[paraclete]

“

We see the completion of Christ’s ministry much the same way. The auscultation of some Protestants when they hear Christ’s last words ‘it is finished,’ is to hear the gurgle of ‘no more can be done,’ the work is done, shut the doors! Go home! You can’t add more to perfection! The Kingdom of God ends on the Cross, faith and the Mystical Body of Christ starts and ends on this last breath. The sacrifice is complete, priestly prayers and dedication can roll up on a Cross and go home – cover-it-up, put-it-away, it’s- too-hard-to-look-at type of faith.


JoeT

I think the great problem, Joe, is that the RCC thinks Christ needs help and so they have given him a co-redemptrix, a concept completely unsupported by Scripture. It was a finished work at Calvary and it still is. No further work of redemption needs to be done. However there is something left for us to do, appropriate the work of Christ, and work out our salvation with fear and trembling, a concept which seems lost today.

[inhisservice]

JoeT777

Why sure it’s literal, unembroidered. I can see how you can take verses John 6:26-48 (51) metaphorically, but then you’re left with verses John 6:52-72 which are emphatically literal; even Protestant writers such as

No it is not. Moreover He was not talking about the Eucharist there at all. That is what the RC would want everybody to believe. They insist and you insist on this because only then does the non-scriptural RC doctrine of the transubstantiation stand. Sorry but Christs' very act of dividing of the bread and wind to His disciples was symbolic

This was foretold in Isaiah, “feed your enemies with their own flesh: and they shall be made drunk with their own blood, as with new wine: and all flesh shall know, that I am the Lord that save you, and your Redeemer the Mighty One (Isaiah 49:26). If Christ didn’t feed them flesh, then he wasn’t the “Mighty One” now was he?

.

This does not make any sense. You are extracting non-existent meaning from the verse.

If you reject Mary you reject Christ, if you reject His Church you reject Mary.

No that is non-scriptural. That is just one of the technique the RC uses to force you to accept Mary as someone she is not.

To say that Mary was born with original sin and actual sin means that she was a slave to sin as are all of us born of man.

First of all "That all of us are born with an original sin" is in itself a non-scriptural hoax. And yes Mary was a slave to sin as all of us are. For the scripture says that only Christ is without sin no one else is.

The ‘Perfect Sacrificial Lamb’ would have been born out of a slave to the devil and resided in filth; thus such a person does not meet prophetically and divine requirement for perfection - not my requirement, but God's requirement to send the PERFECT Lamb and the Messiah.

I have already explained about this guess you did not read it properly.

[adam7gur]

Joe
If I would have come to the church that you personally attend, I would really ask if Jesus is the owner of that ''house'', simply because the spirit that you manifest here among us has nothing in common with the spirit of Christ. Do you honestly believe that your spirit is Christ's spirit? I say that there is nothing in the way you express yourself that can even remind me my Lord. You are far from being a Christian and do not fool yourself that you are simply because you attend a gathering of people who name themselves a church. A Christian is one who has a living relationship with the Christ and when someone does so it is obvious. In your case I see you have a very close relationship with fanaticism. I don't see Life coming out of you, I don't see Light coming out of you, I don't see Christ coming out of you. I can see a lot of Joe coming out of you but as Christians we are supposed to die so that Christ may live through us.
You are in need of the basic things of the gospel of our Lord and you have to do something about it. Build your relationship with the Lord instead of building your relationship with what you think is the church.
May the Lord Jesus the Christ support you and stand by you, so that you may willingly crucify yourself in order for Him to live inside you forever, Amen!

[JoeT777]

I think the great problem, Joe, is that the RCC thinks Christ needs help and so they have given him a co-redemptrix, a concept completely unsupported by Scripture. It was a finished work at Calvary and it still is. No further work of redemption needs to be done. However there is something left for us to do, appropriate the work of Christ, and work out our salvation with fear and trembling, a concept which seems lost today.

Just to point out a few things, let me start with the small fact that it was Mary’s Child that was hung on the cross at Calvary, no other mother suffered so much as the loss of so perfect a son. Her presence at the foot of the Cross (Jn.19:26) testifies to her ‘share’ in the suffering of Christ on your behalf.

Another important fact is that ‘co’ in the title “Coredemptrix” attests to to her suffering; not that she was “equal to,” but rather “with” Christ coming from the Latin “cum”. Mary is subordinate to Christ’s redemption. Without her blessed humility our instrument of salvation would not have been possible.

If ever this Marian dogma is defined by the Church and becomes a doctrine all of us can applaud the recognition of Mary’s unique role in opening of the possibility for salvation through Christ.

We pray: HAIL HOLY QUEEN, mother of mercy; our life, our sweetness, and our hope. To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve. We long to hear you salutation, blessed are you that have believed, because those things shall be accomplished that were spoken to you by the Lord. (Cf. Luke 1:43)

JoeT

[arcura]

inhisservice,
Surprise!!
We are both right.
Having a working faith that perceivers saves.
And partaking of the body and blood of Christ in the form of the consecrated Eucharist is a prerequisite for possessing eternal life.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[Wondergirl]

And partaking of the body and blood of Christ in the form of the consecrated Eucharist is a prerequisite for possessing eternal life.

It is? Where in the Bible does it say that?

[Athos]

inhisservice,

And partaking of the body and blood of Christ in the form of the consecrated Eucharist is a prerequisite for possessing eternal life.

Fred

That is certainly not Catholic doctrine, Arcura.

[paraclete]

And partaking of the body and blood of Christ in the form of the consecrated Eucharist is a prerequisite for possessing eternal life.

Fred

Fred I would very much like to see your Scriptural basis for this pronouncement

[arcura]

All...
Please read the gospel of John.
It's in there Read all of Chapter six for it is extremely important regarding the Eucharist but...
The verse you folks want is this John 6:55  He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[paraclete]

Just to point out a few things, let me start with the small fact that it was Mary's Child that was hung on the cross at Calvary, no other mother suffered so much as the loss of so perfect a son. Her presence at the foot of the Cross (Jn.19:26) testifies to her 'share' in the suffering of Christ on your behalf.

Joe how dare you down grade Jesus to Mary's child, making him of no more significance than his mother. Mary did not walk Palistine, Mary did not heal the sick, drive out demons and raise the dead, Mary did not suffer the passion and Mary was not crucified and died. Mary did not rise from the dead. Mary is in every way inferior to Jesus, and I HAVE NO DOUBT WOULD TELL YOU SO HERSELF

Another important fact is that 'co' in the title “Coredemptrix” attests to to her suffering; not that she was “equal to,” but rather “with” Christ coming from the Latin “”. Mary is subordinate to Christ's redemption. Without her blessed humility our instrument of salvation would not have been possible.

You have not denied that the RCC calls Mary the co-redemptrix, no matter how you twist it it is an attempt to elevate her to equal status and the position of part of the godhead. Your un-holy trinity is the Father, Jesus and Mary, something totally unscriptural

If ever this Marian dogma is defined by the Church and becomes a doctrine all of us can applaud the recognition of Mary's unique role in opening of the possibility for salvation through Christ.

What absolute rubbish, only God himself could open the possibility of salvation through Christ. Get out of your head and into Scripture

We pray: HAIL HOLY QUEEN, mother of mercy; our life, our sweetness, and our hope. To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve. We long to hear you salutation, blessed are you that have believed, because those things shall be accomplished that were spoken to you by the Lord. (Cf. Luke 1:43)

JoeT

What this has to do with Luke 1:43 is beyond me. How twisted is your intrepretation? That is straight out idolatory

[arcura]

Are you sick of something?
Joe IS right again.
Jesus IS Mary's child or don't you believe the bible.
She gave birth to Him, God the Son, Jesus Christ.
THEREFORE Jesus IS Mary's child.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[paraclete]

Are you sick of something?
Joe IS right again.
Jesus IS Mary's child or don't you believe the bible.
She gave birth to Him, God the Son, Jesus Christ.
THEREFORE Jesus IS Mary's child.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Get a life, Fred, Jesus stands alone as the redeemer even God the Father says in the Bible, I am your salvation, Mary is little more than a bystander and any suggestion she is more than that is pure fantasy

[JoeT777]

Joe how dare you down grade Jesus to Mary's child, making him of no more significance than his mother. Mary did not walk Palistine, Mary did not heal the sick, drive out demons and raise the dead, Mary did not suffer the passion and Mary was not crucified and died. Mary did not rise from the dead. Mary is in every way inferior to Jesus, and I HAVE NO DOUBT WOULD TELL YOU SO HERSELF

If Christ wasn't the human being Jesus, then Scripture is not truthful? If Chrsit wasn't the being Jesus, then who was He? We hold that Christ was man and we hold the Christ is God. As man, then he had a mother; would the perfect man have had an 'imperfect' mother? How do you know that Mary didn't walk Palestine with Christ? And though she didn't heal the sick, drive out demons, raise the dead, and then could Christ the man have done it without a Mother?

You have not denied that the RCC calls Mary the co-redemptrix, no matter how you twist it it is an attempt to elevate her to equal status and the position of part of the godhead. Your un-holy trinity is the Father, Jesus and Mary, something totally unscriptural

But, I'm forced to deny it, because there is no doctrine (yet) that requires us to give title of 'with-the Redeemer' to Mary; it wouldn't be elevating her anyway. She already holds the title in perpetuity.

What absolute rubbish, only God himself could open the possibility of salvation through Christ. Get out of your head and into Scripture

So now you pretend to say how God holds out salvation for mankind? What way would be required of God? Would your god only 'save' like minded book readers? Would your god only 'save' those who find it contrary to the natural, innate, and inalienable right and liberty and dignity of man, to subject himself to any authority, the root, rule, measure, and sanction of which is not in himself.

What this has to do with Luke 1:43 is beyond me. How twisted is your interpretation? That is straight out idolatry

Yes, I can see. It is way beyond you.

JoeT

[Wondergirl]

would the perfect man have had an 'imperfect' mother?

Yes, He did. The Bible never says Mary was sinless.

How do you know that Mary didn't walk Palestine with Christ?

If she did, why doesn't the NT mention it? Other women are mentioned as being Jesus' followers. Mary is mentioned in the Cana story... and as one who stood at the foot of the cross.

And though she didn't heal the sick, drive out demons, raise the dead, and then could Christ the man have done it without a Mother?

Did He need her to hold His hand? Of course, He could have done it without her, and as far as we know, He did!

there is no doctrine (yet) that requires us to give title of 'with-the Redeemer' to Mary... She already holds the title in perpetuity.

No, she doesn't. Why would she?

[JoeT777]

Yes, He did. The Bible never says Mary was sinless.

And how many others are called “full of Grace” in New Testament Scripture and what is his name? Does being ‘full of Grace” mean anything? Is a Divine proclamation, ‘full of Grace,’ to be shucked off like so much bad breath.

If she did, why doesn't the NT mention it? Other women are mentioned as being Jesus' followers. Mary is mentioned in the Cana story... and as one who stood at the foot of the cross.

And where in the New Testament does it say Mary didn’t.

Did He need her to hold His hand? Of course, He could have done it without her, and as far as we know, He did!

No he didn’t need her to hold His Hand? But, he did need a clean temple to reside in for 9 months; and He did need her to give birth. He did need her to raise the Christ Child.

No, she doesn't. Why would she?

She carries whatever title heaven chooses to give her.

JoeT

[Wondergirl]

And how many others are called “full of Grace”

That doesn't mean she was sinless.

And where in the New Testament does it say Mary didn't.

The obligation is to show she did follow Jesus around and do miracles with Him.

But, he did need a clean temple to reside in for 9 months

Why? God isn't powerful enough to do it only for Jesus?

If that's true, so then would have Mary, in order to be sinless. That problem was solved by the RCC, but what about her mother Anne? And her mother? And her mother? Each one would have had to be sinless in order to produce a perfect daughter whose descendant Mary would have produced Jesus.

It's not Mary's action in being sinless that produced Jesus. It was God's action.

He did need her to give birth. He did need her to raise the Christ Child.

No argument there, but those activities don't make her sinless.

She carries whatever title heaven chooses to give her.

The adjectives ascribed to her in the Gospels do not make her sinless.

[paraclete]

And how many others are called “full of Grace” in New Testament Scripture and what is his name? Does being 'full of Grace” mean anything? Is a Divine proclamation, 'full of Grace,' to be shucked off like so much bad breath.

Joe has it occurred to you that the Holy Ghost infills humans today. How is this different? All it takes is righteousness

And where in the New Testament does it say Mary didn't.

So, if the Scripture is silent, this is the excuse to invent all manner of fancifull tales, because as you say the Scripture doesn't say it is not so. If that isn't the wisdom of the devil, I don't know what is. Remember in the garden he said God didn't say that

No he didn't need her to hold His Hand? But, he did need a clean temple to reside in for 9 months; and He did need her to give birth. He did need her to raise the Christ Child.

Joe no one denies the very real contribution Mary made to the early life of Jesus, however at one point she and his siblings considered him mad, which is an indication of the level of discernment, but ultimately Jesus had to make the decision to go to the cross, we know that was an agonising decision for him, and I don't see Mary being any part of that decision.

She carries whatever title heaven chooses to give her.

Yes and apparently any title man chooses to give her. But no doubt heaven will enlighten us in this regard since the RCC has failed to do so

[arcura]

paraclete,
Thanks but I have a life, the one that I selected for me and it is the best I EVER had.
I chose to be a Catholic after much study and effort to understand it.
It is obvious to me that you do not understand it or even want to.
It is obvious that Jesus could not have been born perfect without being born from a perfect sinless mother.
Why is that so hard to understand.
Jesus was perfect in all things including being a son.
He Honored his mother perfectly so she had to be perfect.
Why is that so hard to understand/
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[Wondergirl]

It is obvious that Jesus could not have been born perfect without being born from a perfect sinless mother.

So you are saying God isn't powerful enough to create a sinless child inside a sinful human mother, that God had to make Mary sinless too? If that's true, why wasn't Mary's mother sinless?

He Honored his mother perfectly so she had to be perfect.

My two sons have never disappointed me, have always honored me, but that hasn't made me perfect, nor did I have to be perfect in order to receive that honor from them.

[paraclete]

paraclete,
Thanks but I have a life, the one that I selected for me and it is the best I EVER had.
I chose to be a Catholic after much study and effort to understand it.
It is obvious to me that you do not understand it or even want to.
It is obvious that Jesus could not have been born perfect without being born from a perfect sinless mother.
Why is that so hard to understand.
Jesus was perfect in all things including being a son.
He Honored his mother perfectly so she had to be perfect.
Why is that so hard to understand/
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Fred you keep repeating the same hackneyed dogma. I understand Catholicism well enough I was raised a Catholic and educated in Catholic schools. What is obvious to me is that the righteouness and sinless nature of Jesus came from his Father and not from his mother.