Question for Catholics about the 4 Marian dogmas

Nondenom40

Well-known member
For a comparison, do protestants believe that spouses "co-create" new life when they conceive a child? Or is that the wrong thing to say since only God is Creator?
Apples and oranges. Now do you want to address anything i actually posted? Not a shred of what rpo said is found within the pages of scripture. If you want to deal with something i actually said feel free to ask it.
 

pilgrim

Well-known member
Apples and oranges. Now do you want to address anything i actually posted? Not a shred of what rpo said is found within the pages of scripture. If you want to deal with something i actually said feel free to ask it.
Not at all. This is the meaning of the use of "co". It means "with". When couples co-create life they do that with God the Creator. It doesn't mean that they are creators like God, but that they acted in a small way so that God can act as Creator and form a new life.
In a similar way, when we call Mary co-redemptrix we are not calling her another Redeemer but acknowledge her small but important role in redemption as Mother of our Savior.
 

balshan

Well-known member
Not at all. This is the meaning of the use of "co". It means "with". When couples co-create life they do that with God the Creator. It doesn't mean that they are creators like God, but that they acted in a small way so that God can act as Creator and form a new life.
In a similar way, when we call Mary co-redemptrix we are not calling her another Redeemer but acknowledge her small but important role in redemption as Mother of our Savior.
Oh it was apples and oranges. So God has no part in the creation of life. So let me see you are really saying Mary co creates God.
 

mica

Well-known member
For a comparison,
for comparison to what or whom? do you consider conceiving to be co-creating of new life?

do protestants believe that spouses "co-create" new life when they conceive a child? Or is that the wrong thing to say since only God is Creator?
I never believed or claimed that i was a co-creater of a new life, not even as an unbeliever.
 

mica

Well-known member
Not at all. This is the meaning of the use of "co". It means "with". When couples co-create life they do that with God the Creator. It doesn't mean that they are creators like God, but that they acted in a small way so that God can act as Creator and form a new life.
In a similar way, when we call Mary co-redemptrix we are not calling her another Redeemer but acknowledge her small but important role in redemption as Mother of our Savior.
it's not a small role in catholicism, it's major. it's much more important to catholics than Christ Himself and His sacrifice.
 

Nondenom40

Well-known member
Not at all. This is the meaning of the use of "co". It means "with". When couples co-create life they do that with God the Creator. It doesn't mean that they are creators like God, but that they acted in a small way so that God can act as Creator and form a new life.
In a similar way, when we call Mary co-redemptrix we are not calling her another Redeemer but acknowledge her small but important role in redemption as Mother of our Savior.
It is apples and oranges. Having a baby and redeeming all mankind are kinda different wouldn't you say? Now just show me the verse that calls mary co-redeemer. We'll wait.
 

mica

Well-known member
Not at all. This is the meaning of the use of "co". It means "with". When couples co-create life they do that with God the Creator. It doesn't mean that they are creators like God, but that they acted in a small way so that God can act as Creator and form a new life.
In a similar way, when we call Mary co-redemptrix we are not calling her another Redeemer but acknowledge her small but important role in redemption as Mother of our Savior.
catholic hogwash
 

Bonnie

Super Member
But He did say it WAS His blood several times. Didn't He?
Yes--but He also called the cup the "fruit of the vine." Ergo, in some way we do not understand this side of heaven, when we partake of Holy Communion, Jesus' true body and blood come to be present in, with, and under the bread and wine, but also remain bread and wine. A mystery, but one I do not feel obligated to try to explain. But they are both at the same time. I don't know why Catholics find that so hard to believe, since they certainly believe Jesus is fully God and fully man, at the same time--two distinct natures in One Person.

I am starting a thread no this on the Lutheran board.

 
Last edited:

Bonnie

Super Member
You prove too much in such a case Bonnie. You not only disprove the Catholic position, you disprove the Lutheran position.

No, I don't. See here:

If "fruit of the vine" refers to what is in the cup--namely---wine----then it turns out we both got it wrong and the Baptists got it right. Thus the solution is to either reform our theologies of the Eucharist---or leave our sects.

OR just believe that after consecration, the true body and blood of our Lord come to be present in, with, and under the bread and wine, yet, at the same time, remain bread and wine. Why is that so hard for your to grasp? Jesus had two different natures in one Person--why cannot the bread and wine, after consecration?
Because you just said it yourself: "fruit of the vine= wine." That means it is a symbol, not both and.

No, it doesn't. See above.
He would likely get drunk. But the Eucharist is not magic, Bonnie. Catholics have always maintained that the physical attributes of bread and wine remain--hence--why a priest would get drunk if he drank too much.

Never claimed Catholics thought it was "magic." But the physical attributes of bread and wine exist because of their SUBSTANCE. It is what makes bread, bread, and wine, wine. The SUBSTANCE in the wine that would make the priest drunk is ethyl alcohol. It is a SUBSTANCE that is in the wine. Which means, that even after consecration, the bread remains bread and the wine remains wine--but see above for what I wrote about the two natures of the Elements after consecration.
The change takes place in the SUBSTANCE of the bread and wine, not the APPEARENCES. Your objection above shows you do not understand Transubstantiation.

And the SUBSTANCE that would make the priest drunk is ethyl alcohol. It is a SUBSTANCE. In the wine. Even after consecration. But see my link above for the explanation as to what my church believes, teaches, and confesses about this. You appear to be misinformed about what we believe.
edit per mod-off topic
 
Last edited:
Top