It is not in the bible.....sola scripture

[GodsGrace]

I just proved you wrong with the enlarged, Bold RED text that shows this is NOT a formal definition of the Church.
How could you possibly sit there and repeat your error??

If it's not an official teaching of the chuch,
WHY is it being taught?
Maybe it's better if the CC DOES NOT teach anything after all???

 

[BreadOfLife]

If it's not an official teaching of the chuch,
WHY is it being taught?
Maybe it's better if the CC DOES NOT teach anything after all???

It's not an official position of the Church - it's optional because it is not intrinsically wrong to believe either way.
The Church takes the same position on whether or not Mary died before being assumed into Heaven. Catholics are free to believe either way.

Your problem is that you assume too much about what the Church teaches instead of getting the official position.

 

[Marymog]

If it's not an official teaching of the chuch,
WHY is it being taught?
Maybe it's better if the CC DOES NOT teach anything after all???

Hi GG,

I find your response fascinating. Is your statement tongue in cheek?

Mary

 

[GodsGrace]

It's not an official position of the Church - it's optional because it is not intrinsically wrong to believe either way.
The Church takes the same position on whether or not Mary died before being assumed into Heaven. Catholics are free to believe either way.

Your problem is that you assume too much about what the Church teaches instead of getting the official position.

I don't assume.
I posted proof.
YOU use Catholic Answers.
Anyway, there are other proofs, a pope addressed this, recently, I believe it was Pope John Paul, not sure.

I don't have time for this.

 

[BreadOfLife]

The Immaculate Conception
The Assumption

Both can be shown from Scripture:

The Immaculate Conception
The Greek word is Kecharitomene that Luke used in his Gospel (v.1:28), which is the perfect passive participle, indicates a completed action with permanent result. It translates, “completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace.” It is used as a title.

The Angel didn’t say, “Hail Mary, full of grace.” He said, "Hail, Kecharitomene."

The Assumption of Mary
The Bible shows that Mary is the fulfillment of the Ark of the Covenant - she is the Ark of the NEW Covenant.

In Rev. 11:19, we see the Ark in Heaven. In the very next verse (Rev. 12:1), it describes the Ark - a Woman clothed with the sun and the moon and stars at her feet. She gives birth to Christ - the one who will rule all nations with an iron rod.

She is the ONLY creature described in the entire Book of Revelation as having a full body - head to toe.

Any other "false" doctrines you have a problem with??

 

[GodsGrace]

Hi GG,

I find your response fascinating. Is your statement tongue in cheek?

Mary

Yes. He and I were discussing how the CC does not teach enough some time ago.

If it's going to teach INCORRECTLY, then it's better if it doesn't!

Tongue in Cheek.

 

[GodsGrace]

Both can be shown from Scripture:

The Immaculate Conception
The Greek word is Kecharitomene that Luke used in his Gospel (v.1:28), which is the perfect passive participle, indicates a completed action with permanent result. It translates, “completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace.” It is used as a title.

The Angel didn’t say, “Hail Mary, full of grace.” He said, "Hail, Kecharitomene."

The Assumption of Mary
The Bible shows that Mary is the fulfillment of the Ark of the Covenant - she is the Ark of the NEW Covenant.

In Rev. 11:19, we see the Ark in Heaven. In the very next verse (Rev. 12:1), it describes the Ark - a Woman clothed with the sun and the moon and stars at her feet. She gives birth to Christ - the one who will rule all nations with an iron rod.

She is the ONLY creature described in the entire Book of Revelation as having a full body - head to toe.

Any other "false" doctrines you have a problem with??

Why, you fixed these for me?

The book of Revelation.
Oh my.
I said bye already.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I don't assume.
I posted proof.
YOU use Catholic Answers.
Anyway, there are other proofs, a pope addressed this, recently, I believe it was Pope John Paul, not sure.

I don't have time for this.

No - YOU posted from Catholic Answers.
I told you that they were a very good source but not the Catechism.

Doesn't matter how many Popes have addressed it - unless they taught it definitively.
They haven't - and that's where you're wrong because you assume instead of getting the facts.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Great tactic.
I post paragraphs to show what the CC teaches about Mary being a co-savior and you post back different paragraphs.

That's intellectual honesty??

And you're lying again . . .

NOWHERE in ANY Chuch document is Mary referred to as a "Co-Savior".
That is heresy and the Church doesn't teach that.

Can you stop lying long enough to have an charitable conversation??

 

[BreadOfLife]

LOL
The PV of Mary.
I have to get off this thread!

I'm not the other side of pro-catholics!!
I'm NEUTRAL.

No - you're anti-Catholic.
This is evident by the many lies you have been caught in.

 

[GodsGrace]

No - YOU posted from Catholic Answers.
I told you that they were a very good source but not the Catechism.

Doesn't matter how many Popes have addressed it - unless they taught it definitively.
They haven't - and that's where you're wrong because you assume instead of getting the facts.

For whoever might be interested.
This might be helpful:
Co-Redemptrix - Wikipedia

 

[GodsGrace]

No - you're anti-Catholic.
This is evident by the many lies you have been caught in.

Why do you persevere in speaking to liars???

 

[BreadOfLife]

Why do you persevere in speaking to liars???

Whenever I see or hear somebody lying about Christ's Church - I will expose them and present the truth.

 

[BreadOfLife]

For whoever might be interested.
This might be helpful:
Co-Redemptrix - Wikipedia

Here's a little advice for you:
Don't get your theology from Wikipedia.

You should know better than that . . .

 

[GodsGrace]

This might also be interesting for those really interested.
It presents both views...
Jesus' brothers and sisters from the same mother...
Children belonging to Joseph

NPNF2-06. Jerome: The Principal Works of St. Jerome - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

 

[GodsGrace]

Here's a little advice for you:
Don't get your theology from Wikipedia.

You should know better than that . . .

It took me many years to learn what I know...
Not too many will want to go through what I have....
Wikipedia is a good summation.

 

[OzSpen]

Dear Oz,

A legitimate question is now SARCASIM? A detriment to our conversation?

There is no conversation since you haven't answered the question. How about if you answer my questions and then I will answer yours?

But of course there are no contradictions in scripture. Are there?
They just don't know how to properly interpret scripture like YOU DO?

Curious Mary

Mary, your statement in #954 was, 'Or they just don't know how to properly interpret scripture like YOU DO?'.

That's sarcasm at its best!


Oz

 

[BreadOfLife]

It took me many years to learn what I know...
Not too many will want to go through what I have....
Wikipedia is a good summation.

No - it took you years to be as confused as you are.
It took a long time to develop some of the bizarre notions you have about what you THINK the Catholic Church teaches vs. what it actually teaches.

 

[OzSpen]

Don't get your theology from Wikipedia.

You should know better than that . . .

BoL,

Your view of Wikipedia is not convincing to me. I'm presently writing a curriculum for religious instruction in secular high schools, so I emailed leading evangelical theologian and apologist, Dr Norman Geisler, for an outline of the apologetic model he uses.

What did he do? He referred me to his article on Wikipedia: 'Outline of Geisler's apologetic system'.

Geisler has written 4 vols of Systematic Theology, several vols on apologetics, and he dares to give me an outline of his theological views on defending the faith through an article on Wikipedia. He obviously knows the vision of Wikipedia can be used to promote his views.

Could it be that you are the one out of step with some of the theological work that represents sound theology that is being promoted on Wikipedia?

Oz

 

[Truth]

It took me many years to learn what I know...
Not too many will want to go through what I have....
Wikipedia is a good summation.

Remember, please, that there is Translation, trying to get the right word from one Language to another!!!! Then there is Interpretation!!!! that can be what someone Interpret's it to mean!!! In the Hebrew, it is said that their language is Concrete! and that the Greek language is abstract!
If you look at the Gospels, the Parables, they almost always use terms about crops, and how people react, also He uses situations to describe meanings within meanings. But the Greeks were mostly into Philosophy, so this could mean this and or that, and this being said we need to watch how others try to convince us about what they THINK. I have used many online sources to learn from, some we need to take with a grain of Salt!