You're being taken to the woodshed!
Your crime?
Playing a theological shell game with members of NB in order to promote the RCC!
I quote from the following post: "Theologians of the Catholic Church universally embrace the idea of free will, but generally do not view free will as existing apart, from or in contradiction to grace. St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas wrote extensively on free will, with Augustine focusing on the importance of free will in his responses to the Manichaeans, and also on the limitations of a concept of unlimited free will as denial of grace, in his refutations of Pelagius. Catholic Christianity's emphasis on free will and grace is often contrasted with predestination in Reformed Protestant Christianity, especially after the Counter-Reformation, but in understanding differing conceptions of free will it is just as important to understand the differing conceptions of the nature of God, focusing on the idea that God can be all-powerful and all-knowing even while people continue to exercise free will, because God does not exist in time (see the link to Catholic Encyclopedia below for more)."
Looks good enough. So why would Tracheostomy have a problem with this?
1. I assert the exact opposite; that Reformed theologians are far more Augustinian than the RCC with regards to free will, and that it is the Catholics who are more Pelagian than any other denomination.
2. I assert that Futbol's copy-paste is worded to make you assume that Augustine is on the side of the RCC with regards to grace and free will, when there is no real proof to back it.
3. I further assert that Futbol (or any other Roman Catholic for that matter) is unable to even clarify the substantive connections between every sentence in the above quote, from period to capitalization.
Augustine ---> Modern Catholic Theologians (what's the relation again?)
RCC on Free Will ---> Reformed view of predestination (where's the contrast again?)
RCC view on nature of God ---> Reformed view (where is the conflict again?)
4. I'm gambling that Futbol does not have the courage to actually admit #1 and #2.
5. Nor do I believe that Futbol is actually able to define the doctrine of free will without compromising Augustine and sounding more like Pelagius.
6. I assert that I can back my stance in one link, with pertinent quotes, in less than 30 minutes of reading time, with the backing of holy scripture, and all without an endless back and forth. I can nail it all shut in one move and settle it for good.
Can Futbol say the same?
Doubt it.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Comments Policy
Trach, Wow....where to
March 12, 2008 - 21:31 ET by futbolisgreat1Trach,
Wow....where to start...
1) Even though I am a devout Roman Catholic, or at least I try to be, I do not read the Bible or know all the chapter, verses of the Bible as well as I should. I am almost sure you could bit me there.
2) I like your, "Futbol wouldn't have the courage..." with this statment, you live me very little wiggle room. If I don't admit to this, deny it, etc, I am a coward, (I know, not literally. I know I am not debating Leon or Syrius). If I do admit to it, then I am admitting that the RCC is wrong, right?
3) I am unsure how much you know about the RCC, but I do not, ever have or ever will, or know of any Roman Catholic that believes in Predestination. Free Will all the way baby.
4) St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, both known as Doctors of the Roman Catholic Church and devout defenders of our Faith. Both considered and actually are/were geniuses beyond Theology. But these two Catholic Saints are considered Doctors of the Church. Unsure how they wouldn't be supporting RCC.
6) Unsure what you mean by your #3, but the debate is welcome.
By the way, what religion do you practice.
Fut: I like your, "Futbol
March 12, 2008 - 21:42 ET by tracheostomyFut: I like your, "Futbol wouldn't have the courage..." with this statment, you live me very little wiggle room. If I don't admit to this, deny it, etc, I am a coward, (I know, not literally. I know I am not debating Leon or Syrius). If I do admit to it, then I am admitting that the RCC is wrong, right?
I said I was gambling. Any wiggle room is fair, right? Even your 1%, remember? >;)
I'm telling you to bring it.
Fut: I am unsure how much you know about the RCC, but I do not, ever have or ever will, or know of any Roman Catholic that believes in Predestination. Free Will all the way baby.
Then you are a full-blown Pelagian and not an Augustinian.
Fut: St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, both known as Doctors of the Roman Catholic Church and devout defenders of our Faith. Both considered and actually are/were geniuses beyond Theology. But these two Catholic Saints are considered Doctors of the Church. Unsure how they wouldn't be supporting RCC.
I'm waiting for your proof that they in fact, are. You're even welcome to bring in a substitute debater if you wish.
Fut: Unsure what you mean by your #3, but the debate is welcome.
The statements do not chain together logically from sentence-to-sentence and subject-to-subject. See parenthetical questions for clarification(s).
Fut: By the way, what religion do you practice.(?)
I'm a Reformed Augustinian Monergist. Everyone seems to forget that.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Trach, I have never heard
March 12, 2008 - 21:51 ET by futbolisgreat1Trach,
I have never heard of your Christian religion, but having the name Augustine, something tells me that you are going to be 100 times better versed than me on St. Augustine. I also notice that you do not use the Saint, before Augustine, why?
but here is an interesting reading about St. Augustine and the Roman Catholic Church which I believe supports the fact that St. Augustine very much supports the RCC.
let's see what you think....
and touche on the 1% wiggle room....never thought it would come back to bite me, but then I will say....yes, I deny and don't agree with your #1 and #2.
Also, honestly, I have always been taught, since I was 7years of age that we Roman Catholics do not believe or practice Predestination. That Predestination is more something believed by many Protestants Christians, but never by a Roman Catholic.
I do believe that God has a plan for all of us, but it is our Free Will to follow it or not. Yes, God does know what we are going to choose, since He doesn't live in time, but He doesn't force us to choose, we choose on our own.
It is like the example I gave to Syrius about parents. How many parents give free will to their children knowing that they are going to make the wrong decision, right? That is how I see Free Will, I believe this is how the RCC sees Free Will, God knows the choice we are going to make, but it is our choice to make, get it?
Just like evil is the lack of God, is humans using Free Will to deny goodness, to deny God, this is why evil exists, well besides the Devil, but the Church teaches and I believe that Satan only goes so far, that our human flesh, that humanity itself, uncontrolled, unchecked can lead to evil.
Trach, Oh wow, I couldn't
March 12, 2008 - 22:12 ET by futbolisgreat1Trach,
Oh wow, I couldn't disagree with you more about me being Pelagian.
1) I believe in Original sin and the fact that Adam and Eve's Original sin is past down to all human beings, to all humanity. This is a clear teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, which St. Agustine also asserts. One more proof how St. Augustine asserts the believes of the Church and of RCCs.
2) I whole heartly and the RCC teaches and believes in St. Augustines statement, that humanity is a massa peccati, a "mess of sin," incapable of raising itself from spiritual death. That the RCC Baptism is the only thing that takes this massa peccati away. Once again, this believes of St. Augustine and his explanation in his writings, clearly, I mean cleary define Roman Catholic Dogma when it comes ot human nature, Original Sin and Baptism.
3) My understading of Pelegian is that he believed that humans did not need any type of divine intervention to acquire Free Will, he did not believe in the shackles of Original Sin. St. Agustine, however, does say, and believed that while all humans have Free Will, our Free Will is tainted because of Original Sin.
I think the paragraph below explains it better than I do. As far as I know, St. Augustine teachings is what the RCC teaches too. This is what I have always believed and what the RCC believes and teaches.
"Augustine did not deny that fallen man still has a will and that the will is capable of making choices. He argued that fallen man still has a free will (liberium arbitrium) but has lost his moral liberty (libertas). The state of original sin leaves us in the wretched condition of being unable to refrain from sinning. We still are able to choose what we desire, but our desires remain chained by our evil impulses. He argued that the freedom that remains in the will always leads to sin. Thus in the flesh we are free only to sin, a hollow freedom indeed. It is freedom without liberty, a real moral bondage. True liberty can only come from without, from the work of God on the soul. Therefore we are not only partly dependent upon grace for our conversion but totally dependent upon grace."
Still need to catch up and
March 12, 2008 - 22:19 ET by tracheostomyStill need to catch up and read the entire link you posted.
But while you're waiting, I need to ask:
1. Your statement of "all free will" really threw me. Would you call yourself a semi-Pelagian then, as opposed to a full-blown Pelagian?
2. If you believe baptism is a merit on your part? Is that something you can boast of?
I'll dissect the rest in a few hours or so. BRB.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Trach, Unsure of your
March 12, 2008 - 22:28 ET by futbolisgreat1Trach,
Unsure of your #1.
Trach: 1. Your statement of "all free will" really threw me. Would you call yourself a semi-Pelagian then, as opposed to a full-blown Pelagian?Your number
Hmmm...what do you mean? and how did I throw you off? I don't think I am any type of Pelagian. Remember, Pelagians do not believe in the shackles of Original Sin, they don't believe that human nature is itself inclined to to do evil because of original sin.
Trach: 2. If you believe baptism is a merit on your part? Is that something you can boast of?
Oh, no way, I do not think baptism is a merit on my part, on humanities part. This is a Sacrament given to us by Jesus Christ, by God. God's, Jesus Christ's (one and the same, the Holy Trinity) representative on Earth give us this sacrament of forgivness through the Grace and Glory of God. It has nothing to do with human beings. Baptism is not do to my merits, it comes down from the greatness, mercifullness and justice of God. It is a gift from God. Without Baptism Original Sin keeps our humanity down and our moral compass "North" would be evil. Baptism realigns our moral compass, sort of speak to "North" being God, goodness, etc.
Teeing up the Futbol. . .
March 12, 2008 - 22:44 ET by tracheostomyFut: Hmmm...what do you mean? and how did I throw you off? I don't think I am any type of Pelagian.
Fine. That's just fine. So you assert you are 100% in agreement with St. Augustine?
Fut: Remember, Pelagians do not believe in the shackles of Original Sin, they don't believe that human nature is itself inclined to to do evil because of original sin.
That's exactly right.
Fut: Oh, no way, I do not think baptism is a merit on my part, on humanities part. This is a Sacrament given to us by Jesus Christ, by God. God's, Jesus Christ's (one and the same, the Holy Trinity) representative on Earth give us this sacrament of forgivness through the Grace and Glory of God. It has nothing to do with human beings. Baptism is not do to my merits, it comes down from the greatness, mercifullness and justice of God. It is a gift from God.
But it is a necessary sacrament, correct?
:checking the wind:
Fut: Without Baptism Original Sin keeps our humanity down and our moral compass "North" would be evil. Baptism realigns our moral compass, sort of speak to "North" being God, goodness, etc.
In what way? Please clarify how baptism realigns our moral compass.
:stretching out the leg:
Looks like 40 yards or so to me. . .
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Trach,Fut: Remember,
March 13, 2008 - 00:42 ET by futbolisgreat1Trach,
Fut: Hmmm...what do you mean? and how did I throw you off? I don't think I am any type of Pelagian.
Trach: Fine. That's just fine. So you assert you are 100% in agreement with St. Augustine?
Yes, I am in 100% agreement with St. Augustine, just like the Roman Catholic Church is. We both believe in Original Sin, like St. Augustine believed. We both believe that Original Sin ways heavy on the human soul and that Original Sin makes it harder for us to use our Free Will to make good choices. Baptism is a necessary step to free us from Original Sin (once again aligned with St. Augustine's believes) and allow us to use our Free will for good. (Again, St. Augustine believes and all of this is also the Roman Catholic Church's believes and teachings).
Fut: Remember, Pelagians do not believe in the shackles of Original Sin, they don't believe that human nature is itself inclined to to do evil because of original sin.
Trach: That's exactly right.
Yeah, this is why I am no where near a Pelagian. I do believe in the shackles of Original Sin, which Baptism frees us from.
Fut: Without Baptism Original Sin keeps our humanity down and our moral compass "North" would be evil. Baptism realigns our moral compass, sort of speak to "North" being God, goodness, etc.
Trach : In what way? Please clarify how baptism realigns our moral compass.
I believe that with out Baptism(and this is also a teaching of the Roman Catholic Church), our humanity inclines us to do evil. Baptism, which is a necessary Sacrament, as taught by the Roman Catholic Church (Roman Catholic parents are obligated by the Church to Baptize all of our their children within a few months of the children's birth-This is defently St. Augustine), takes away the evil inclinations, due to Original Sin, from our humanity.
Fut: Oh, no way, I do not think baptism is a merit on my part, on humanities part. This is a Sacrament given to us by Jesus Christ, by God. God's, Jesus Christ's (one and the same, the Holy Trinity) representative on Earth give us this sacrament of forgivness through the Grace and Glory of God. It has nothing to do with human beings. Baptism is not do to my merits, it comes down from the greatness, mercifullness and justice of God. It is a gift from God.
Trach: But it is a necessary sacrament, correct?
Oh, 100% necessary Sacrament. Without it, it is a lot harder to control our Free Will to do good. Once again, the RCC teaches this, just like St. Augustine believes it and wrote about it.
Okay Fut, I am not going to
March 13, 2008 - 04:11 ET by tracheostomyOkay Fut, I am not going to make any sudden or unexpected moves here, until I am absolutely sure I have your position on this understood, okay?
A few questions before we get started here. . .
Fut: but here_is an interesting reading about St. Augustine and the Roman Catholic Church which I believe supports the fact that St. Augustine very much supports the RCC. let's see what you think....
I think I want to see which of Augustine's writings Murray is citing in the article. Those quotes are tight. I have no idea what she is referring to specifically. Is this from City of God or one of his debates?
Murray: He assumes the will is free and seeks to determine how we choose good or evil. This continues to be “debated” in our age and has great implications on one’s perspective on life.
This statement alone left me hanging in a fog of confusion. At what point do we choose good or evil? Before or after we receive grace? What debate? Yes, I agree there are great implications, but the writer assumes we know what she's talking about.
Murray: Augustine’s approach to the “free choice of the will” assumes that “there can be no denying that we have a will.” Instead, Augustine defines “good will” as “a will by which we seek to live a good and upright life and to attain unto perfect wisdom” which, of course, assumes that it is free. This is worth meditating on while considering the literal Latin translation of the first two are not meant for “stuff,” but rather for God. The Catechism of the Catholic Church echoes this, saying, “Endowed with a spiritual soul, with intellect and with free will, the human person is from his very conception ordered to God and destined for eternal beatitude.” (1711).
That final statement stands without support from the first two, because there is no context of time given from the beginning. Sure we have a free will, but in what context was he writing this? Here, Augustine is arbitrarily attached to the Catechism quotation.
Further, the Catechism states "Endowed with a spiritual soul, with intellect and with free will, the human person is from his very conception ordered to God and destined for eternal beatitude.” <-- Sure looks like predestination to me.
Is this talking about everyone who is ever born? What or where is "eternal beatitude"?
Murray: So why would we choose evil? Humans always choose to do good, it’s just a matter of whether one chooses a lesser “good.”
o_O < What?!?? "A lesser good???" Where then does sin come into play? This statement appears to fly in the face of Matt 19:16-22 and Romans 3:9-20. Is she talking only about confirmed Roman Catholics?
Murray: While Augustine’s friend Evodius can claim “there is a great difference between” passion-desire and fear, fear is a part of passion. We fear because we abhor something, which may or may not correspond with reason.
Was this Augustine's response to Evodius, or Murray's?
Murray: Augustine begins to answer the age-old question why man chooses to do evil by clarifying that what makes humans distinct from animals is the fact that humans have the capability of reasoning and animals do not.
Cite please? At what point in his career did he write this?
Murray: If we have a free will, then we also have the duty to make decisions based on a well-formed conscience and what is good and evil.
Where does the guidance of the Holy Spirit come into play?
Murray: Instead, we have a duty to determine good and evil based on truth and to have it rule one’s life, with passion and desire subject to it.
What truth out there says that there exists a "lesser" as opposed to greater (?) good?
But Murray clearly states humans always choose to do good! If humans always do good, then when then do they ever have the opportunity to actually choose evil? This article is contradictory in that regard.
Fut: . . .but then I will say....yes, I deny and don't agree with your #1 and #2.
Are you absolutely sure of this? Is this your final answer before I retort?
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Fut,
March 13, 2008 - 12:22 ET by tracheostomyFinal question(s):
- Since Roman Catholics are baptized with the assistance of parents, could we call this a merit on the part of the parents, since they are necessary to bring the child to the sacrament?
- If not, then who gets credit for performing this sacrament? The parents or the child?
- Is it also possible to receive salvation from Jesus Christ without being baptized by a representative of the RCC?
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Trach,I apologize for
March 13, 2008 - 17:43 ET by futbolisgreat1Trach,
I apologize for not responding until so late in the day, but WOW! it has been one incredibly busy day. I will respond to some, but not everything that you wrote. When I get home, I will get into the deeper stuff, but here it goes....................
Trach: - Since Roman Catholics are baptized with the assistance of parents, could we call this a merit on the part of the parents, since they are necessary to bring the child to the sacrament?
Actually, I don't think the parents are necessary to bring the child to the Sacrament. A baby whose parents abondon him, will certainly not have the parents with him when he is taken to baptism.
I don't think I am understanding the merit question, since to me, bringing someone to Baptism is not a merit. I, as a RCC practicing parent, have the obligation to bring my children to get Baptized, if I do not, it is a sin. I mean I have the ability to choose whether I want my children to be Baptized(Free Will), but it is a sin if I don't Baptized my children since my Free Will is affecting the life and more importantly the soul of a baby that doesn't have the ability, the mental capacity to yet use his Free Will. So, I don't think anyone gets any type of merit.
Now the child's Original Sin is earased with Baptism, this helps the child to better use his Free Will.
Also, at the end of the day, it is the obligation of the Church AND the parents to Baptized individuals into the Roman Catholic Church. 99% of Roman Catholics are Baptized within a few months of birth, but those that convert in their adult life are also Baptized. The Church has an obligation to Baptized if the RCC parents of a child asks her for it, and if an adult (that has never been Baptized before) asks her to do it.
So, I don't think anyone gets any merit.
Furthermore, if a baby that hasn't been Baptized is dying, in danger of death, etc, etc....the Roman Catholic Church, God, allows anyone to Baptized that child, with the condition that if the child survives whatever danger they were in, they are Baptized by a priest in the RCC.
Trach: - Is it also possible to receive salvation from Jesus Christ without being baptized by a representative of the RCC?
Most defently yes. You do not have to be a Roman Catholic to be saved, as taught by the Roman Catholic Church. It makes it easier to be saved and reach Heaven and spent eternity with God if it is done through the RCC, BUT an atheist can reach Heaven and be saved, a Jew can be saved, a Muslim can reach Heaven, anyone from any religion or lack thereof can reach Heaven.
The key is that you're ignorance of the truth is not willful. That it is not out of your own making. Meaning a few things.
1) If you are told by someone else the truth AND in your mind it makes sense, you can see that it is the truth, you can see that your believes are defently wrong and that the RCCs believes are correct, but you still clinch on to your believes....then this is when you get in trouble.
2) That somehow God sends the truth, like it did with St. Paul, through a miracle and we can see how wrong we were, but we clinch on to our own believes and deny what God has shown us and in our hearts we know we are wrong....then this is when we get into trouble.
But anyone, anyone regardless of religion, believes, race, gender, etc can be saved.
Also, in the Roman Catholic Church there are different types of Baptisms....
For example, Baptism of Blood, this would apply to unborn children that are murdered through an abortion.
Also, Baptism of Desire....this would apply to many individuals that are not RCCs who may practice other religions and in their hearts they truly and honestly believe that they are correct. Their desire is there, but the way to get there might be a little bit longer (another religion or believe besides the RCC).
The RCC says that it is very hard to know whether someone went to Heaven, Hell or Purgatory. We can make a very sound judgement guessing by how they lived their lives, but it is tough to tell.
One last thing, being a Roman Catholic, Baptized and all doesn't guarentee you Heaven and salvation. We must work at it.
Anyway, I hope this helps a bit...I'll get deeper into the St. Augustine post when I get home later on tonight.
No problem. Take your
March 13, 2008 - 17:48 ET by tracheostomyNo problem. Take your time. I'm not planning on laying it out until the weekend anyway. I really want you to be absolutely sure of your own statements.
You're a really-really nice guy Fut. So this is not set up as a trap by any stretch. My side can be very easily looked up this very minute, with the clues I already gave, and you're more than welcome to step out of the ring at any time.
I'm going to hit you very hard doctrinally, and I want you to be ready for it.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Trach, Oh, don't worry, I
March 13, 2008 - 21:25 ET by futbolisgreat1Trach,
Oh, don't worry, I don't take it personally. At no point have you been deamining or condescending to me. I love these Theological debates and exchanges.
As for hitting me hard with doctrine....well you are going to hit me hard with your religions doctrine, right? :) It doesn't mean that you are right. :) Just your religion's doctrine and teachings.
But I do enjoy defending the RCC or as they say, I don't mind the Churches apologetics.
Although, I am probably not doing justice to the RCC, while I know some of the Doctrines, a lot of time I have to go do the research to find out the why behind it. And don't worry, if you stump me with a question, I will print it out and take it to friends and family and infinitly better versed on the Churches teachings than I am.
In college when a professors attacked Catholicism and I wasn't sure how to resposnd to the obvious slander, I would go to my priest, parents, friends, etc who knew more than I did and I kid you not, there was never a situation that they were stumped. In fact, thanks to them many a time I put in his/her place atheist professors that used their position of power at my college to brainwash young adults against Christianity and Catholicism.
I welcome the debate, I enjoy it and it only helps me strengthen my Faith in the Church, my believe in God, Jesus Christ, the Saints, Virgine Mary, etc, etc, etc.
Don't worry about hitting me hard, go for it. We all need our believes to be challanged once a in a blue moon, right?
plus, it is obvious that you are better versed in your religious doctrine than me on the RCC Doctrine and Dogma.
Trach, I also missed one
March 13, 2008 - 21:30 ET by futbolisgreat1Trach,
I also missed one thing with anyone being able to reach Heaven, salvation.
Not only can't their ignorance of the truth be willful, but also, they must follow all the Natural laws that are pretty much "programmed" within us. Not to kill, not to steal, not to cheat, etc, etc....these are things that are ingrained in all of us. To go against the Natural Laws set up by God will not lead you to Heaven, salvation. All of us can follow these Natural Laws. It is the Supernatural Laws that we may reach in our own, but that we need more help and guidance to reach, know and obey.
Man is programmed with the Natural law. . .to do good?
March 13, 2008 - 22:21 ET by tracheostomyFut: Not only can't their ignorance of the truth be willful, but also, they must follow all the Natural laws that are pretty much "programmed" within us. Not to kill, not to steal, not to cheat, etc, etc....these are things that are ingrained in all of us.
This appears to oppose 1 Cor 2:14 and Romans 3:9-20.
"There is none who understands; There is none who seeks after God. They have all turned aside; They have together become unprofitable; There is none who does good, no, not one."
If a man were born with the natural law to obey as you have stated, then it is possible to be saved without grace from birth (since it is inherently ingrained).
Thus opposing Augustine.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Correct Trach with a BUT
March 13, 2008 - 22:41 ET by exLibYou are correct Trach but I think there's more to it.
Romans 1 states that the existence of God is plain for all to see.
Gal 5:19 says that the acts of the sinful nature are obvious.
Both scriptures are letters to people who are already Chrisitans so it may be argued that to a Christian they are obvious. but Romans says we are all guilty before God even if we are pigmies living on an island in Africa who somehow "never saw a Bible".
However, you are totally right in saying that NO ONE can act out the proper life-style without the Holy Spirit.
The Bible is clear that living a sinful life, an enemy of God is the "natural" way of life for people on earth.
I'm just trying to keep it
March 13, 2008 - 22:47 ET by tracheostomyI'm just trying to keep it simple. Either we're born essentially good or we aren't. I maintain we are born with a free will that is limited according to human nature. Which of course is sin.
If we were born with a capacity for a free will to choose righteousness (or an island of righteousness), then either we wouldn't need Grace, or we would have a certain amount of merit to boast of on our part.
I'll elaborate on this later, after Futbol has had a chance to catch up.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Trach, 1) We are born
March 13, 2008 - 23:11 ET by futbolisgreat1Trach,
1) We are born with Original Sin, which limits our ability to use our Free Will. Baptism cleanses humans from Original Sin.
2) I agree, I do believe that human nature is generally good, but it is limited by sin. This is where, I believe, Free Will comes in. Free will, given to us by God, allows to choose good or evil. Because of sin, however, our Free Will leads us too many times to choose evil over good.
Trach, Well, obeying
March 13, 2008 - 22:42 ET by futbolisgreat1Trach,
Well, obeying Natural Law, which God created and programmed in us is just a part of a whole in which those that are not Baptized can reach Heaven.
Many of us, use our Free Will to go against Natural Law, murder, rape, stealing, etc are all part of going against Natural Law.
But yes, this Natural Law is inside of us. I will say, if you look at all socities in the world, or at least most of them that have been/are Christian and those that have not been and are not Christian have a couple of things in common that are proclaimed by law that are wrong....
To steal, to rape, to kill, suicide, cheating, even the existance of Supernatural beings....these are all part of the Natural Law which is within humanity.
Honestly, here when it comes to St. Augustine you have me stumped...I am unsure how this goes against St. Augustine. :(
As I said, there are two types of Laws created by God...
Natural Law and Supernatural Law.
Natural Law is easy to see and obey. Simple human nature, logic, etc will lead any human, i f used properly, to see Natural Law.
Supernatural Law is more difficult to see, etc and this is where the Doctors of the Church come in. They help us realized what is defined as Supernatural Law.
futbol
March 12, 2008 - 22:27 ET by botgi am leaving the major theology to trach. Let me note one particular you mention --- leaving 'Saint' off Augustine's name. The Apostle wrote 'to the saints' which is to say all believers are saints. Saint is not a title for the few but an identification for all in the universal (catholic) church.
"Man created god(s) Anything believed was created by man"----Syrius
Botg,
March 12, 2008 - 22:37 ET by tracheostomyAgreed.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Trach, I am off to bed,
March 13, 2008 - 00:50 ET by futbolisgreat1Trach,
I am off to bed, but I look forward to reading your responses tomorrow and continuing this great Theological debate.
Botg, You are right and
March 13, 2008 - 00:40 ET by futbolisgreat1Botg,
You are right and the Roman Catholic Church teaches that all of the souls that reach Heaven are Saints. But the Church puts forth some examples of individuals that we most defently follow examples. I mean, we should follow the example of all the saints, all those that have reached Heaven, but the Saints (notice the capialt "S") are individuals that the Church is 100% sure that reached Heave and wants Roman Catholics to follow their examples.
But remember, the Roman Catholic Church celebrates All saints day, Novermber 1st of every year. We celebrate the souls of all those that have reached Heaven.
Cart before the horse thyar. . .
March 13, 2008 - 02:26 ET by tracheostomyFut: You are right and the Roman Catholic Church teaches that all of the souls that reach Heaven are Saints.
Whoops. Botg is talking about apostles who address people who are still alive and calling them saints. The word occurs around 60 times in the NT, and refers to both living and dead persons. The word means someone who is set apart by God.
So the question is "at what point in time are they set apart?" If it is during their lifetime as the Bible clearly states, then you have a dispute with scripture.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Trach, Man, I am going to
March 13, 2008 - 18:01 ET by futbolisgreat1Trach,
Man, I am going to kill myself....but once again I am using Wikipedia to help me out here with the Saints vs. saints (notice capital "S" difference). I think it is pretty accurate on the RCC teaching when it comes to this subject.
but here is a cut and paste from Wikipedia, it is pretty accurate.
Roman Catholicism
There are more than 10,000 Roman Catholic saints. [1] The older term for saint is martyr, meaning someone who would rather die than give up their faith, or more specifically, witness for God. However, as the word martyr took on more and more the meaning of "one who died for the Faith," the term saint, meaning holy, became more common to describe the whole of Christian witnesses, both martyrs and confessors. The Catholic Church teaches that it does not, in fact, make anyone a saint. Rather, it recognizes a saint. In the Roman Catholic church, the title of Saint - with a capital 'S' - refers to a person who has been formally canonized (officially recognised) by the Church.
Also, by this definition there are many people believed to be in heaven who have not been formally declared as Saints (most typically due to their obscurity and the involved process of formal canonization) but who may nevertheless generically be referred to as saints (lowercase 's'). Anyone in heaven is, in the technical sense, a saint. Unofficial devotions to uncanonised individuals take place in certain regions.
The veneration of saints, in Latin, cultus, or the cult of the saints, describes a particular popular devotion to the saints. Although the term "worship" is often used, it is intended in the old sense meaning to honor or give respect (dulia). Divine Worship is properly reserved only for God (latria) and never to the Saints. In Roman Catholic theology, since God is the God of the Living, then it follows that the saints are alive in Heaven. As "special friends of God" they can be asked to intercede or pray for those still on earth. A saint may be designated as a patron saint of particular causes or professions, or invoked against specific illnesses or disasters. They are not thought to have power of their own, but only that granted by God. Relics of saints are respected in a similar manner to holy images and icons. The practices of past centuries in calling upon relics of saints for healing is taken from the early Christian church. The worship of saints is referred to as 'hagiolatry'.
"So extraordinary were the mighty deeds God accomplished at the hands of Paul that when face cloths or aprons that touched his skin were applied to the sick, their diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them." (Acts 19:12)
Once a person has been declared a saint, the body of the saint is considered holy. The remains of saints are called holy relics and are usually used in Churches. The saints' personal belongings may also be used as relics. Some of the saints have a symbol that represents their life.
Sorry Fut,
March 13, 2008 - 18:20 ET by tracheostomy1. We're referring directly to the Bible and not RC tradition.
2. We're referring directly to the Bible and not a wiki.
3. What's the original Greek translation for the word martyr? The word "martyr" and "saint" are forced associations in your copy-paste, I promise you. They have also evolved greatly according to RC tradition, meaning that the meaning of their original intent has been disregarded.
You're getting very bad info here. Look up the original language and its intended usage.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Trach, Hmmm....once
March 13, 2008 - 21:18 ET by futbolisgreat1Trach,
Hmmm....once again, Saints vs. saints. The Saints in the RCC are those souls that the Church has canonized, which has recognized as entering Heaven and are given to the Faithful as an example to lead. At the end, everyone that reaches Heaven is a Saint
Now, saints (notice the lack of capitalizataion) does refer to all those that worship Jesus Christ, God here on Earth.
Fut: Now, saints (notice
March 13, 2008 - 21:32 ET by tracheostomyFut: Now, saints (notice the lack of capitalizataion) does refer to all those that worship Jesus Christ, God here on Earth.
Well, then why didn't you say so to begin_with? (quote: "I also notice that you do not use the Saint, before Augustine, why?" )
Futbol appears to be referring to a regular Christian, and then some elite class of Super-Christians. Funny though, because St. Augustine doesn't appear to meet the usual criteria for Roman Catholic canonization. It just seems odd that way.
But anyway, now that Futbol has finally cleared it all up for us, I'm satisfied with it and letting this one go. . .since it's somewhat tangential to my original post.
Botg and yourself are more than welcome to continue it though.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Trach, Oh boy, me and my
March 13, 2008 - 21:38 ET by futbolisgreat1Trach,
Oh boy, me and my inability to leg things go.....
St. Augustine is not some type of super saint, or super human that reach Heaven. The Church is 100% that he reached Heaven, along with the more than 10,000 other individuals, souls that have been canonized. The Church wants us to follow the example of every single soul that has been able to reach Heaven. But as the artilce from Wikipedia said, the Church doesn't have the time or resources to study, reserach, bring to "court" all the souls that are believed to have reached Heaven. Thus, it tells us while we should follow the example of all those that have reached Heaven, it gives us a few that they are certain and we are told their lives, struggles, sins, how they overcame these, how they were regular human beings, just like you and I and these were able to reach Heaven.
make sense? anyway, now I will leave it alone.
Oh and one more thing the RCC teaches and believes in Communion of the saints, that is all the Faithful here on Earth and in Heaven ore connected. Look at the verbage, Communion of the saints.
Ok, enough on this subject......
Walking away; then turning back. . .
March 13, 2008 - 21:43 ET by tracheostomyThen why the switch between capital "S" and lower-case? Why does St. Paul admonish everyone attending a single church as "saints" already, if there are issues within the congregation?*
:arms folded:
:tapping foot:
Hm?
-PJ
*Do RCC Bibles have the capital "S" and lower-case distinctions?
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
:bookmarked: We'll get
March 13, 2008 - 21:51 ET by tracheostomy:bookmarked:
We'll get back to this later. I really did want to drop it, but now you really got my curiosity going.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Trach, Defently, when
March 13, 2008 - 22:00 ET by futbolisgreat1Trach,
Defently, when ever you want to pick it up, I am up for it.
we can exchange between Saints vs. saints and St. Augusinte vs Pelegian and the RCC.
Trach: *Do RCC Bibles
March 13, 2008 - 21:51 ET by futbolisgreat1Trach: *Do RCC Bibles have the capital "S" and lower-case distinctions?
I find this question funny, since the Roman Catholic Church had not cannonized anyone during the time that the Bible was written, so no, you will not find the word saint capitilized in the RCC Bibles when speaking of individuals that today we know are Saints.
And actually to be accurate, no one had been cannonized by the Church while Jesus Christ lived. In fact, the RCC as we know it today, it teachings, traditions, Dogmas, Doctrines, etc, while always there and obvious, had not all come together as they have come today.
So, no the word saint is NOT capitilized in the RCC Bible. :)
Man did I make this wordy to give such a simple answer.
futbol
March 13, 2008 - 22:04 ET by botgi have the Jerusalem Bible among others, one of the translaters was Tolkein (a good friend of CS Lewis) and it really shows in the Epistles of John. Very poetic like his trilogy and probally the autograph. But we digress, i was simply answering your question about the use of saint in relation to the saved as John wrote to the saints "that you may know you have eternal life"
"Man created god(s) Anything believed was created by man"----Syrius
Botg: But we digress, i
March 13, 2008 - 22:26 ET by tracheostomyBotg: But we digress, i was simply answering your question about the use of saint in relation to the saved as John wrote to the saints "that you may know you have eternal life."
Something Augustine also wrote extensively about. This is also known as assurance, or "perseverance of the saints" <--- lower case.
It also just happens to be the "P" in 5-pt. Calvinism.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Fut,
March 13, 2008 - 22:07 ET by tracheostomySo-um. . .what leg do you have to stand on again? The "Caps-lock designation" between saints and Saints was all you had left on this.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Trach... haha! you are
March 13, 2008 - 22:14 ET by futbolisgreat1Trach...
haha! you are bad, "Caps-lock designation"....terrible. :)
Of course not, I still stand by the fact that the reason that St. Augustine, St. Paul, St. Thomas, St. Charles, St. Ines, St. Therese, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, have the word Saint capitalized is....
one, there is only ONE St. Paul, St. Augustine, etc that has been canonized by the Church.
Secondly, because the Church has canonized these individuals, recognized them as Saint, souls that have reached Heaven. The RCC has canonized these inviduals, recognized that these are Saints (individuals that have reached Heaven) and puts forth their life story/history as an example for all the Faithful, all the saints on Earth to follow. Everyone in Heaven is a Saint, all the Faithfuls on Eearth are saints.
Trach, Back to the
March 13, 2008 - 21:46 ET by futbolisgreat1Trach,
Back to the original debate....
Trach: 1. I assert the exact opposite; that Reformed theologians are far more Augustinian than the RCC with regards to free will, and that it is the Catholics who are more Pelagian than any other denomination.
Yes, I defently stand by my assertion that RCC Theologians and Doctors of the Church since St. Augustine are in line with Augustinian believes not only regarding Free Will, but all of his Theological believes.
The RCC is not where near being Pelagian in its Free Will and Original Sin believes, teachings, Dogma and Doctrine.
Trach: 2. I assert that Futbol's copy-paste is worded to make you assume that Augustine is on the side of the RCC with regards to grace and free will, when there is no real proof to back it.
I like this one....but I stand by the fact that you are wrong here. The RCC stands very much by the teachings and believes of St. Augustine when it comes to Free will and the Original Sin. There is a lot of things to back it up, starting with the Roman Catholic Cathechism.
Okay, I was going to wait
March 13, 2008 - 22:03 ET by tracheostomyOkay, I was going to wait until tomorrow, but you forced my hand.
We'll start here, and then work forward, because Sproul is the easiest to read on the subject. This covers the debate with Pelagius in plain layman's terms.
Note in particular:
Thus, Augustinianism and the reformation were attempts to keep such heresy in check. I'll refer to these and other articles in further discussion. Also bear in mind that the early reformers relied heavily on Augustine verbatum; not cherry-picked.
BTW, here's Augustine's stance on predestination, note specifically 25, 29, and 30.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Trach, Hmmm....I am going
March 13, 2008 - 22:25 ET by futbolisgreat1Trach,
Hmmm....I am going to be honest. RC Sproul was a Calvanist, he attacked the Church like many Calvanist for most of his adult life.
I will read what he has to say, but (and I know you are not going to like this), it is hard for me to take the word of a Calvanist when it comes to RCC history, Doctrine, etc. This is an individual who has a invested interest in discrediting the Roman Catholic Church, right?
I hope this doesn't come out as being too harsh. But I am going to read his work that you linked to and the other links that you put up.
I'll let you know what I think.
Fut: Hmmm....I am going
March 13, 2008 - 22:35 ET by tracheostomyFut: Hmmm....I am going to be honest. RC Sproul was a Calvanist, he attacked the Church like many Calvanist for most of his adult life.
Then you are obligated to discern his tactics and refute them, correct? The only thing that matters here is the truth and the history behind it, not that a person is Roman Catholic or Calvinist.
Fut: I will read what he has to say, but (and I know you are not going to like this), it is hard for me to take the word of a Calvanist when it comes to RCC history, Doctrine, etc. This is an individual who has a invested interest in discrediting the Roman Catholic Church, right?
If there is anything Sproul is lying about, we can advance on it together, okay? All my other links came from "Calvinist" sources as well.
Fut: I hope this doesn't come out as being too harsh. But I am going to read his work that you linked to and the other links that you put up.
That's fine. I'm going to take off for the day and leave you to digest for a bit. Chop it up as much as you like. You're more than welcome to analyze it, question it, and cross-examine it as much as possible.
And BTW, I totally retract what I stated earlier about your courage. You have shown far more of it than any Catholic I have ever encountered. And I live very close to a Jesuit University, so that's saying a lot.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Hi Trach,A couple of
March 13, 2008 - 22:55 ET by futbolisgreat1Hi Trach,
A couple of things....
1) Thanks for retracting the "coward" statement. :) I love the Church. To me, yes, its authority is supreme, since I know it comes directly from God. (yes, a bit of blind Faith on my part). Call me weird, strange, but for whatever reason, I have zero doubt in my mind and heart of the authority of the Church, even when someone throws out at me something against the Church that I can't explain away. As I said, I love defending it, and being an apologetic.
2) It is fair to tell you a bit of my background and where I have learned a lot of my teachings, Doctrines, Dogmas in the Church. I am very close to Opus Dei. I grew up with it, went to schools in Venezuela and here in the USA that were created by Opus Dei members. My view and believes of God, Virgin Mary, Jesus Christ, Holy Spirit, of the Roman Catholic Church, of the Saints, of the saints, of all teachings, Doctrines, Dogmas of the Church comes from my contact with Opus Dei. So, It is very traditional, very much in line with Vatican II.
Now, I hope that you don't think I am a freak. I know in many circles within the Church and outside of the Church Opus Dei is not looked up very well. Somehow though, I am sure that you wont' be influence by the Davinci Code when it comes to Opus Dei.
No, I am not a member of Opus Dei, but I do love Opus Dei, I attend many of its religious classes, etc. Saint Mgsr. Escriva is one of my heros, one of the Saints that I wish to emulate.
3) I am going to enlist the help of a friend of mine who studied philosophy at DePaul University here in Chicago and that of my sisters, who are better versed on St. Augustine, Calvinims, etc than I am.
It may take a couple of days for me to get back to you on this one.
In the mean time, let's keep the debate going on other Doctrines and Dogmas.
4) yes, it does fall upon me to point out where Calvin, Sproul, and you are wrong when it comes to the Church, St. Augustine, etc. But it also falls upon you guys to show where we are wrong...which you have done by pointing to your links.
So....the ball is in my court now, right?
Fut: Now, I hope that you
March 13, 2008 - 23:03 ET by tracheostomyFut: Now, I hope that you don't think I am a freak.
Nope.
:sitting on hands:
My stated goal here is not to take you from your church (I should be so lucky to get that far).
My goal is to determine who's team Augustine plays for.
That's it.
So dangle Mary in front of me all you wanna, I'm not gonna bite without a new thread to cover that.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Trach,I have Foxnew on
March 13, 2008 - 23:22 ET by futbolisgreat1Trach,
I have Foxnews on as I am typing this, they have Rev. Jermiah Wright talking in some sermon he gave......HOLY COW!!!!!!!!! This guy is a crazy nut!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ok, that aside......
Trach: So dangle Mary in front of me all you wanna, I'm not gonna bite without a new thread to cover that.
Haha....yes, I have inserted the Mother of God in a couple posts and I have not baited you yet. I will though, I know your curosity and your believes on Her, will get to you. :)
the Virgin Mary, after Jesus Christ, is the greatest, most Holy, most Saintly human being to have ever lived. (I know I will get you with this statement, Doctrine, Dogma of the Church) She is the Immaculate Conception, the only human (besides Jesus Christ) to have been born without Original Sin. --------------I know you will bite------------------- :)
futbol
March 13, 2008 - 23:41 ET by botgyou say Mary is greater than John the Baptist?
Sssh. Don't bring up any
March 13, 2008 - 23:52 ET by Free StinkerSssh. Don't bring up any of the pesky facts. ;-)
"He's quoting scripture. Is that fair?" --Peppermint Patty
Free Stinker and
March 14, 2008 - 10:56 ET by futbolisgreat1Free Stinker and Botg,
This Roman Catholic Dogma comes from a few places in the Bible.
When the Archangel Gabriel appears to the Virgin Mary and says amongst many other things....."full of grace" to her. This along with Luke 1:48, and writings from the Church Fathers support the fact that the Virgin Mary is the only other human being besides Jesus Christ to be born without Original Sin. Once again, the Immculate Conception.
but futbol
March 14, 2008 - 20:12 ET by botgisn't grace only necessary for sinners? What need does a sinless one have of grace?
"Man created god(s) Anything believed was created by man"----Syrius
Botg, hmmm....in the RCC
March 15, 2008 - 01:03 ET by futbolisgreat1Botg,
hmmm....in the RCC there are two types of graces.
Sanctifying grace and Divine Grace. Sanctifying grace is the one that we the sinners need.
Divine Grace is the grace that God, Jesus Christ, Angles, Virgin Mary have.
Also don't forget that the Virgin Mary in the RCC is believed to have risen to Heaven body and soul, not just soul.
Futbol, what is your definition of grace?
March 15, 2008 - 01:33 ET by tracheostomyThe word grace itself is defined as unmerited favor.
The word grace is also a word that requires both a giver and a receiver. It is a one-way noun. Grace cannot flow back and forth, because Grace can only be conferred upon those who did not earn it.
From the higher ---> to the lower.
So then with the Divine Grace you speak of, how can angels (the creature) have the same type of grace as God the Father (creator)? The creature cannot dispense Divine Grace. If they could, then both angels and Mary would be worthy of the same worship as Jesus.
In Acts 6:8. St. Stephen is also described as being "full of grace" (Gk: plaras karitos) and power. So also in John 1:14 (Gk: plaras karitos) when speaking of Jesus, "full of grace and truth."
But this phrase is not in Luke 1;28. In fact it is only one Greek word that is rendered in English as "favored" or "blessed."
Mary is a receiver; not a giver. If she were, she would not have addressed God as her Savior. You cannot give Grace to someone that does not have need of it to begin with.
Futbol, you have a serious problem with managing traffic when it comes to grace. You're literally driving the wrong way on a One Way avenue.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Botg, Botg: you say
March 14, 2008 - 10:37 ET by futbolisgreat1Botg,
Botg: you say Mary is greater than John the Baptist?
Most defently YES. The Mother of God is much greater than the cousin of God.
John the Baptist was born with Original Sin, only two humans have been born without Original Sin, Jesus Christ and His Mother, the Virgin Mary. As I said, she is the Immaculate Conception.
Okay, you fished me in. . .
March 14, 2008 - 15:43 ET by tracheostomyFut: Most defently YES. The Mother of God is much greater than the cousin of God. John the Baptist was born with Original Sin, only two humans have been born without Original Sin, Jesus Christ and His Mother, the Virgin Mary. As I said, she is the Immaculate Conception.
Did you even bother to read the link? I myself had absolutely no idea where Botg was coming from myself, until I read it.
You would actually ignore the very words of Jesus Himself in favor of your dogma? You quote a tiny snippet of Luke 1:48, but even you place your own hand over Mary's mouth when she boldly declares in the preceding verse, "And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior."
What does she need even need a Savior for anyway, if she is, "the only other human being besides Jesus Christ to be born without Original Sin," Hm?
:flipping through scripture:
However, I don't see that statement anywhere. Either Mary is full of grace from an outside source (which in this case is God, else she wouldn't have thanked Him), OR Mary herself is the source of grace. If the latter, then she wouldn't need to exalt God as her savior and the Magnificat is mere empty flattery, because she's a co-redemptrix.
Fut: This Roman Catholic Dogma comes from a few places in the Bible.
Only a few? Why not the whole? Does the RCC tradition take authority even over the Word of God? Do they have authority to overrule the very words of both Jesus and Mary?
If your statements are true Futbol, why didn't Jesus plainly state that among those born of women there has not risen one greater than Mary? Surely she would rank over all the prophets?
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Trach, I must defently
March 15, 2008 - 01:01 ET by futbolisgreat1Trach,
I must defently read the link and I compared it to the Roman Catholic Bible.
I still stand by my statement and by the teachings of the RCC.
1) The Church Fathers were infinitly smarter and wiser than I am. Thus I trust them and their teachings, Dogmas and Doctrine. Just like I trust Mathematicians, scientists (for the most part), etc to learn and then teach us about these subjects.
2) We Roman Catholics do not take the Bible literally, I know that is a huge difference between Roman Catholic and Protestants.
3) The Virgin Mary had no idea that she was the Immaculate Conception, just like all individuals canonized by the RCC do not know that they were going to be Saints while here on Earth. They knew they were saints, but not that they were going to be Saints. In the mind of the Virgin Mary, she needed Jesus Christ her Savior and son because she believed herself to be a sinner. She was an incredible humble human being.
4) By the way, Trach, I told you I was going to bait you into the Virgin Mary debate. :)
and yes, the Virgin Mary ranks above all the prophets. The Virgin Mary is the the highest, most honored member of the Holy Family after Jesus Christ, of course, of all the Saints, Prophets, etc.
I don't think my passage was any more smaller or bigger than that one provided by Botg. Furthermore, you seem not to touch upon the fact that the Archangel Gabriel referred to the Virgin Mary as "full of grace". I don't think that is small either. Do you? why?
Also, when Jesus Christ was dying for all of us on the Cross, He actually told St. John (paraphrasing now), "John behold your Mother, Mary, behold your son." At this instant, the Virgin Mary, mother of God, became the Mother of all of us.
and remember, I don't worship the Virgin Mary, worship is ONLY for God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit. I pray through the Virgin Mary. It is like when my son asks me to ask his mother for something because he knows that my wife has a soft spot for me.
I compared it to the Roman
March 15, 2008 - 18:23 ET by botgI compared it to the Roman Catholic Bible. would that be the Vulgate? the Jerusalem Bible? or another?
The Church Fathers were infinitly smarter and wiser than I am. by Church Fathers do you mean from the Apostles to Augustine? (ex: Ignatius, Polycarp) or do the fathers continue today?
We Roman Catholics do not take the Bible literally ????????
The Virgin Mary had no idea that she was the Immaculate Conception, is that in Scripture?
as to the rest, isn't the nature of the thread whether or not the cathecism is correct theologically? To quote it as authority merely assumes that which we ask you to prove. I know what Mary would say if we were to ask her
"Man created god(s) Anything believed was created by man"----Syrius
Trach, I must defently
March 15, 2008 - 01:01 ET by futbolisgreat1Trach,
I must defently read the link and I compared it to the Roman Catholic Bible.
I still stand by my statement and by the teachings of the RCC.
1) The Church Fathers were infinitly smarter and wiser than I am. Thus I trust them and their teachings, Dogmas and Doctrine. Just like I trust Mathematicians, scientists (for the most part), etc to learn and then teach us about these subjects.
2) We Roman Catholics do not take the Bible literally, I know that is a huge difference between Roman Catholic and Protestants.
3) The Virgin Mary had no idea that she was the Immaculate Conception, just like all individuals canonized by the RCC do not know that they were going to be Saints while here on Earth. They knew they were saints, but not that they were going to be Saints. In the mind of the Virgin Mary, she needed Jesus Christ her Savior and son because she believed herself to be a sinner. She was an incredible humble human being.
4) By the way, Trach, I told you I was going to bait you into the Virgin Mary debate. :)
and yes, the Virgin Mary ranks above all the prophets. The Virgin Mary is the the highest, most honored member of the Holy Family after Jesus Christ, of course, of all the Saints, Prophets, etc.
I don't think my passage was any more smaller or bigger than that one provided by Botg. Furthermore, you seem not to touch upon the fact that the Archangel Gabriel referred to the Virgin Mary as "full of grace". I don't think that is small either. Do you? why?
Also, when Jesus Christ was dying for all of us on the Cross, He actually told St. John (paraphrasing now), "John behold your Mother, Mary, behold your son." At this instant, the Virgin Mary, mother of God, became the Mother of all of us.
and remember, I don't worship the Virgin Mary, worship is ONLY for God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit. I pray through the Virgin Mary. It is like when my son asks me to ask his mother for something because he knows that my wife has a soft spot for me.
Fut,
March 15, 2008 - 02:07 ET by tracheostomyFut: I must defently read the link and I compared it to the Roman Catholic Bible. I still stand by my statement and by the teachings of the RCC.
Why? You're telling us that you're deliberately choosing to turn a blind eye to a clear discrepancy between the teachings of the RCC and what you yourself have read? They cannot both be right!
Fut: 1) The Church Fathers were infinitly smarter and wiser than I am. Thus I trust them and their teachings, Dogmas and Doctrine. Just like I trust Mathematicians, scientists (for the most part), etc to learn and then teach us about these subjects.
BTW, how are you doing on Augustine? Do you trust him? Have you changed your stance since you stated, ". . .but I do not, ever have or ever will, or know of any Roman Catholic that believes in Predestination. Free Will all the way baby." ?
Fut: 2) We Roman Catholics do not take the Bible literally, I know that is a huge difference between Roman Catholic and Protestants.
C'mon Fut! So you're saying the part that Botg quoted verbatum was not literally Jesus' words?
Do you ignore portions of the Magnificat while singing it?
Fut: They knew they were saints, but not that they were going to be Saints.
Lower case S ---> Capital S.
Garden variety X-ian ---> Elite X-ian.
Fut: In the mind of the Virgin Mary, she needed Jesus Christ her Savior and son because she believed herself to be a sinner.
>_<'
:biting lip:
OH come ON! She was misinformed?!?? Then she wasn't listening to Gabriel!!! Either she was fully informed that she was full of co-redemptive Roman Catholic grace, or else Gabriel told her she was simply favored or blessed. <--- Pick one, and stick with it.
Fut: 4) By the way, Trach, I told you I was going to bait you into the Virgin Mary debate. :)
Yeah, you did. I'll give you that. Hating every minute. Hey, finish Augustine yet?
Fut: and yes, the Virgin Mary ranks above all the prophets. The Virgin Mary is the the highest, most honored member of the Holy Family after Jesus Christ, of course, of all the Saints, Prophets, etc.
Discrepancy, see above. Either Jesus said it or he didn't.
Fut: Furthermore, you seem not to touch upon the fact that the Archangel Gabriel referred to the Virgin Mary as "full of grace". I don't think that is small either. Do you? why?
Answered. See above.
Fut: Also, when Jesus Christ was dying for all of us on the Cross, He actually told St. John (paraphrasing now), "John behold your Mother, Mary, behold your son." At this instant, the Virgin Mary, mother of God, became the Mother of all of us.
(2 - 1) + 1 equals 1,130,000,000 Catholics.
Okay. . .got it. >=^p
Fut: . . .and remember, I don't worship the Virgin Mary, worship is ONLY for God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit.
"And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said to me, "Do not do that; I am a fellow servant of yours and your brethren who hold the testimony of Jesus; worship God. For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy"
How did the angel know John was trying to worship him? What is the definition of worship? If angels carry the same grace as Mary, and God, then they can be honored and prayed to the same. Your statements are totally incongruous. You see that, right?
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Trach, 1) I told you
March 15, 2008 - 18:08 ET by futbolisgreat1Trach,
1) I told you already, the RCC doesn't use the Bible as the only source to build its Dogma and Doctrine. As well versed as you are, I know you know this. Yes, a huge difference between Protestant Theology and RCC Theology.
2) Yes, we take the life of Jesus Christ literally, but He himself said taht He spoke in parables. Not everything He said is to be taken literally either. Once again, I trust the Church Fathers and their wisdom a lot more than that of mine, Calvin, Luther, etc.
3) St. Augustine is doing well. As I said, this whole thing is a bit above my head, so I have enlisted the help of my philosophy/theology major friend and that of my sisters, I will have a response for you sometime next week. But as I was told...."that is a common Calvanist, Protestant attack done against the RCC when it comes to St. Augustine, which can be easily be defeated." So, we shall see. :)
4) You are looking at the Bible from the Calvanist point of you, from the Protestant point of view, I am looking at it from the RCC (Opus Dei) point of view. Very, very different.
5) Not sure what you ment by the math point.
6) Trach: How did the angel know John was trying to worship him? What is the definition of worship? If angels carry the same grace as Mary, and God, then they can be honored and prayed to the same. Your statements are totally incongruous. You see that, right?
My statements totally incongruous? not at all. I never said antyhing about the Angels. I was just speaking of God and the Virgin Mary. But this passage of yours makes my point....we don't worship the Virgin Mary, Angels, Saints, etc, we only worship God as shown by what the Angel told John. It has nothing to do with the type of grace that each being has.
We don't worship any being other than God. But we do talk to, pray THROUGH the Virgin Mary, Angels and Saints so that they can INTERCEDE for us.
Anyway, I am truly enjoying this. It has been a long, long time since I had a well versed, well educated invidiual challange me when it came to the RCC, it is forcing me to open up RCC theological books that I had not opened in a long time.
Fut: 1) I told you
March 15, 2008 - 19:13 ET by tracheostomyFut: 1) I told you already, the RCC doesn't use the Bible as the only source