Question for Catholics about the 4 Marian dogmas

[Misfit]

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.

Yes, that is what we Catholics believe. Though the elements remain the same, Jesus becomes truly present in the Holy Eucharist. I appreciate your admission, but this is going to put you at odds with your evangelical friends on this board.

A mystery, but one I do not feel obligated to try to explain

You call it "a mystery", just like the Eastern Orthodox believers do. See how close you are to us orthodox believing Christians?

 

[Bonnie]

I explained what "co" means. Did you miss that?

I saw it, and technically, you are right--co means "with." But calling Mary "Co redeemptrix" to mean you just acknowledge Mary's small but important roll in salvation is nonsense. That highly unbiblical title means "female redeemer with the Redeemer", which makes it sound as if Mary was equally important in our Redemption as what Jesus did for us, on the cross! That title is blasphemy!

Why oh why do Catholics always seem to need to take the focus for our salvation off our dear Savior and what He did for us on the cross, and put it on Mary??

 

[Bonnie]

Yes, that is what we Catholics believe. Though the elements remain the same, Jesus becomes truly present in the Holy Eucharist.

Your church believes far more than that--it teaches the actual substance changes into Jesus' body and blood, so the Elements are no longer bread and wine. Thst is NOT what I believe.

One of your friends on here admitted that if a priest drank too much of the wine after consecration, he would get drunk. What is the SUBSTANCE in wine that would cause that, Misfit?

I appreciate your admission, but this is going to put you at odds with your evangelical friends on this board.

No, it won't because I also believe the elements remain bread and wine, unlike your church.. Also, if they wish to debate this, they can go to the Lutheran board and do it there.

You call it "a mystery", just like the Eastern Orthodox believers do. See how close you are to us orthodox believing Christians?

Sorry, but there is not much "orthodox" about your church, since it teaches so many heretical doctrines.

 

[Misfit]

Your church believes far more than that--it teaches the actual substance changes into Jesus' body and blood, so the Elements are no longer bread and wine.

Yes, but this happens under the elements of bread and wine. "The Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation states that the bread and wine, at the moment of consecration during Holy Mass, actually become the body and blood of Jesus Christ. The change, however, is not detectable by the senses". (Catholic Answers)

This argument of yours against transubstantiation would work easily to refute the reality of the Incarnation of Jesus as the Son of God. "Being made in the form of a man (Phil. 2:5-8), Jesus’ divinity could not be detected by any empirical means, and one could say that his dual nature is even harder to believe than a transubstantiated communion meal! Jesus was clearly a human being with all the limitations of humanity, yet Christianity teaches that he was also God, the second person of the Holy Trinity". (Catholic Answers)

Now explain away that.

Sorry, but there is not much "orthodox" about your church, since it teaches so many heretical doctrines.

Like what, confession to a priest as you also do?

 

[romishpopishorganist]

How many redeemers does the bible say there are? I know of only one. And its not mary.

In the ultimate absolute sense? There is one redeemer; Christ.

But you like every other Protestant on this site--insists on creating false dichotomies, zero-sums and competitions where there simply are not any.

When we assert that Mary is the "co-redemptrix" Mary is not in competition with Christ. As I explained: Mary is the second Eve. Just as the first Eve paved the way for Adam's sin, so also Mary's "yes" to the angel paved the way for the Second Adam.

And yet like all titles and powers given to her by your church, not a shred of evidence from the bible even remotely indicating such. Just another attempt to elevate a creature.

Your opinion.

Mary is never called the second eve. Her 'yes' was in response to being told what she would do. She was a faithful bond slave.

Is there a Second Adam? yes or no?

You need to re-read Romans 5.

I do not need to re-read anything, sir.

Paul calls Jesus the second man in 1 Cor 15. No mention of mary. That's you inserting more of your rc theology into the text.

If Jesus is the Second Adam (man) then Mary is the second Eve. How did the Second Adam come to earth, sir?

If we were all mediators the bible would say we were. It doesn't.

Isn't prayer for each other a form of mediation, sir?

There is one mediator.

Sigh. Already explained. Go back and re-read my post.

That word is used in the n.t. for Jesus alone.

In reference to Christ and the Father, yes.

The one reference in Gal 3 is regarding Moses which is o.t. not n.t.

So?

We aren't mediators.

Do you pray for people? That isn't mediation in your world?

 

[pilgrim]

I saw it, and technically, you are right--co means "with." But calling Mary "Co redeemptrix" to mean you just acknowledge Mary's small but important roll in salvation is nonsense. That highly unbiblical title means "female redeemer with the Redeemer", which makes it sound as if Mary was equally important in our Redemption as what Jesus did for us, on the cross! That title is blasphemy!

Why oh why do Catholics always seem to need to take the focus for our salvation off our dear Savior and what He did for us on the cross, and put it on Mary??

I explained what co meant and you agreed it meant "with". Then you redefined a Catholic term ,clutched your pearls and cried blasphemy. Hardly fair.
Is it also blasphemy to say that parents co-create with God when they conceived a child? Because that's like saying there are 3 Creators, isn't it?

 

[Nondenom40]

I explained what "co" means. Did you miss that?

Co = having a baby
Co = redeeming mankind

Did YOU miss that? Apples and oranges. Show us the verse where mary co-redeems mankind.

 

[Nondenom40]

But He did say it WAS His blood several times. Didn't He?

Rev 7:14 I said to him, “Sir, you know.” And he said to me, “These are the ones coming out of the great tribulation. They have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

How do catholics take this verse? And others in Revelation where blood is clearly not what it appears to be?

How are blood washed robes made white? Since catholics take blood literally.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

Co = having a baby
Co = redeeming mankind

Did YOU miss that? Apples and oranges. Show us the verse where mary co-redeems mankind.

How did God deign to come to earth? Who was at the cross with John the Apostle when everyone else ran out on Jesus?

 

[Bonnie]

Yes, but this happens under the elements of bread and wine. "The Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation states that the bread and wine, at the moment of consecration during Holy Mass, actually become the body and blood of Jesus Christ. The change, however, is not detectable by the senses". (Catholic Answers)

This argument of yours against transubstantiation would work easily to refute the reality of the Incarnation of Jesus as the Son of God. "Being made in the form of a man (Phil. 2:5-8), Jesus’ divinity could not be detected by any empirical means, and one could say that his dual nature is even harder to believe than a transubstantiated communion meal! Jesus was clearly a human being with all the limitations of humanity, yet Christianity teaches that he was also God, the second person of the Holy Trinity". (Catholic Answers)

Now explain away that.


Like what, confession to a priest as you also do?

But doesn't Transubstantiation say that after consecration, the bread and wine are ONLY Jesus' body and blood, and no long bread and wine? That is not what my church teaches. Please go to the Lutheran board where I started a thread about what my church believes, teaches, and confesses about the Lord's Supper if you truly wish to know. .

Show me from the Bible where it says we MUST confess sins to church workers called priests, if you please...

 

[Bonnie]

How did God deign to come to earth? Who was at the cross with John the Apostle when everyone else ran out on Jesus?

John, Jesus' mom, and a couple of other Marys,, if memory serves.

 

[Nondenom40]

How did God deign to come to earth? Who was at the cross with John the Apostle when everyone else ran out on Jesus?

Great, you admit John was there. Is he a co-redeemer too? How about jtb? He baptized Jesus inaugurating His ministry. Is he a co-redeemer? I can do this all day. Its simply an appeal to emotion regarding mary. Nothing biblical about her co-redeeming anything. Unless she had a bunch of pop bottles she took back to the local store to 'redeem.' Older people get this, young'ins probably won't. So until you have a verse, its your opinion.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

Great, you admit John was there. Is he a co-redeemer too?

Actually.....yes. We all are. What is predicated of Mary is predicated of the Church.

How about jtb? He baptized Jesus inaugurating His ministry. Is he a co-redeemer?

Yes. We all are. What is predicated of Mary is predicated of the Church.

 

[Tertiumquid]

I explained what co meant and you agreed it meant "with". Then you redefined a Catholic term ,clutched your pearls and cried blasphemy. Hardly fair.
Is it also blasphemy to say that parents co-create with God when they conceived a child? Because that's like saying there are 3 Creators, isn't it?

1. I respect the definition of terms... and as we've been experiencing it socially, those who control the language tend to want to control society. Control the language, control the people.

2. If the Roman magisterium controls theological terms, then "co- redemptrix" means what the Roman magisterium says it means. 3. If the Roman magisterium does not control theological terms, then who does?

3. My 2 cents is that the Bible should dictate what a theological term means. The reason why non-Roman Catholics detest the term "co-redmptrix" is that it's being read into the Christian, not exegeted purely out of the Bible.

 

[Nondenom40]

In the ultimate absolute sense? There is one redeemer; Christ.

But you like every other Protestant on this site--insists on creating false dichotomies, zero-sums and competitions where there simply are not any.

When we assert that Mary is the "co-redemptrix" Mary is not in competition with Christ. As I explained: Mary is the second Eve. Just as the first Eve paved the way for Adam's sin, so also Mary's "yes" to the angel paved the way for the Second Adam.

Your opinion.

Is there a Second Adam? yes or no?

I do not need to re-read anything, sir.

If Jesus is the Second Adam (man) then Mary is the second Eve. How did the Second Adam come to earth, sir?

Isn't prayer for each other a form of mediation, sir?

Sigh. Already explained. Go back and re-read my post.

In reference to Christ and the Father, yes.

So?

Do you pray for people? That isn't mediation in your world?

In the ultimate absolute sense? There is one redeemer; Christ.

Thanks, we can call this one too. If there is one redeemer and its not mary we really don't need to pursue this any further do we?

But you like every other Protestant on this site--insists on creating false dichotomies,

Where? Our objections aren't made in a vacuum. They come from catholics that make claims they can't back up. We question what YOU people are saying. Hows that a false dichotomy? Its a real objection to a real claim made by catholics.

When we assert that Mary is the "co-redemptrix" Mary is not in competition with Christ.

Oh thats good to know. You've all but pushed Jesus off of His throne with all this mary nonsense. But hey as long as theres no competition right? I could make a list and it would be rather long of all the 'non-competitive' titles, powers, offices she has been given by catholics.

Just as the first Eve paved the way for Adam's sin, so also Mary's "yes" to the angel paved the way for the Second Adam.

The funny thing is, we don't see those comparisons in the bible do we? Its always Adam and Jesus, not Eve and Mary. And again, Marys 'yes' wasn't because God was somehow backed into a corner and was biting His nails hoping Mary would say yes. She is a bond-slave, as an obedient, humble slave she said yes to what she was told would happen to her. She wasn't asked anything.

Your opinion.

Fine, just plop down all the verses with all her titles and powers and offices. We'll wait.

Is there a Second Adam? yes or no?

There is a last Adam;

1Cor 15:45 Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

Notice Paul doesn't say 'first adam', 'second adam'? Its first Adam, last Adam.

There is a second man;

1Cor 15:47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven.

If you have a verse that says Jesus is the 'second Adam' i'd like to see it. If you wanted to be consistent maybe call Mary the last eve? Or second woman? But those don't really have the punch of second Eve does it? And thats really what the whole business behind Jesus being 'second adam' is about right? So you can call Mary the second eve. No one calls Jesus the second Adam strictly speaking. And no one calls Mary the second Eve, last eve, other eve, eve part 2, the good eve....yada yada. Its simply another way in a long line of ways to make Mary out to be something she clearly isn't.

I do not need to re-read anything, sir.

Not from where i'm sitting. There is no eve/mary dichotomy in the bible. Its Adam/Jesus. Romans 5 details that. Maybe a refresher course is due?

If Jesus is the Second Adam (man) then Mary is the second Eve. How did the Second Adam come to earth, sir?

Like clockwork.

Isn't prayer for each other a form of mediation, sir?

No its not. I thought you taught theology? Prayer has five synonyms, mediator isn't one of them. These words are not interchangeable. If you think they are simply provide the verse where the greek word for mediator is used for anyone other than Jesus in the n.t. That should be a 5 minute study. Prove me wrong i'll gladly concede. When you find you are wrong, will you?

Sigh. Already explained. Go back and re-read my post.

Right, in one sentence you admit there is one mediator. In another there are a billion mediators. That doesn't sound confusing at all.

 

[Nondenom40]

Actually.....yes. We all are. What is predicated of Mary is predicated of the Church.

Yes. We all are. What is predicated of Mary is predicated of the Church.

I guess we can throw this out the window then can't we?

romishpopishorganist said:
In the ultimate absolute sense? There is one redeemer; Christ.

Jesus will be surprised to know He had so much help from sinful, fallible human beings while on the cross bloody and beaten carrying the sins of the world. Who knew all of us were up there too.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

I guess we can throw this out the window then can't we?

Jesus will be surprised to know He had so much help from sinful, fallible human beings while on the cross bloody and beaten carrying the sins of the world. Who knew all of us were up there too.

You know, your problem, like with all Protestants---is in looking at the cross event in isolation from everything else---and acting as if the cross event itself----is unrelated to everything else in the life of Christ.

Put another way: you act as if our redemption takes place solely on the cross--and that everything that preceded the cross or came after the cross is superfluous.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

Right, in one sentence you admit there is one mediator. In another there are a billion mediators. That doesn't sound confusing at all.

Sigh...

For the 100th time:

There is one mediator between God the FATHER and man. That is the unique mediation of Christ. Do you not get distinctions?

Your objection is like the objection of the atheists to the Trinity: "So God is one yet three? How is that not a contradiction?"

Then there is the mediation between God the Son and man. We may all approach the throne of Grace boldly. We may pray for each other, we may approach Christ and pray for our needs.

This is a form of mediation that comes through redemption.

 

[Bonnie]

You know, your problem, like with all Protestants---is in looking at the cross event in isolation from everything else---and acting as if the cross event itself----is unrelated to everything else in the life of Christ.

Put another way: you act as if our redemption takes place solely on the cross--and that everything that preceded the cross or came after the cross is superfluous.

Where did Jesus pay for our sins, so we can be forgiven and have eternal life in heaven? Where were they taken away?

 

[Bonnie]

Sigh...

For the 100th time:

There is one mediator between God the FATHER and man. That is the unique mediation of Christ. Do you not get distinctions?

Your objection is like the objection of the atheists to the Trinity: "So God is one yet three? How is that not a contradiction?"

Then there is the mediation between God the Son and man. We may all approach the throne of Grace boldly. We may pray for each other, we may approach Christ and pray for our needs.

This is a form of mediation that comes through redemption.

Yes! Pray FOR each other, not TO each other! And we can indeed approach Christ and pray for our needs. No dead in Christ Saint--even Mary--needed!