Co- Redemptrix

[GodsGrace]

Concupiscence is NOT a sin. It is the proclivity toward sin.
This is what we are born into. We're not guilty of Adam's sin.

Our inheritance is death BECAUSE of his sin.
Baptism erases this sentence - NOT the condition.

Oh. You need to learn about original sin.
You never explained why babies are baptized.

Clue: One has to do with the other.
Come on Mr. Professional Catholic.
Give us the explanation...

And while you're at it tell us WHO came up with the idea of original sin...

Instead of just spewing hatred, teach us something.

 

[GodsGrace]

This is the most asinine thing I have ever seen.

It is impossible to say WHO gets into Heaven and who doesn't.
Only GOD knows who doesn't make it.

However, I DO agree with the above text in RED . . .

Sure you agree with it.
Why should the CC or the bishop or the priest be interested in teaching the bible.
Better to spend the time watching TV, visiting someone or other, and playing cards or something.
Yeah.

 

[BreadOfLife]

ANNULLED.

You do have a problem with English.
I SAID that I never used the word ANNULLED.

Persons that did NOT have their first marriage ANNULLED are remarried and receiving communion.

And anyway, the church takes presidence over God??
Jesus said there is no divorce other than for fornication, adultery, unfaithfulness.

Now go ahead and advise me of all the other reasons for annulment. I don't know legal canon very well, but I do know under what conditions one may have a marriage annuled for the cost of about $5,000. and the bishop's approval.

Your babblings will mean nothing to me.
Get your nose out of the CCC and come into the real world. That book is 25 years old and things change.
Oh. Did you hear there might be a new CCC coming out. Or maybe a commentary to explain it because, as I've said several times, it is NOT easily understood.

I have 2 copies of the Catechism and there is not ONE thing in there that I find "difficult" to understand.
However, if there is a way to make it easier for some to understand - I'm ALL for it.

Anyway - your comments about remarried people in general being able to receive is completely false - like almost everything else you claim.
For this to have happened - there would have to be a new version of the Catechism - which there hasn't been . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Oh. You need to learn about original sin.
You never explained why babies are baptized.

Clue: One has to do with the other.
Come on Mr. Professional Catholic.
Give us the explanation...

And while you're at it tell us WHO came up with the idea of original sin...

Instead of just spewing hatred, teach us something.

Not only did I already answer this - I gave you the paragraphs from the Catechism on Infant Baptism and WHY ther are baptized.

You can LIE all you want - but on an online forum like this - everything is documented.
Go back and R*E*A*D post #368. It's a couple of posts after the one where I proved you wrong about Mary being called "MOTHER OF GOD" in the Catechism . . .

 

[GodsGrace]

I have 2 copies of the Catechism and there is not ONE thing in there that I find "difficult" to understand.
However, if there is a way to make it easier for some to understand - I'm ALL for it.

Anyway - your comments about remarried people in general being able to receive is completely false - like almost everything else you claim.
For this to have happened - there would have to be a new version of the Catechism - which there hasn't been . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Sure you agree with it.
Why should the CC or the bishop or the priest be interested in teaching the bible.
Better to spend the time watching TV, visiting someone or other, and playing cards or something.
Yeah.

Your lame response notwithstanding - it IS the responsibility of EVERY Christian to educate.
If you don't know that - then you don't know Christ . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Translation: "You got me again BoL - and I have nothing intelligent with which to respond . . ."

 

[BreadOfLife]

Tan therefore we are all telling the truth does not that than make you teh liar.... so why are you here than, how can you be exposing the lies of those who are telling teh truth.. or dont you understand english.

At the very least - I can SPELL it . . .

 

[GodsGrace]

Not only did I already answer this - I gave you the paragraphs from the Catechism on Infant Baptism and WHY ther are baptized.

You can LIE all you want - but on an online forum like this - everything is documented.
Go back and R*E*A*D post #368. It's a couple of posts after the one where I proved you wrong about Mary being called "MOTHER OF GOD" in the Catechism . . .

Here's post 368:

The Church has never strayed away from the teaching on Original Sin - NOR has it strayed from its teaching on Infant Baptism, and it never will. You may LIVE in Italy - but you're about as out-of-touch with the Church as a person can be . . .

Original Sin is a Scriptural dogma and a condition that we are ALL born into. The only exceptions were Adam & Eve, Jesus and Mary.
Because of it, we all suffer the condition of concupiscence, which is the proclivity towards sin.

Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1250 Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called.50 The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they NOT to confer Baptism shortly after birth.51

1251 Christian parents will recognize that this practice also accords with their role as nurturers of the life that God has entrusted to them.52

1252 The practice of infant Baptism is an immemorial tradition of the Church. There is explicit testimony to this practice from the second century on, and it is quite possible that, from the beginning of the apostolic preaching, when whole "households" received baptism, infants may also have been baptized.53

Is this the very best you can do?
It's more than apparent you've never had to actually EXPLAIN it to anyone.

Go ahead. In your own words, explain it as if I know nothing about it. Which is what I used to do.

P.S. You yourself said that a person must believe as an adult or baptism means nothing.

See. I keep giving you clues, but you just don't know the answer.
Again: Why do babies get baptized?

 

[GodsGrace]

Your lame response notwithstanding - it IS the responsibility of EVERY Christian to educate.
If you don't know that - then you don't know Christ . . .

And HOW does one educate onesself when the RCC said, just about 30 yrs ago, that it was IMPOSSIBLE for a lay person to UNDERSTAND the bible and reading it was discouraged for this reason.

Another lie?

 

[GodsGrace]

At the very least - I can SPELL it . . .

That was rather rude of you.
And you call yourself a Christian...
Read the beatitudes
Mathew 5:3-10

It would do you some good.

 

[GodsGrace]

Translation: "You got me again BoL - and I have nothing intelligent with which to respond . . ."

 

[mjrhealth]

At the very least - I can SPELL it . .

So than we are telling teh truth, Thanks BOL for clarifying that. No more misunderstandings. Typing errors left in , because.

Now we can finally get back to whats important, Jesus

 

[GodsGrace]

So than we are telling teh truth, Thanks BOL for clarifying that. No more misunderstandings. Typing errors left in , because.

Now we can finally get back to whats important, Jesus

It did seem purposeful ...

 

[mjrhealth]

It did seem purposeful ...

Maybe to Him, did nothing for me. Seemed like a waste of so many posts. Better things in life to do, like show the world Jesus, bit hard when so many christians dont care much for Him. And that He did show me, They worship me with there lips....

 

[Dcopymope]

Ummmm, that's not true.

John 19:26-27
When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple there whom he loved, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son. Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother.”

Virtually EVERY single Early Church Father confirmed their understanding of this passage was that John represented ALL of mankind.

If you understand that Mary gave birth to Jesus, the Head of the Body, then you have to understand that she gave birth to the entire Body since a body can’t be separated. So, she gave birth to the members as well. She gave physical birth to Jesus, and made it possible for ALL us to receive spiritual life through Him.

Well, Jesus was dying, so he had to pick somebody as caretaker for his mother, as was a typical Jewish tradition for widows. From this one vague little verse, Mary has been exalted as the mother of the body of believers, as sinless, as the "queen over all things", and as the intercessor for our prayers, all entirely blasphemous fabrications of men, backed up nowhere in scripture.

The Virgin Mary . . . is acknowledged and honored as being truly the MOTHER OF GOD and of the redeemer.

Is the "MOTHER OF GOD" and the "redeemer" supposed to be the same person, or is this referring to two different persons? Anyone can answer this question, it doesn't have to be BOL.

 

[aspen]

Mary is the Mother of God, who is our redeemer

 

[Dcopymope]

Mary is the Mother of God, who is our redeemer

So both terms are referring to the son and not the Father, got it.

 

[aspen]

So both terms are referring to the son and not the Father, got it.

Of course, you cannot exclude the Father from the Son....John 14:9

 

[Dcopymope]

Of course, you cannot exclude the Father from the Son....John 14:9

So the Father has a mother?