Co- Redemptrix

[Richard_oti]

what is the point?

Is there a difference between the holy and the common? Between the clean and unclean? Between good and evil?

Are we not to make a distinction between them?

Shall we attribute one for the other?

 

[BreadOfLife]

Of course God can do what He wants. He can create a woman from sinful parents...through a virgin birth...just like Christ was. Yet, we are not told that Mary was the product of a virgin birth.

That Mary was sinless has been your argument. Concerning 'the way God wanted it' God never does anything that is not necessary.

One thing is for sure is that Mary was not sinless; that she was stained with Adams sin just like you and I.

Stranger

Wrong.

You can't get past "Kecharitomene" - no matter how hard you try.
All you've done to this point is deny its meaning. If Mary was completely, perfectly and enduringly endowed with grace - a completed action with a permanent result - where do you get the idea that she was a sinner?

As for your statement in red - that is subjective.
Hair isn't really necessary - and neither are tonsils. Your appendix isn't necessary, for that matter. Useful and necessary are two different things . . .

 

[Richard_oti]

imo this fails bc that would happen anyway. Statements such as "the blanket is too short" are imo obviously speaking to perspectives, not stating truths?

Indeed it has, for that very reason. And let us not forget, the workings of the so-called "correctors". However, if "the blanket is too short" from my perspective, it is also a "truth" that "the blanket is too short" for me. Perhaps for you, "it is just right", neither too long or too short.

Thus we have the problem of "sin", and what is "sin" to each of us. For myself, it "is too short" to allow myself to continue in transgression of that accounted "Holy". It is "too long" to consider trusting myself. Therefore for it to be just right, I must have faith and trust the one while not leaving the other undone.

Nor, can all of us accept certain things. Can you see yourself annihilating a certain "people" inclusive of the women and children? I can't see myself doing such. Thus perhaps, I am not willing in the "doing God's will".

 

[BreadOfLife]

Is it? To you it might be an asinine argument, you did NOT at all respond to the Scripture I offered, which refuted your claim as to the state of Mary being “sinless.” Are you now trying to put reverse psychology towards your arguments? Is this a ploy taught by your church or just you?

No one here is limiting the power of God we serve, except the god you have created, which by the way, is not the God of the Bible!

Of course, all things are possible with Almighty God, but He’s given us rules and He too abides by those rules. God does not nonchalantly impose His will upon anyone just because He is Sovereign.

God has given His people fundamental principles how they might be able to discern spiritual things. And one of those principles is that, a bad tree cannot produce good fruits nor can a good tree produce bad fruits, as liken to “sinful” parents producing “sinless” children!

The only time God created man “sinless” was with Adam and Eve before the fall.

Mary needed a Savior like anybody else as she also admitted in her magnificat.
I suggest you look in the mirror when you call others disrespectful and arrogant.

To God Be The Glory

I called your argument "asinine" because it IS - and your statements arrogant and disrespectful to God Almighty.

Like your friend Stanger - you guys live in denial because you simply cannot address Mary's title of "Kecharitomene".
As I explained to Stranger, this word indicates a completed action with a permanent result. It translates a "completely, perfectly and enduringly endowed with grace.

For God, who spoke and the universe leapt into existence - having a sinless Mary born of sinful parents was a cake walk.
Neither YOU nor Stranger nor any other faithless person can tell God what He can do or WHO He can do it for.

Like your friend - your arrogance is astounding . . .

 

[Richard_oti]

an evasion, ok. i expect this from Catholics, but not from you tbh

But again, of what sin would any of us convict her?

When the woman was brought forth in sin [adultery], she was brought forth unlawfully. Jesus wrote in the sand not once, but twice. Both times that he wrote, were from the Instruction, revealing a transgression of law in bringing her forth as they did.

Shall we attempt to convict someone of some sin in unrighteousness?

I do not hold that she was necessarily without sin, but neither do I attempt to convict her of some unknown sin. Like I said, I don't know. Nor do I care. Of what "fruit" are all such arguments?

who needs Christ if Mary was sinless?

Did Mary shed her blood as a covering?

Did Mary trust in her own righteousness?

Again, there are those who were reckoned as "righteous". Those who believed and trusted "God", and walked according to His Instruction. Were they necessarily "perfect", maybe not, but they are accounted as "righteous". Shall we, mere men that we are, attempt to ascribe some sin to someone without knowledge to those that have been called "righteous".

why are Pagans even allowed to comment here, i gotta ask?
can we at least have access to whatever Book they are using?

"Pagans" is a rather vague term. For both you and I could be and probably have been described as such. Or, we could use it to describe anyone, even a "Christian" who does as the "Pagans" do / did. I mean, who took down a decorated tree?

As for "book", again you would have to be more specific. We have access to the same "Scriptures" that those in the time of Jesus did. The question is, do we believe said "Book"?

Which begs the question: "According to whose understanding or intended meaning do we believe it?" I don't think any of us are completely "doing God's will", as not one of us seems to fully grasp the fullness of it. Most of us, have settled into our place of "comfort". or into a state of "complacency". I may be reckoned as "lukewarm", perhaps even "cold" compared to what I once was. I am no longer what I would really consider a "seeker". However, in my habitual and perpetual "seeking" ... I caught a glimpse of Durin's Bain.

You OTOH: Are a "seeker" currently. The only question which remains, is to what end your seeking shall bring you.

 

[Richard_oti]

right then at least. But imo the v can be taken too literally too

Yet, it comes from the very Psalm that "none righteous" came from [cf Ps 14].

So if it is "right then" for that instance, could it not also be "right then" for the other instance.
If one aspect can be taken too literally, can not the same also be said of the other.

Thus, where and how do we draw the line and make that determination. It is not likely we shall be able to come to one accord. At least, not in this life.

 

[bbyrd009]

the notion of co-redemptrix indicates that Christ is also worshipped religiously, as an icon; a snake on a pole, Nehushtan
looked at, with the eyes

 

[Jun2u]

I called your argument "asinine" because it IS - and your statements arrogant and disrespectful to God Almighty.

Like your friend Stanger - you guys live in denial because you simply cannot address Mary's title of "Kecharitomene".
As I explained to Stranger, this word indicates a completed action with a permanent result. It translates a "completely, perfectly and enduringly endowed with grace.

For God, who spoke and the universe leapt into existence - having a sinless Mary born of sinful parents was a cake walk.
Neither YOU nor Stranger nor any other faithless person can tell God what He can do or WHO He can do it for.

Like your friend - your arrogance is astounding . . .

Still, you have not made a rebuttal to the Scripture reference I offered that refuted your claim as to the “sinless” state of Mary, and that, a good tree can never produce bad fruits.

Does the word “Kecharitomene” has the same idea or meaning as when the woman in Luke 11, lifted up her voice, and said unto Jesus, “Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou has sucked?”

WHAT WAS THE ANSWER?

“Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.”

We know whose arrogance is astounding, don't flatter yourself!

To God Be The Glory

 

[Stranger]

Hebrews 13:8

This verse does not prove anything you are saying or disprove what I have been saying. I am not denying the Deity of Christ the Son. But the Son as a Man had a distinct beginning. That was at the incarnation. We know Him as Jesus Christ.

The point being, Mary gave birth to the God/Man, Jesus Christ. She didn't give birth to God.

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

You're trying to talk out of both sides of your mouth.
You acknowledge that Jesus is God - and that Mary gave birth to the God Man - but she didn't give birth to God??

This is a preposterous position you've put yourself in . . .

The idea that Mary gave birth to God is what's preposterous. The idea that Mary was sinless is what's preposterous.

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

Wrong.

You can't get past "Kecharitomene" - no matter how hard you try.
All you've done to this point is deny its meaning. If Mary was completely, perfectly and enduringly endowed with grace - a completed action with a permanent result - where do you get the idea that she was a sinner?

As for your statement in red - that is subjective.
Hair isn't really necessary - and neither are tonsils. Your appendix isn't necessary, for that matter. Useful and necessary are two different things . . .

There is nothing there with 'kecharitomene' to get passed. It says nothing of sinlessness. Mary was a sinner because she was born of the Adamic race.

Stranger

 

[aspen]

This verse does not prove anything you are saying or disprove what I have been saying. I am not denying the Deity of Christ the Son. But the Son as a Man had a distinct beginning. That was at the incarnation. We know Him as Jesus Christ.

The point being, Mary gave birth to the God/Man, Jesus Christ. She didn't give birth to God.

Stranger

Your comment proves you are willing to misread scripture to support your position

 

[Stranger]

Your comment proves you are willing to misread scripture to support your position

No, (Heb. 13:8) does not prove that the Son as a Man had no beginning.

It is so elementary to see that the Son as a Man had a beginning at the incarnation. To say otherwise is foolish. To say Mary is the mother of God is foolish. Mary is the mother of that Holy Thing, the God/Man, Jesus Christ.

Stranger

 

[aspen]

No, (Heb. 13:8) does not prove that the Son as a Man had no beginning.

It is so elementary to see that the Son as a Man had a beginning at the incarnation. To say otherwise is foolish. To say Mary is the mother of God is foolish. Mary is the mother of that Holy Thing, the God/Man, Jesus Christ.

Stranger

You can call it foolish all you want the scripture is clear

 

[tabletalk]

From 1Corinthians 3: 21. Therefore let no one boast in men. For all things are yours: 22. whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas,..."

The Catholic Church seems to boast in men (such as the Apostle Peter), and women (such as the virgin Mary).

 

[GodsGrace]

You can call it foolish all you want the scripture is clear

Just reading through.
Mary the mother of God.
It does sound like Mary came first and then God.
Although I know and understand what this means since Jesus IS GOD,
I do have to say that she is the mother of the 2nd person of the Holy Trinity when that person became incarnated as Jesus.

What I don't understand is why this is taken to be so wrong by the CC, and I do understand their reasoning as to why she is called that.

In the CCC the heading is:
Mary, the Mother of the Son of God

THIS is easier to live with, IMHO. And that's all it is...

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church


485 The mission of the Holy Spirit is always conjoined and ordered to that of the Son.122 The Holy Spirit, "the Lord, the giver of Life", is sent to sanctify the womb of the Virgin Mary and divinely fecundate it, causing her to conceive the eternal Son of the Father in a humanity drawn from her own.


509 Mary is truly "Mother of God" since she is the mother of the eternal Son of God made man, who is God himself.


723 In Mary, the Holy Spirit fulfills the plan of the Father's loving goodness. Through the Holy Spirit, the Virgin conceives and gives birth to the Son of God. By the Holy Spirit's power and her faith, her virginity became uniquely fruitful.105

 

[bbyrd009]

"There are none that seek".

Regardless of such all inclusive statements, we see that some were accounted as righteous. That there were some that sought, otherwise they could not have been accounted as such.

then Mary should have been decreasing, right, i don't see how she can get a pass from that and keep any semblance of Christ together. If there was a single sinless person before Christ, we don't need Christ. Why isn't Mary decreasing? It's obvious, but you just aren't going to like it

 

[bbyrd009]

Per Luke, John tB was filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother's womb. Of what sin would you convict a man filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother's womb?

of which sin is not the relevant part imo, but i would say any other sin that a child might commit in the ego-establishment stage, although again i would not doubt that they were "exceptional" children as well ok. We can even observe "old souls" in little kids today, relatively speaking. John was not sinless either, and Scripture makes this very plain, that no one is without sin

 

[bbyrd009]

And if she did sin, *IF*, she had confession and repentance. But again, of what sin can we possibly convict her?

again, i am called to overlook and forgive sins, not dredge them up, and 'what sin' is not the point at all, "what polytheism?" likely is. Mary had sex, and liked it, ok. John Baptist was chosen, but so was David lol. this sinless mold is not a good thing, it is not Christian, and will not hold up to Scripture. It is Pagan, wadr.

 

[bbyrd009]

Even with Christ, if you or I or anyone should choose to return or to continue to live a life of sin, shall Christ be of any avail?

no, but that is bc of the choice made by the person, so diff subject