when Mary's life on earth was completed, God miraculously took her into heaven. There He crowned her Queen of Heaven and Earth [966]:

The Blessed Virgin Mary is to be called Queen not only on account of her divine motherhood but also because by the will of God she had a great part in the work of our salvation. . . . In this work of redemption the blessed Virgin Mary was closely associated with her Christ. . . . Just as Christ, because he redeemed us, is by a special le our King and Lord, so too is Blessed Mary, our Queen and our Mistress, because of the unique way in which she co-operated in our redemption. She provided her very substance for his body, she offered him willingly for us, and she took a unique part in our salvation by desiring it, praying for it, and so obtaining it. . . . - - Ad Coeli Reginam(13)


There is One Redeemer, Not Two
Scripture is clear that the Lord alone is our redeemer. To Israel God proclaimed, "I, the Lord, am your Savior, and your Redeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob" (Isaiah 49:26). The New Testament Scriptures reveal that it is in God's "beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins" (Colossians 1:13-14). God justifies sinners "through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus" (Romans 3:24).

The Church's claim that Mary offered Christ "on Golgotha to the Eternal Father"(14) contradicts Scripture. The Bible says that Christ "offered Himself without blemish to God" (Hebrews 9:14).

Similarly, there is no biblical support for the Roman Catholic claim that Mary "with Christ redeemed mankind."(15) The Church says, speaking of Mary:

In her, the many and intense sufferings were amassed in such an interconnected way that they were not only a proof of her unshakable faith but also a contribution to the Redemption of all.

. . . it was on Calvary that Mary's suffering, beside the suffering of Jesus, reached an intensity which can hardly be imagined from a human point of view but which was mysteriously and supernaturally fruitful for the Redemption of the world. - - Salvifici Doloris(16)

Here the Church, rather than picturing Mary as a grateful redeemed sinner at the feet of her Savior, portrays her as making "a contribution to the Redemption of all"(17) through her own sufferings. In the words of the Second Vatican Council [968]:

She conceived, brought forth, and nourished Christ, she presented him to the Father in the temple, shared her Son's sufferings as he died on the cross. Thus, in a wholly singular way she cooperated by her obedience, faith, hope and burning charity in the work of the Savior in restoring supernatural life to souls. - - Second Vatican Council(18)

Genesis 3:15

Some Catholic scholars point to Genesis 3:15 in support of the Church's teaching of Mary as the co-redeemer. In many Roman Catholic versions of the Bible, such as the Douay Rheims, the standard Roman Catholic English Bible until the middle of the twentieth century, God's curse upon Satan reads:

I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel. - - Genesis 3:15 (Douay Rheims)

Based on this verse, many statues and paintings of Mary show her crushing a serpent under her foot--a graphic representation of her role as co-redeemer. This imagery is also found in Catholic do ents:

Hence, just as Christ, the Mediator between God and man, assumed human nature, blotted the handwriting of the decree that stood against us, and fastened it triumphantly to the cross, so the most holy Virgin, united with him by a most intimate and indissoluble bond, was, with him and through him, eternally at enmity with the evil serpent, and most completely triumphed over him, and thus crushed his head with her immaculate foot. - - Ineffabilis Deus(19)

This imagery, however, is based upon a faulty translation of Genesis 3:15 from the Latin texts of the Vulgate Bible, the official Bible of the Roman Catholic Church since the fourth century. Until recently, the Latin Vulgate served as the base text for all Roman Catholic translations, including the English Douay Rheims Bible.

In the Hebrew text, the original language of the Old Testament, the subject of Genesis 3:15 is masculine, not feminine. Therefore, rather than reading "she shall crush thy head" (Genesis 3:15, Douay Rheims), the verse should be translated "He shall bruise you on the head" (Genesis 3:15, NASB). The verse is prophetically speaking of Christ's victory over Satan, not Mary's.

Though recent Roman Catholic translations have corrected the error, Roman Catholic theology remains the same.

Luke 2:34-35

Another passage that the Church uses to support its teaching of the "union of the mother with the Son in the work of salvation"(20) is Luke 2:34-35. Joseph and Mary had taken the infant Jesus to Jerusalem to present Him in the temple. Simeon, a righteous man who was looking for the coming of the Messiah, took the child into his arms and said to Mary,

Behold, this Child is appointed for the fall and rise of many in Israel, and for a sign to be opposed--and a sword will pierce even your own soul--to the end that thoughts of many hearts may be revealed. - - Luke 2:34-35

According to the Church, the sword here speaks of Mary's participation with Christ in suffering for our redemption [618]. She, wrote Pope John Paul II, made "a contribution to the Redemption of all"(21):

. . . it was on Calvary that Mary's suffering, beside the suffering of Jesus, reached an intensity which can hardly be imagined from a human point of view but which was mysteriously and supernaturally fruitful for the Redemption of the world. - - Salvifici Doloris(22)

The Roman Catholic claim that Mary suffered for the redemption of the world is unjustified for three reasons:

1. Mary Did Not Suffer for Sin
As Mary watched her Son hanging on the cross, she undoubtedly suffered greatly. However, the same could be said of the others present who loved the Lord and witnessed His sufferings: John, Mary Magdalene, Salome, Mary the wife of Clopas (John 19:25-27, Mark 15:40). We might describe the nature of this kind of sorrow as the suffering of compassion.

It is also likely that Mary, even as Christ, endured the taunts and ridicule of evil men. She did so willingly, knowing that God had called her to serve as the mother of Jesus. Scripture describes this kind of persecution as "suffering for the sake of righteousness" (1 Peter 3:14).

These two kinds of suffering, however, must be distinguished from what Christ experienced on the cross. He suffered for sin. Christ, "having become a curse for us" (Galatians 3:13), became the object of God's wrath as the Father "caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him" (Isaiah 53:6). This the Lord Jesus, "smitten of God, and afflicted" (Isaiah 53:4), suffered in solitary agony:

Reproach has broken my heart, and I am so sick.
And I looked for sympathy, but there was none,
And for comforters, but I found none.
- - Psalm 69:20

Apparently, neither Mary nor any of the others at the foot of the cross were even aware that before them the Son of God was suffering for the sins of the world.

2. Mary Did Not Suffer Death for Sin
Despite the intensity of Christ's physical sufferings, the Scriptures consistently link our redemption not to his pain, but to His death. Paul writes that "we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son" (Romans 5:10). The writer of Hebrews reminds us that "a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions" (Hebrews 9:15). John tells us that Jesus "released us from our sins by His blood" (Revelation 1:5).

The reason, of course, is that the penalty for our sin is death (Genesis 2:17, Romans 6:23). A life, therefore, had to be given to redeem us. That is why Christ came: "to give His life a ransom for many" (Mark 10:45). Christ "died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, in order that He might bring us to God. . . ." (1 Peter 3:18). Nowhere do the Scriptures teach that we were redeemed by Christ's righteous life, faithful obedience, or even His sufferings at the hands of cruel men.

Here again the sufferings of Mary fall short of being redemptive. The Church claims that "Mary suffered and, as it were, nearly died with her suffering Son,"(23) that she "in her heart died with him, stabbed by the sword of sorrow."(24) But the fact of the matter is that Mary did not die on Calvary. Christ alone gave His life for our redemption.

3. Mary Was Not Qualified to Redeem Mankind
Even if Mary had died on Calvary, her death would not have redeemed anyone. As we saw in the last chapter, Mary herself was a sinner. As such, she was guilty before God and unfit to redeem anyone. The same is true of every other man or woman. Scripture teaches:

No man can by any means redeem his brother,
Or give to God a ransom for him--
For the redemption of his soul is costly,
And he should cease trying forever
- - Psalm 49:7-8

That is why God sent His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, to redeem us. He alone was qualified. Since He was the Son of God, His life was of infinite value and able to redeem all mankind. Having been made "in the likeness of men" (Philippians 2:7), He was capable of both representing humanity before God and physically dying (Hebrews 2:14-17). Since He was without sin, His life was an acceptable sacrifice (1 Peter 1:19; 2:22). Christ alone, therefore, deserves the le of Redeemer. "Worthy is the Lamb that was slain" (Revelation 5:12).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Endnotes
1 Catechism of the Catholic Church, 973.
2 Second Vatican Council, "Dogmatic Cons ution on the Church," no. 56.
3 Pope Benedict XV, Inter Sodalicia. This quote and some of the others which follow can be found in a collection of statements by recent popes compiled by Francis J. Ripley, Mary, Mother of the Church (Rockford, IL: Tan Books, 1969).
4 Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis.
5 Second Vatican Council, "Dogmatic Cons ution on the Church," no. 58.
6 Pope Pius XI, Explorata Res.
7 Pope Benedict XV, Inter Sodalicia.
8 Pope Pius XII, Ad Coeli Reginam.
9 Pope Leo XIII, Ubi Primum.
10 Decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, "Indulgences," June 26, 1913, published in Acta Apostolicae Sedis. Also refer to Henry Denzinger, Sources of Catholic Dogma (St. Louis, MO: Herder Book Co., 1957), p. 502, article 1978 a and footnote 2; A. Tanquerey, A Manual of Dogmatic Theology (New York, NY: Desclee Company, 1959), vol. 2, p. 108-109; and Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Rockford, IL: Tan Books and Publishers, 1960), p. 212-213.
11 Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus.
12 Pope Leo XIII, Adiutricem Populi.
13 Pope Pius XII, Ad Coeli Reginam.
14 Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis.
15 Pope Benedict XV, Inter Sodalicia.
16 Pope John Paul II, Salvifici Doloris, no. 25.
17 Pope John Paul II, Salvifici Doloris, no. 25.
18 Second Vatican Council, "Dogmatic Cons ution on the Church," no. 61.
19 Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus.
20 Second Vatican Council, "Dogmatic Cons ution on the Church," no. 57.
21 Pope John Paul II, Salvifici Doloris, no. 25.
22 Pope John Paul II, Salvifici Doloris, no. 25.
23 Pope Benedict XV, Inter Sodalicia.
24 Pope Leo XII, Jucunda Semper.

[leemajors]

there are a lot of differences between us and south american Catholic views. Many "pagan" symbols in South America were adpoted into the Church to encourage the natives to convert. i don't know the complete background of Mary and her particular influence on South American Catholics, but if it strengthens their faith and gives them comfort to pray to her for assistance, i see no harm at all with that. it's not entirely unlike Christianity in general adopting other pagan ideas and numerology - revelations is rampant with pagan numerology and symbols, and there are plenty of religions whose creators sacrificed their only son to save humanity - adopting concepts from other religions makes conversion a whole lot easier.

edit: i was raised Catholic and never heard anything about Mary being a co-redeemer, just being venerated for bringing the son of God into the world.

[smeagol]

Pheno, all your articles says is that Mary had a role in humanity's Redemption. She is not The Redeemer or a Redeemer, she simply had a role, assigned by the Father.

[Guru of Nothing]

Don't be a hater... I've put in countless hours of study and then some.

When have I been dismissive of any of your serious posts? Your 'drive-by' posts maybe... but that's just a common sense 'troll-avoidance' tactic...
Anyway

I'm not sure of much, BUT, I'm sure that faith in God does not require countless hours of study.

In fact, the more you base your beliefs in Jesus' word on scholarly endeavor, the weaker your faith becomes - because afterall, we are talking about FAITH, not facts.

[Phenomanul]

I'm not sure of much, BUT, I'm sure that faith in God does not require countless hours of study.

In fact, the more you base your beliefs in Jesus' word on scholarly endeavor, the weaker your faith becomes - because afterall, we are talking about FAITH, not facts.

While a valid point... I didn't realize that you would in any way merit the worth or relevance of any of my spiritual anecdotes. You never struck me as the 'type' who would even care to hear a faith based story. I'm surprised to say the least... I guess your mantra of satire, cynicism and facetiousness doesn't describe you entirely.

[Phenomanul]

Pheno, all your articles says is that Mary had a role in humanity's Redemption. She is not The Redeemer or a Redeemer, she simply had a role, assigned by the Father.

... wait a second... the position you just stated doesn't reflect the perspectives held by multiple popes.

The Blessed Virgin Mary is to be called Queen not only on account of her divine motherhood but also because by the will of God she had a great part in the work of our salvation. . . . In this work of redemption the blessed Virgin Mary was closely associated with her Christ. . . . Just as Christ, because he redeemed us, is by a special le our King and Lord, so too is Blessed Mary, our Queen and our Mistress, because of the unique way in which she co-operated in our redemption. She provided her very substance for his body, she offered him willingly for us, and she took a unique part in our salvation by desiring it, praying for it, and so obtaining it. . . . - - Ad Coeli Reginam(13)

She it was who, immune from all sin, personal or inherited, and ever more closely united with her Son, offered him on Golgotha to the Eternal Father together with the holocaust of her maternal rights and motherly love. . . . - - Mystici Corporis(4)

Hence, just as Christ, the Mediator between God and man, assumed human nature, blotted the handwriting of the decree that stood against us, and fastened it triumphantly to the cross, so the most holy Virgin, united with him by a most intimate and indissoluble bond, was, with him and through him, eternally at enmity with the evil serpent, and most completely triumphed over him, and thus crushed his head with her immaculate foot. - - Ineffabilis Deus(19)



How are these three quotes not blasphemous???

The first one claims that Mary is our Queen and Mistress...

The second claims she never sinned... (remember Romans 6:23 -- ''For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of GOD )

The last one claims it was she who defeated Satan...

All three claims were then refuted with scripture to suggest that said doctrines all run directly contrary to scripture.

[jochhejaam]

I know only the very basics regarding the RCC. What I will say, with all due respect to my Brothers, smeagol and travis2, is that I believe it's significant that there are a large number of Catholics that convert to being Evangelical Protestants, but it's extremely rare for it to be the other way around.

Would anyone care to address the reasons for this?

[leemajors]

I know only the very basics regarding the RCC. What I will say, with all due respect to my Brothers, smeagol and travis2, is that I believe it's significant that there are a large number of Catholics that convert to being Evangelical Protestants, but it's extremely rare for it to be the other way around.

Would anyone care to address the reasons for this?

a major hurdle would be the time commitment and classes it takes to be formally adopted into the Catholic Church - there is a lengthy process involved to be formally recognized - RCIA classes i believe, and it can take a year. that would definitely be a stopping point for most looking to convert. As far as i know about Protestants, there is nothing that formal or lengthy involved. here is some more information about it that is correct as far as i know - it was a topic as mass sometimes when i was in high school and in CCD:

http://catholicism.about.com/cs/education/a/RCIA03.htm

[101A]

a major hurdle would be the time commitment and classes it takes to be formally adopted into the Catholic Church - there is a lengthy process involved to be formally recognized - RCIA classes i believe, and it can take a year. that would definitely be a stopping point for most looking to convert. As far as i know about Protestants, there is nothing that formal or lengthy involved. here is some more information about it that is correct as far as i know - it was a topic as mass sometimes when i was in high school and in CCD:

http://catholicism.about.com/cs/education/a/RCIA03.htm

My wife did it, took a couple of months - I think a class a week. She learned alot: she was a graduate student @ A&M at the time, and had a very liberal priest. She's protestant again.

[johnsmith]

My wife did it, took a couple of months - I think a class a week. She learned alot: she was a graduate student @ A&M at the time, and had a very liberal priest. She's protestant again.

I took it as well, just to learn more about Catholicism in general. It is very interesting and you really do learn a lot. It's also a good opportunity in which to argue some of the Catholic views and then hear their side of the story. Even if you disagree with it still, at least you've heard their side of the story.

[ploto]

Evangelicals target Catholics. I have always been amazed that so many are much more concerned with converting Catholics than actually trying to reach those with no faith at all. I know someone who rejoiced every time he got a Catholic to leave his family's church. I'm sure Jesus is proud.

[ploto]

I think this is beautiful. Maybe it's because I am a mother.

The Blessed Virgin Mary is to be called Queen not only on account of her divine motherhood but also because by the will of God she had a great part in the work of our salvation. . . . In this work of redemption the blessed Virgin Mary was closely associated with her Christ. . . . Just as Christ, because he redeemed us, is by a special le our King and Lord, so too is Blessed Mary, our Queen and our Mistress, because of the unique way in which she co-operated in our redemption. She provided her very substance for his body, she offered him willingly for us, and she took a unique part in our salvation by desiring it, praying for it, and so obtaining it. . . .

[101A]

Some evangelicals target Catholics. I have always been amazed that some are more concerned with converting Catholics than actually trying to reach those with no faith at all. I know someone who rejoiced every time he got a Catholic to leave his family's church. I'm sure Jesus is proud.

fixed

btw: I was never targeted.

How about the "Come Home" ad campaign the Catholic Church ran a few years back. Were you disgusted at that?

[101A]

I think this is beautiful. Maybe it's because I am a mother.

The Blessed Virgin Mary is to be called Queen not only on account of her divine motherhood but also because by the will of God she had a great part in the work of our salvation. . . . In this work of redemption the blessed Virgin Mary was closely associated with her Christ. . . . Just as Christ, because he redeemed us, is by a special le our King and Lord, so too is Blessed Mary, our Queen and our Mistress, because of the unique way in which she co-operated in our redemption. She provided her very substance for his body, she offered him willingly for us, and she took a unique part in our salvation by desiring it, praying for it, and so obtaining it. . . .

As beutiful as that is, I would have to agee with Phenomanu that they are also, quite probably, blasphemous from a scriptual perspective.