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

[Rollo Tamasi]

The Pope teaches us to follow Jesus, but you say we should not listen to the Pope but we should listen to you because you are more a pope than the Pope, and we should not follow Jesus because it's what the Pope teaches.

rather than just answer my question, you attack me
a typical roman catholic response, filled with anger and violence

 

[GodsGrace]

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!
You're being sarcastic right now!
And you have been all along.

I try to stick to the subject.
Sometimes we get ahead of ourselves, only human.
But YOU do this a lot !!

Maybe you just don't realize it...

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Hi Mary,
I do want to say this to you...
Many times I've said that Christianity was changed with the reformation in 1,500 AD.

I say that when it is changed for the INCORRECT and unbiblical reason.
For instance, double predestination. THIS was never taught by the early church.

As far as the PV of Mary, we can say that PERHAPS the original church as teaching something incorrect? Like indulgences, for instance.

Indulgences were not biblical and were not accepted by the reformed church.

No where in the bible can we find that Mary and Joseph did not have a normal relationship after marriage.
Mathew 1:25

So relying on what the early church MIGHT have taught for 1,500 years, in this case, is not applicable.

Also, I've asked for something written that the early fathers believed.
No one here has been able to come up with something. Except the Prot. of James, which is very suspect.

IOW, JUST BECAUSE something was taught for a long time, does not make it correct.
Indulgences was not a correct teaching.

Neither was the Inquisition

 

[GodsGrace]

And AGAIN, you are showing that you don't understand Catholic teaching.
There is NO official teaching on whether or not Mary suffered birth pains. If you claim that there is - then I challenge you to produce it from the Catechism.

As for the Protoevalgelium of James - NOBODY is saying that it is Scripture. It is not.
It is an historical document - not an inspired on.

finally - as to your problem with the term "co redemptrix" - according to Scripture - we are ALL supposed to be "co-redemptos". the term "co" or cooperate comes from the Greek "Sunergos".

Paul describes himself as a co-redemptor:
Col. 1:24
Now I rejoice in what I am suffering for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ's afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church.

He says that WE are co-workers (sunergos) with God.
I suggest that you learn about what the Church actually teaches before you go around spouting things off as "facts" . . .

BoL
We are ALL co-redemptors?
So now, all of a sudden, Mary is just like everyone else.
You can't have it both ways.

Please read the CCC paragraph 964, 968, 973
the end of paragraph 773
and so much more.

Just read some of the encyclicals by the last Popes practically DECLARING her co-redemptrix.

THIS is a much more important subject than the PV of Mary.
IMO.

Paul said what he said in Colossians,
but this is not what the CC teaches.

And you know very well that I'm right.
The CC actually uses the words co-redemptrix.

 

[Marymog]

Hi Mary,
I do want to say this to you...
Many times I've said that Christianity was changed with the reformation in 1,500 AD.

I say that when it is changed for the INCORRECT and unbiblical reason.
For instance, double predestination. THIS was never taught by the early church.

As far as the PV of Mary, we can say that PERHAPS the original church as teaching something incorrect? Like indulgences, for instance.

Indulgences were not biblical and were not accepted by the reformed church.

No where in the bible can we find that Mary and Joseph did not have a normal relationship after marriage.
Mathew 1:25

So relying on what the early church MIGHT have taught for 1,500 years, in this case, is not applicable.

Also, I've asked for something written that the early fathers believed.
No one here has been able to come up with something. Except the Prot. of James, which is very suspect.

IOW, JUST BECAUSE something was taught for a long time, does not make it correct.
Indulgences was not a correct teaching.

Hi GG,

Your theory means that 1,500 years from now Christians that still rely on what the Protestant Churches currently teach won't be applicable anymore. That is the logical conclusion of your theory.

In the year 3,000AD Protestant teachings won't be applicable. Then what teaching do we turn to?

Curious Mary

 

[Marymog]

MARY!
You're being sarcastic right now!
And you have been all along.

I try to stick to the subject.
Sometimes we get ahead of ourselves, only human.
But YOU do this a lot !!

Maybe you just don't realize it...

Hi,

So my questions are NOT legitimate?

Curious Mary

 

[GodsGrace]

Hi,

So my questions are NOT legitimate?

Curious Mary

I find that if one sticks to the subject we can get to what we want to say much faster.

Questions that are laced with sarcasim receive less attention from me.
This is my personal method.
I'm sure we're not here to argue but to discuss.
Being sarcastic can lead to arguing.
I've done this at times, but I DO my best to avoid it.

 

[GodsGrace]

Hi GG,

Your theory means that 1,500 years from now Christians that still rely on what the Protestant Churches currently teach won't be applicable anymore. That is the logical conclusion of your theory.

In the year 3,000AD Protestant teachings won't be applicable. Then what teaching do we turn to?

Curious Mary

No Mary,
This is not what it means.

It means that it's possible that the early church DID teach something wrong.

I'd like to say that when I have a doubt I always go to the ECF. I have no problem with that.

But, for instance, take Augustine and predestination.
He opened the way for double predestination for Luther and Calvin.
Even though he was the only theologian of the time to come up with the concept, the church accepted his teaching as fact.

Not everything the ECF said might be correct.
Indulgences, accepted by the Pope, were wrong.
Paying for the forgiveness of sins was wrong --- expecially post mortum! People paid to have the sins of dead persons forgiven!

I also think we're spending too much time on this subject, but that's just my opinion -

I respect the early CC and the ECF. I have nothing against them.
I think the problems started in the 300's with Constantine.
Church and State do not mix well. The church started going astray.
We're trying to get back.

I had heard that the CC was trying to go back to being as in the early years -- but that was not correct, there's no such movement.

I believe Protestants give too little importance to Mary
and Cathoics give too much.

I think this Pope is forever softening up the CC for changes.
That avatar that says: "that's not what I said" is KIND OF funny, but really it isn't. Do we really think the Pope is dumb enough to not know his words are reported all over the world?

Let me stop here.
I'm not an enemy of the CC.
But we must be honest too.

 

[Marymog]

I find that if one sticks to the subject we can get to what we want to say much faster.

Questions that are laced with sarcasim receive less attention from me.
This is my personal method.
I'm sure we're not here to argue but to discuss.
Being sarcastic can lead to arguing.
I've done this at times, but I DO my best to avoid it.

Fair enough GG.

I do not feel I was being sarcastic. I am not TRYING to be sarcastic. I am asking legitimate questions.

Are you saying if they weren't sarcastic, they WOULD be legitimate?

Can you please quote one question that I asked that was sarcastic so that I may re-evaluate HOW I am wording my questions? Please?

Respectfully, Mary

 

[Marymog]

No Mary,
This is not what it means.

It means that it's possible that the early church DID teach something wrong.

I'd like to say that when I have a doubt I always go to the ECF. I have no problem with that.

But, for instance, take Augustine and predestination.
He opened the way for double predestination for Luther and Calvin.
Even though he was the only theologian of the time to come up with the concept, the church accepted his teaching as fact.

Not everything the ECF said might be correct.
Indulgences, accepted by the Pope, were wrong.
Paying for the forgiveness of sins was wrong --- expecially post mortum! People paid to have the sins of dead persons forgiven!

I also think we're spending too much time on this subject, but that's just my opinion -

I respect the early CC and the ECF. I have nothing against them.
I think the problems started in the 300's with Constantine.
Church and State do not mix well. The church started going astray.
We're trying to get back.

I had heard that the CC was trying to go back to being as in the early years -- but that was not correct, there's no such movement.

I believe Protestants give too little importance to Mary
and Cathoics give too much.

I think this Pope is forever softening up the CC for changes.
That avatar that says: "that's not what I said" is KIND OF funny, but really it isn't. Do we really think the Pope is dumb enough to not know his words are reported all over the world?

Let me stop here.
I'm not an enemy of the CC.
But we must be honest too.

Hi GG,

I don't understand how "relying on what the early church MIGHT have taught for 1,500 years.....is not applicable" BUT 1,000 years from now (when the Protestant churches will be 1,500 years old) their teachings will be applicable at that time.

It seems to me (and I could be wrong) you are saying 1,500 years of Catholic Church teaching is not applicable HOWEVER 1,500 years of Protestant teaching is applicable. I don't get it.

You have me confused. Can you justify your statement?

Mary

 

[Marymog]

I find that if one sticks to the subject we can get to what we want to say much faster.

Questions that are laced with sarcasim receive less attention from me.
This is my personal method.
I'm sure we're not here to argue but to discuss.
Being sarcastic can lead to arguing.
I've done this at times, but I DO my best to avoid it.

Hi GG,

What is the subject we are supposed to be discussing? I guess I lost track.

Mary

 

[BreadOfLife]

BoL

I learned from the Catholic Church the doctrine of the CC.
NOT from Catholic Answers.

You wanted proof of what I learned.
I believe I provided you with same.

If you do not agree, it means the church you very much respect is teaching what it does not even believe!
This IS the belief and teaching of the CC.
This IS what I've been taught.

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??

 

[BreadOfLife]

Breadman, Breadman, you don't know what the pope thinks of Mary, do you?

Are you unable to have a lucid conversation or are you just being silly?
For the THIRD time - YOU said: "Hey Breadman, what's the new pope's take on Mary?"

Let me ask my question in a simpler way so that you might understand it:
Exactly what aspect about Mary are you asking about?

Let's see if you can answer it this time . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

No where in the bible can we find that Mary and Joseph did not have a normal relationship after marriage.
Mathew 1:25

So relying on what the early church MIGHT have taught for 1,500 years, in this case, is not applicable.

Also, I've asked for something written that the early fathers believed.
No one here has been able to come up with something. Except the Prot. of James, which is very suspect.

You have gone from being a fair poster to a completely dishonest one.

First of all - I showed you the writings of the Early Church on Mary's Perpetual Virginity - and NOW you claim that "nobody" has shown you anything.

Also - you present Matt. 1:25 as "proof" that Mary and Joseph had sex.
HUH?? How does this verse prove anything??

 

[BreadOfLife]

Amen!
This is done many times in that church.
They DO come up with doctrine whose foundation cannot be biblically supported.

Really??
Give me a few examples.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Sometimes the bible is very clear - this is one of those times...

You and BoL should get together and decide if Mary and Joseph were married or engaged (bethrothed).

Of course, they were bethrothed.

They were married.
The Betrothal period was the time before they came together and lived together.

Matt. 1:18-19
This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit. did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to DIVORCE HER quietly.

You can't "divorce" a person that you're not married to.

 

[epostle1]

Kepha,
I'm a reasonable person.
I never even heard of the above --- not even from the C C.
We don't need grammar or dialectics or anythingj.
Sometimes the bible is very clear - this is one of those times...

"How can this be? I know not a man." is NOT very clear. We need exegetics and hermenuetics especially when a sola scripturist comes along with a new heresey, like the JW's and the SDA, and every heretic in the history of the world.

You and BoL should get together and decide if Mary and Joseph were married or engaged (bethrothed).

You have no business imposing a 21st century American Protestant world view onto 1st century Jewish beliefs and customs.

Of course, they were bethrothed.

Of course, but not in the 21st century American/Italian evangelical/Protestant sense of the term.

Amen!
This is done many times in that church.
They DO come up with doctrine whose foundation cannot be biblically supported.

Which ones? All Catholic doctrines are primarily derived directly or indirectly from the Bible. We see what happens wen the Bible is ripped from the Tradition and Teaching Authority that the Bible flows from. Chaos.
"whose foundation cannot be biblically supported" is a rule that is not in the Bible. "all doctrines, devotions and practices must be explicitly found in the Bible to be valid" IS NOT IN THE BIBLE!! It's a false man made Protestant tradition!!!

 

[BreadOfLife]

BoL
We are ALL co-redemptors?
So now, all of a sudden, Mary is just like everyone else.
You can't have it both ways.

Please read the CCC paragraph 964, 968, 973
the end of paragraph 773
and so much more.

Just read some of the encyclicals by the last Popes practically DECLARING her co-redemptrix.

THIS is a much more important subject than the PV of Mary.
IMO.

Paul said what he said in Colossians,
but this is not what the CC teaches.

And you know very well that I'm right.
The CC actually uses the words co-redemptrix.

Paul taught something wrong?? The Church doesn't teach that we are God's Co-workers??
You don't know what you're talking about.

Catechism of the Catholic Church
306 God is the sovereign master of his plan. But to carry it out he also makes use of his creatures' co-operation. This use is not a sign of weakness, but rather a token of almighty God's greatness and goodness. For God grants his creatures not only their existence, but also the dignity of acting on their own, of being causes and principles for each other, and thus of CO-OPERATING in the accomplishment of his plan.

307 To human beings God even gives the power of freely sharing in his providence by entrusting them with the responsibility of "subduing" the earth and having dominion over it.168 God thus enables men to be intelligent and free causes in order to complete the work of creation, to perfect its harmony for their own good and that of their neighbors. Though often unconscious collaborators with God's will, they can also enter deliberately into the divine plan by their actions, their prayers and their sufferings.169 They then fully become "God's fellow workers" and co-workers for his kingdom.170

Not sure why you would have a problem that we are ALL called to be "co-redemptors" to a certain extent. We are CO-WORKERS (Sunergos) with God (1 Cor. 3:9, 2 Cor. 6:1).

As I showed you earlier - Paul boldly states his role in Col. 1:24 -
"Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ'safflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church."

As for your problems with Paragraphs 964, 968, 973 and 773 of the Catechism - can you explain?
Not sure why you have a problem there, either.

 

[BreadOfLife]

No Mary,
This is not what it means.

It means that it's possible that the early church DID teach something wrong.

I'd like to say that when I have a doubt I always go to the ECF. I have no problem with that.

But, for instance, take Augustine and predestination.
He opened the way for double predestination for Luther and Calvin.
Even though he was the only theologian of the time to come up with the concept, the church accepted his teaching as fact.

Not everything the ECF said might be correct.
Indulgences, accepted by the Pope, were wrong.
Paying for the forgiveness of sins was wrong --- expecially post mortum! People paid to have the sins of dead persons forgiven!

I also think we're spending too much time on this subject, but that's just my opinion -

I respect the early CC and the ECF. I have nothing against them.
I think the problems started in the 300's with Constantine.
Church and State do not mix well. The church started going astray.
We're trying to get back.

I had heard that the CC was trying to go back to being as in the early years -- but that was not correct, there's no such movement.

I believe Protestants give too little importance to Mary
and Cathoics give too much.

I think this Pope is forever softening up the CC for changes.
That avatar that says: "that's not what I said" is KIND OF funny, but really it isn't. Do we really think the Pope is dumb enough to not know his words are reported all over the world?

Let me stop here.
I'm not an enemy of the CC.
But we must be honest too.

No - you ARE an enemy of the Catholic Church because you resort to telling outright LIES to promote your ideas.
This is the definition of what an "anti-Catholic" is - and there are MANY of you on this forum.

One point you just made was that the Church charged people money for the forgiveness of sins. This is a total crock of manure.
At NO time in history did the Church ever teach that sions could be forgiven by paying money for them.

Another lie is that Constantine perverted the Church and veered it off course. This is a classic, albeit, completely unsubstantiated anti-Catholic charge. I defy you to produce ONE single "un-Christian" teaching that came from Constantine's involvement.

Almost every time you post about the Catholic Church - you are dead-wrong - and it's easily provable.
Do your homework before posting so you won't have to be publicly exposed again . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

rather than just answer my question, you attack me
a typical roman catholic response, filled with anger and violence

Violence??
A desperate accusation from a desperate poster . . .