The Desperation of the Critics of the Roman Catholic Church

[extranos]

If the Evangelical believes the Bible and wants to live the Christian life, he will not only admit that he needs to cooperate with God for his own salvation, but also that this cooperation is part of a larger identification with Christ, and that this identification with Christ is for the salvation of the world. He will also admit that in some mysterious way, the sufferings we endure are part of the way God works to redeem the world.....

[Tu Es Petrus]

.....I don't believe that we cooperate with God for our salvation....

Let me put this forth to you: If I meet a non-believer and talk to him about Jesus, and if as a result of my talk he decides to come to Christ, would in not be fair to say that I played a part (perhaps a small part, but still a part) in his salvation?

[extranos]

Let me put this forth to you: If I meet a non-believer and talk to him about Jesus, and if as a result of my talk he decides to come to Christ, would in not be fair to say that I played a part (perhaps a small part, but still a part) in his salvation?

This requires a somewhat nuanced answer.....did you play a part in this man's salvation?  In a way, yes - but only because you are a believer and, thus, are a regenerated man.  Your work, through the Spirit, was to spread the good news of Jesus.  However, did you play a part in this man's conversion?  No, that is only the work of the Spirit.

The most common example that I see with regards to being converted into a Christian is the one where a person is sitting at the table and is served a meal.  That person has to make a choice as to whether he will eat the meal or not.  The meal represents faith and the serving of the meal represents our free gift of faith.

This analogy falls apart when Ephesians 2 is taken into account.  We are dead in our sins, not just wounded.  Therefore, I say that the correct analogy is that I am a dead man slumped over in my chair at the table.  Even if a meal has been set before me, I have no ability to eat it until I have been made alive.  In my example, being made alive represents being given faith.  A dead man can do nothing to gain the ability to live, just as a person who is dead spiritually can do nothing to gain faith. 

However, with Christ, all is possible, and He can bring the dead to life.  Thus, once we are alive in Christ, we are able to cooperate with the Spirit and He can work through us.

[Tu Es Petrus]

Let me put this forth to you: If I meet a non-believer and talk to him about Jesus, and if as a result of my talk he decides to come to Christ, would in not be fair to say that I played a part (perhaps a small part, but still a part) in his salvation?

This requires a somewhat nuanced answer.....did you play a part in this man's salvation?  In a way, yes - but only because you are a believer and, thus, are a regenerated man.  Your work, through the Spirit, was to spread the good news of Jesus.  However, did you play a part in this man's conversion?  No, that is only the work of the Spirit....

Fair enough. And let me add that, even though I played a part in this person's salvation in a way, I am by no means the Savior. Jesus is the Savior.

So, is not also fair to say that since the Blessed Virgin brought Christ into the world by giving birth to him, that she played a part - in a way - in our redemption? And as Paul calls himself a "co-worker" in Christ, Mary can be called a "co-redemptrix"?

And remember: This title does not make her a "redeemer", just as I am not a savior even though I played a part in our hypothetical person's salvation. "Co-" here means "a cooperator in-" our redemption. Mary's perfect cooperation with God brought our redeemer into the world

The most common example that I see with regards to being converted into a Christian is the one where a person is sitting at the table and is served a meal.  That person has to make a choice as to whether he will eat the meal or not.  The meal represents faith and the serving of the meal represents our free gift of faith.

This analogy falls apart when Ephesians 2 is taken into account.  We are dead in our sins, not just wounded.  Therefore, I say that the correct analogy is that I am a dead man slumped over in my chair at the table.  Even if a meal has been set before me, I have no ability to eat it until I have been made alive.  In my example, being made alive represents being given faith.  A dead man can do nothing to gain the ability to live, just as a person who is dead spiritually can do nothing to gain faith. 

However, with Christ, all is possible, and He can bring the dead to life.  Thus, once we are alive in Christ, we are able to cooperate with the Spirit and He can work through us.

Bingo.

[Amo]

Cosmo-

You don't have to hate Catholics to be anti-Catholic. Anti means opposed to. You're against Catholicism, therefore you are anti-Catholic. Further, your last insinuation that Catholics are "in danger of making the commandments of God of none effect" is rediculous and an issue already countered by the church catholic when the Donatists suggested such things back in the early 200's C.E. No man can invalidate the commandments of God. The sacraments given to an individual whether by a 'worthy' or 'unworthy' representative of Christ does not nulify the salvivic affects of said sacraments. Further God's commandments are set by Him, mankind cannot nullify the work of God. Sin can distort the purity of the intent here on earth, but nothing a man can do can nulify the commands of God.

Tu Es Petrus-

Has the Catholic Church changed the sabbath from the seventh day of the week to the first day of the week, by the power invested in them by God?No. Saturday is the Sabbath, and Sunday is the Lord's Day. This teaching is specifically laid out in the official Catechism, right here: http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c1a3.htm#II
Quote Section 2175: "Sunday is expressly distinguished from the sabbath which it follows chronologically every week..."

If being against many of the teachings of the Church of Rome is anti-Catholic, then yes, I am decidedly anti-Catholic.  You are right, no one can change the commandments of God.  However, many can and do, teach the world to ignore some of them.  This is what the Church of Rome does concerning the second and fourth commandment.  She claims to have altered or changed the same.  She allows her adherents to bow or kneel down before images, which is strictly forbidden by the second commandment.  Her teachings also lead most of her adherents, indeed almost all of Christianity to ignore the fourth commandment of God in relation to the seventh day, in favor of her own commands regarding the first day.  Observe the following-

Pope Gregory I (AD 590-604) said :
"Gregory, bishop by the grace of God to his well-beloved sons, the Roman citizens: It has come to me that certain men of perverse spirit have disseminated among you things depraved and opposed to the holy faith, so that they forbid anything to be done on the day of the Sabbath. What shall I call them except preachers of anti-Christ?." Epistles of Gregory I, b.13, epist.1, found in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers.

Obviously the above Pope condemned those who would keep the fourth commandment.

The Synod of Laodicea - 343-381 A.D. - furnishes a decree which is quoted by many:
"Christians shall not Judaize and be idle on Saturday [Sabbatum is always used for the Sabbath and is translated Saturday in the English edition of Hefele], but shall work on that day; but the Lord's-day they shall especially honor, and as being Christians, shall, if possible, do no work on that day. If, however, they are found Judaizing they shall be shut out from Christ. (Canon 29, Hefele, Vol. 2, p. 316.)

The above is a direct command to not only ignore the fourth commandment, but violate it.

The following quotes are from the APOSTOLIC LETTER DIES DOMINI by John Paul II

Chap. 1
8.............The People of God are called to enter into this same rest by persevering in Christ's example of filial obedience (cf. Heb 4:3-16). In order to grasp fully the meaning of Sunday, therefore, we must re-read the great story of creation and deepen our understanding of the theology of the "Sabbath".

According to Pope John Paul, the theology which once applied to the seventh day Sabbath of the fourth commandment, now applies to first day of the week.  This is wholly extra biblical.  It proceeds from the Church of Rome, not scripture.

13. The Sabbath precept, which in the first Covenant prepares for the Sunday of the new and eternal Covenant, is therefore rooted in the depths of God's plan. This is why, unlike many other precepts, it is set not within the context of strictly cultic stipulations but within the Decalogue, the "ten words" which represent the very pillars of the moral life inscribed on the human heart.

Again, wholly extra biblical.  It is not God's plan, but the plan of the Church of Rome.

14. In the first place, therefore, Sunday is the day of rest because it is the day "blessed" by God and "made holy" by him, set apart from the other days to be, among all of them, "the Lord's Day".

Wholly extra biblical and directly contradicts the word of God.  Not just the scriptures, but the literal word of God.  The ten commandments, including the fourth, were spoken to Israel by the mouth of God Himself, and written by His very own finger in stone.  No one but God Himself can change any of the ten commandments, or institute new ones.  It is most certainly blasphemous to claim the authority to do so.

18..............In the light of this mystery, the meaning of the Old Testament precept concerning the Lord's Day is recovered, perfected and fully revealed in the glory which shines on the face of the Risen Christ (cf. 2 Cor 4:6). We move from the "Sabbath" to the "first day after the Sabbath", from the seventh day to the first day: the dies Domini becomes the dies Christi!

More of the same.

Chap.2
23. It was this newness which the catechesis of the first centuries stressed as it sought to show the prominence of Sunday relative to the Jewish Sabbath. It was on the Sabbath that the Jewish people had to gather in the synagogue and to rest in the way prescribed by the Law. The Apostles, and in particular Saint Paul, continued initially to attend the synagogue so that there they might proclaim Jesus Christ, commenting upon "the words of the prophets which are read every Sabbath" (Acts 13:27). Some communities observed the Sabbath while also celebrating Sunday. Soon, however, the two days began to be distinguished ever more clearly, in reaction chiefly to the insistence of those Christians whose origins in Judaism made them inclined to maintain the obligation of the old Law.

The prominence which was applied to the first day, over the seventh day, was the beginning of apostasy, not true Christian tradition.  It was in no small part brought about by the heavy influence of pagan sun worship within the Roman empire, rather than sound Christian doctrine.  It is certainly not sound Christian principle to abandon the commandments of God because of someone else's misconceptions, and misguided zeal for the same.

Chap.4
59....................More than a "replacement" for the Sabbath, therefore, Sunday is its fulfilment, and in a certain sense its extension and full expression in the ordered unfolding of the history of salvation, which reaches its culmination in Christ.

According to the Church of Rome Sunday sacredness is even more than a replacement for the Sabbath.  That is, it replaces the seventh day Sabbath.  If this is not an attempt to nullify the fourth commandment, what is?  The effect of the same, has been that most "Christians

[Amo]

Cosmo-

Further, until Martin Luther in the 1500's transubstantiation was an accepted view of the sacrament of communion. While it was under debate in the early church, the Bishops all agreed that the original language meant a literal translation. The reason why only priests of the Catholic Church were allowed to give the sacraments were due to the belief of apostolic descent: i. e. Jesus gave such authority to his apostles, who passed it down to their followers, who passed it down to their followers, etc.

You forgot, or apparently don't know about Berengar of Tours, born 999, died 1088, who denied transubstantiation.  How about John Wycliffe of the 1300s who vehemently denied transubstantiation.  Nor do all the writings of the supposed Church Fathers support transubstantiation.  Not that I put their writings at all on a par with the scriptures, or even consider Church Fathers, but moreover, and for the most part, the Fathers of the Church of Rome.

"Some church fathers believed in the physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist; others considered the elements as signs of the body and blood of Christ, and that His presence is spiritual. Paschasius Radbertus was the first to formulate the doctrine of transubstantiation in the ninth century. He was opposed by Ratranmus, a contemporary monk at the monastery of Corbie. Ratranmus wrote: "The bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ in a figurative sense" (De corpore et sanguine Christi). This controversy between two Catholic monks shows that both views were present in the Catholic church at least up to the eleventh century. The debate continued until the thirteenth century when the final decision was taken by the Lateran Council in 1215. Eventually Radbertus was canonized while Ratranmus' work was placed on the index of forbidden books. The Doctor of the Church, Duns Scotus, admits that transubstantiation was not an article of faith before that the thirteenth century.

It is misleading to speak about "real presence

[Amo]

Cosmo-

As discussed regarding praying to the saints and the use of images: praying to the saints for their prayers to God is tantamount to asking a living friend to pray for you. Considering we believe in a bodily resurrection and also believe that there are certain individuals already in heaven and able to offer prayers to God on our behalf, praying to a saint for prayers to God is simply the same as having another friend pray for you. Catholics do not worship saints. They are kneeling in prayer to God and using imagery as a focus to keep their minds off of the distractions of daily life.

Tu Es Petrus-

Do Catholics pray to God through the saints?No. We pray to God through Jesus. But, we do ask other Christians to pray for us, just like you protestants do. But unlike you, we do not have a narrow view of the Body of Christ. We believe that ALL Christians, whether on earth or in heaven, are members of the Body of Christ, and we feel comfortable asking ANY of them to pray for us. Read this for further explanation:

Do they bow down to images of the same?No. We kneel in prayer, just like you do. However, we do use imagery to help us focus, the same way you may look at a picture of a loved one when you are thinking about them. There may be an image close to us when we kneel in prayer, but we do not "bow down to" them. Again, here is further suggested reading: http://www.catholic.com/library/Do_Catholics_Worship_Statues.asp

"Hail Holy Queen

Hail, Holy Queen, Mother of mercy, our light, our sweetness, and our hope. To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve. To thee do we send up our sighs, mourning and weeping in this vale of tears. Turn then, most gracious advocate, thine eyes of mercy towards us and after this, our exile, show unto us the blessed fruit of thy womb, Jesus. O clement, O loving, O sweet Virgin Mary. V. Pray for us, O holy Mother of God. R. That we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ.

Memorare

Remember, O most gracious Virgin Mary, that never was it known that anyone who fled to thy protection, implored thy help, or sought thy intercession was left unaided. Inspired with this confidence, we turn to thee, O Virgin of virgins, our Mother. To thee we come, before thee we stand, sinful and sorrowful. O Mother of the Word Incarnate, do not despise our petitions, but in thy mercy hear and answer us. Amen.

A PRAYER TO OUR LADY
OF GUADALUPE

Our Lady of Guadalupe, mystical rose, make intercession for the Holy Church, protect the Sovereign Pontiff, help all those who invoke thee in their necessities, and since thou art the ever Virgin Mary and Mother of God, obtain for us from thy most holy Son the grace of keeping our faith, sweet hope in the midst of the bitterness of life, burning charity and the precious gift of final perseverance. Amen.

A PRAYER TO
OUR LADY OF LOURDES

O ever immaculate Virgin, Mother of mercy, health of the sick, refuge of sinners, comfort of the afflicted, you know my wants, my troubles, my sufferings; deign to cast upon me a look of mercy. By appearing in the Grotto of Lourdes, you were pleased to make it a privileged sanctuary, whence you dispense your favors, and already many sufferers have obtained the cure of their infirmities, both spiritual and corporal. I come, therefore, with the most unbounded confidence, to implore your maternal intercession. Obtain, O loving Mother, the grant of my requests. I will endeavor to imitate your virtues, that I may one day share your glory, and bless you in eternity. Amen.

Prayer to St. Joseph
Oh, St. Joseph, whose protection is so great, so strong, so prompt before the throne of God, I place in you all my interest and desires. Oh, St. Joseph, do assist me by your powerful intercession, and obtain for me from your divine Son all spiritual blessings, through Jesus Christ, our Lord. So that, having engaged here below your heavenly power, I may offer my thanksgiving and homage to the most Loving of Fathers. Oh, St. Joseph, I never weary contemplating you, and Jesus asleep in your arms; I dare not approach while He reposes near your heart. Press Him in my name and kiss His fine head for me and ask Him to return the kiss when I draw my dying breath. St. Joseph, Patron of departed souls, pray for me. "

When was the last time either of you knelt down before one of your friends and uttered words like those above.  Get a grip.  You are not giving a prayer request to a friend.  I am not an imbecile, stop trying to tell me you are giving a prayer request to a friend.  Some of the above prayers make no mention of God at all, let alone asking the one prayed to, to relate the prayer to God.


Exod 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: 5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

[Amo]

Tu Es Petrus-

Does the Vatican entertain ambassadors from over 170 nations of this earth?Yes. The Vatican is a sovereign nation. All nations respect each others' ambassadors. Your question is both odd and pointless.

To the contrary, it makes my point exactly.  The Church of Rome is the Church of this world.  Her kingdom is of this world.  She derives her power from the kings of this world.  Thus She continually commits fornication with the powers that be of this world, through adulteress relationships with the same.  All this that she might control and manipulate the same.  She is verily BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.

Rev 17:1 And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters: 2 With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication. 3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. 4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication: 5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.

Rev 18:1 And after these things I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power; and the earth was lightened with his glory. 2 And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird. 3 For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies. 4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

John 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. 37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.

The Church of Rome is the rightful leader of this world in rebellion against God.  I accept her for what she is, the greatest apostate religio-political power this world ever has, or ever will see.  She is prophetically destined to rule the world.  Not for long though.

No time to address more now, got to go.  Merry Christmas to all, and a happy new year!

[Tu Es Petrus]

Whatever dude. There is so much wrong, and so much that is misunderstood in your post, that I have neither the energy nor the desire to type a lengthy tome to refute it. And if I did, it would fall on deaf ears anyway. So go ahead and misrepresent us if that makes you feel good.

Merry Christmas

[zoonance]

Nobody likes nor is comfortable with having there core beliefs questioned.   Thus, it is not a surprise that there will be an emotional response of some kind to the critics.  Nor is it a surprise that those who believe what they believe won't be too keen on nonbiased contemplation that they may not be right.   Anybody can accurately recite a common belief, especially if it is in print to be memorized.  Proving that a particular belief is THE verbatim plea of God Himself is more challenging.  I really doubt that there can be a unifying aspect to starkly opposing views and especially when key doctrines come from very different points of reference on which a belief is formulated and accepted as His Truth.

[Tu Es Petrus]

Nobody likes nor is comfortable with having there core beliefs questioned....

Oh, I have no problem with having my beliefs questioned. And I have many protestant friends who disagree with me and whom I respect.

But this person Amo is not questioning my beliefs. He is creating false caricatures of Catholicism and then arguing against them. He is not arguing against what we believe, he is arguing against what he wrongly perceives as our beliefs.

And THAT kind of ridiculous posting DOES bring out an emotional response in me. It is difficult enough to overcome are actual disagreements, so it does not help at all when people throw out bogus charges.

[zoonance]

True. It is amazing how those on the outside (of any group) claim to be a superior source of accuracy on the insiders positions than those on the inside.  That being said, most doctrinal issues do not stand on their own volition, devoid of human reasoning at some point.  They were developed from reasoning and thus subject to scrutiny.   

[extranos]

So, is not also fair to say that since the Blessed Virgin brought Christ into the world by giving birth to him, that she played a part - in a way - in our redemption? And as Paul calls himself a "co-worker" in Christ, Mary can be called a "co-redemptrix"?

And remember: This title does not make her a "redeemer", just as I am not a savior even though I played a part in our hypothetical person's salvation. "Co-" here means "a cooperator in-" our redemption. Mary's perfect cooperation with God brought our redeemer into the world.

Mary is called "blessed" and "full of grace" and is the human in which the Savior is carried.  Those are tremendously generous words used by the Holy Spirit to talk about her and they cannot be taken lightly.  Mary is totally cool.  I don't think we can sit in our comfortable armchairs and really understand the fear and wonder that she must have felt.  Mary was a devout believer, and I mean devout!  How many of us could even contemplate answering an ANGEL in such a faithful manner:  "I am the Lord's servant," Mary answered. "May it be to me as you have said."
So I don't want my answer to seem to denigrate this wonderful woman in any way, but I just see no purpose in elevating her to such a high position with the use of the title "Co-Redemptrix", nor am I so sure she would want this.  It seems to me that Mary, with her wonderful faith and humility, would be happy to be called a "co-worker" like Paul.

I have a comment on the transubstantiation topic, too.......we in the Lutheran  faith don't really have a name for this "process" by which the bread and wine become Body and Blood and I think the RCC has tried to define it in a too-detailed manner.  Some people use the phrase "consubstantiation", but that is not an official term ever used by us.  We simply say that it IS the Body and Blood because Christ says it is and we leave it at that.  The wine and bread always stay wine and bread, but at the Words of Institution, they are also mysteriously His Body and Blood.  I don't agree with the position of the RCC on the "how", but I absolutely agree with them on the "what" of the Eucharist.

And finally.....I think all serious Lutherans would love to be able to overcome the differences with the RCC and fold the two Churches back into one, but there are still too many differences of opinion to make this happen.  Tu Es Petrus, what do you think it would honestly take to bring the Lutherans home, and would you be willing to see it happen?  I think that there would be a side benefit to bringing home the Lutherans and that would be that the EO would once again "unsplit".  From conversations with CD Healy, it seems to me that the Lutherans and the Orthodox have many similar doctrines and that the differences could be bridged under one Christian Church.  I would like to see the RCC do her part to overcome the differences, but I honestly feel that this won't happen in my lifetime because of the fundamental, structural problems it might cause the RCC.  I'd be very interested in hearing your thoughts.

[Tu Es Petrus]

Mary is called "blessed" and "full of grace" and is the human in which the Savior is carried.  Those are tremendously generous words used by the Holy Spirit to talk about her and they cannot be taken lightly.  Mary is totally cool.  I don't think we can sit in our comfortable armchairs and really understand the fear and wonder that she must have felt.  Mary was a devout believer, and I mean devout!  How many of us could even contemplate answering an ANGEL in such a faithful manner:  "I am the Lord's servant," Mary answered. "May it be to me as you have said."

So I don't want my answer to seem to denigrate this wonderful woman in any way, but I just see no purpose in elevating her to such a high position with the use of the title "Co-Redemptrix", nor am I so sure she would want this.  It seems to me that Mary, with her wonderful faith and humility, would be happy to be called a "co-worker" like Paul...

I appreciate the tone of your post, and I understand where you are coming from. I think I'll just post a quote from the Second Vatican Council document Lumen Gentium:

"Embracing God's salvific will with a full heart and impeded by no sin, she devoted herself totally as a handmaid of the Lord to the person and work of her Son, under Him and with Him, by the grace of almighty God, serving the mystery of redemption. Rightly therefore the holy Fathers see her as used by God not merely in a passive way, but as freely cooperating in the work of human salvation through faith and obedience. For, as St. Irenaeus says, she "being obedient, became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race."

And I will add: Co-redemptrix boils down to Mary's role in Salvation History and her "yes." God the Father could have chose any woman in the world from any time period, yet he chose Mary to be the means by which His divine Son would be born and come into the world. The Angel Gabriel was asked to deliver this news, and Mary consented wholeheartedly. Just keep in mind that "co-" does not mean "equal to," but rather comes from the Latin word "c um" which means "with." Mary is not "equal to the Redeemer" but she is "with the Redeemer."

All Christians are called to say yes to God and be "with the Redeemer" one way or another. But as the first Christian and as the mother of Christ, Catholics believe that she did that the best. It is as simple as that. As early as Irenaeus, we can see that the early Christians believed the same (as evidenced by the quote above).

I have a comment on the transubstantiation topic, too.......we in the Lutheran  faith don't really have a name for this "process" by which the bread and wine become Body and Blood and I think the RCC has tried to define it in a too-detailed manner.  Some people use the phrase "consubstantiation", but that is not an official term ever used by us.  We simply say that it IS the Body and Blood because Christ says it is and we leave it at that.  The wine and bread always stay wine and bread, but at the Words of Institution, they are also mysteriously His Body and Blood.  I don't agree with the position of the RCC on the "how", but I absolutely agree with them on the "what" of the Eucharist.

Well, with the exception of the Eastern Orthodox, the Lutherans are definitely closer to us on this matter than anyone else. It makes for a good foundation for discussion.

....And finally.....I think all serious Lutherans would love to be able to overcome the differences with the RCC and fold the two Churches back into one, but there are still too many differences of opinion to make this happen.  Tu Es Petrus, what do you think it would honestly take to bring the Lutherans home, and would you be willing to see it happen?....

Of course I'd like to see it happen. But what would it take? Wow. To be brutally honest, it would take an act of God and a conversion of hearts.

[extranos]

Just keep in mind that "co-" does not mean "equal to," but rather comes from the Latin word "cum" which means "with." Mary is not "equal to the Redeemer" but she is "with the Redeemer."

Then this is not as frightening, and so I would recommend to the RCC that they do more to clear this up, because in English, "co-" means "equal to" in most instances.

Quote from: extranos on Today at 06:58:38 AM
....And finally.....I think all serious Lutherans would love to be able to overcome the differences with the RCC and fold the two Churches back into one, but there are still too many differences of opinion to make this happen.  Tu Es Petrus, what do you think it would honestly take to bring the Lutherans home, and would you be willing to see it happen?....

Of course I'd like to see it happen. But what would it take? Wow. To be brutally honest, it would take an act of God and a conversion of hearts.

Then I'll continue to pray that you will one day see it my way, which is of course the right way.

[zoonance]

So, is not also fair to say that since the Blessed Virgin brought Christ into the world by giving birth to him, that she played a part - in a way - in our redemption? And as Paul calls himself a "co-worker" in Christ, Mary can be called a "co-redemptrix"?

And remember: This title does not make her a "redeemer", just as I am not a savior even though I played a part in our hypothetical person's salvation. "Co-" here means "a cooperator in-" our redemption. Mary's perfect cooperation with God brought our redeemer into the world.

Mary is called "blessed" and "full of grace" and is the human in which the Savior is carried.  Those are tremendously generous words used by the Holy Spirit to talk about her and they cannot be taken lightly.  Mary is totally cool.  I don't think we can sit in our comfortable armchairs and really understand the fear and wonder that she must have felt.  Mary was a devout believer, and I mean devout!  How many of us could even contemplate answering an ANGEL in such a faithful manner:  "I am the Lord's servant," Mary answered. "May it be to me as you have said."
So I don't want my answer to seem to denigrate this wonderful woman in any way, but I just see no purpose in elevating her to such a high position with the use of the title "Co-Redemptrix", nor am I so sure she would want this.  It seems to me that Mary, with her wonderful faith and humility, would be happy to be called a "co-worker" like Paul.

I have a comment on the transubstantiation topic, too.......we in the Lutheran  faith don't really have a name for this "process" by which the bread and wine become Body and Blood and I think the RCC has tried to define it in a too-detailed manner.  Some people use the phrase "consubstantiation", but that is not an official term ever used by us.  We simply say that it IS the Body and Blood because Christ says it is and we leave it at that.  The wine and bread always stay wine and bread, but at the Words of Institution, they are also mysteriously His Body and Blood.  I don't agree with the position of the RCC on the "how", but I absolutely agree with them on the "what" of the Eucharist.

And finally.....I think all serious Lutherans would love to be able to overcome the differences with the RCC and fold the two Churches back into one, but there are still too many differences of opinion to make this happen.  Tu Es Petrus, what do you think it would honestly take to bring the Lutherans home, and would you be willing to see it happen?  I think that there would be a side benefit to bringing home the Lutherans and that would be that the EO would once again "unsplit".  From conversations with CD Healy, it seems to me that the Lutherans and the Orthodox have many similar doctrines and that the differences could be bridged under one Christian Church.  I would like to see the RCC do her part to overcome the differences, but I honestly feel that this won't happen in my lifetime because of the fundamental, structural problems it might cause the RCC.  I'd be very interested in hearing your thoughts.

John the baptizer is also called most blessed among men

[Tu Es Petrus]

Then I'll continue to pray that you will one day see it my way, which is of course the right way.

LOL. Touche'

By the way, have you ever read the "Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification" signed by the Vatican and the Lutheran World Federation? Here is a link:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html

John the baptizer is also called most blessed among men

Yes. But being "blessed among women" is not the only scripture regarding Mary that Catholic doctrine is based on

[Lee Freeman]

A book I as a Protestant found very useful was Dr. Scott Hahn's Hail Holy Queen: The Mother of God in the Word of God. I can't say I found all of his arguments totally persuasive however the book did serve to clarify many points for me. Hahn himself converted to Catholicism from Protestantism back in the 1980s, hence is sympathetic to Protestant objections to Catholic teaching about Mary.

Pax.

[Tu Es Petrus]

A book I as a Protestant found very useful was Dr. Scott Hahn's Hail Holy Queen: The Mother of God in the Word of God. I can't say I found all of his arguments totally persuasive however the book did serve to clarify many points for me. Hahn himself converted to Catholicism from Protestantism back in the 1980s, hence is sympathetic to Protestant objections to Catholic teaching about Mary.

Pax.

Ahhh, bless you. Hahn is my favorite author.
If we could vote for popes, I'd vote for him. LOL

[CDHealy]

On the plus side, the RCC has done a great  job of spreading Christianity throughout the Western Hemisphere, while the EO has done a terrible job of spreading Christianity throughout the Middle East and into Asia.

Ah, Dan, Dan, Dan, my fellows Steelers man (only two more wins to the Super Bowl!!!)--I must sadly shake my head at this comment.

You may remember that Orthodoxy is the faith of the Russian peoples and central Europe, that there are Chinese Orthodox saints, and that many Orthodox died at the hand of the Ottoman Turks.  In other words, Islam was a major impediment to an organized spread of Christianity--something the Roman Church did not have to face quite so squarely as from the ninth century on she had the allegiance of many of the Western European rulers.

That said, in more recent times, Orthodoxy--with a diaspora mentality--has failed to be more aggressive in its evangelism, at times appearing to seek ethnic survival over mission.  Thankfully, the Russian Orthodox evangelized Alaska and began a good work in the U.S. that the Bolshevik regicide and takeover interrupted--the seeds of which I think are soon to begin to sprout.  The two most aggressively evangelistic Orthodox groups in the U.S.--Antioch and O.C.A--are, I think, finally coming to terms with how to do Orthodox evangelism in America and I think you'll see important shifts in the near future.

[Jimbob]

So, is not also fair to say that since the Blessed Virgin brought Christ into the world by giving birth to him, that she played a part - in a way - in our redemption? And as Paul calls himself a "co-worker" in Christ, Mary can be called a "co-redemptrix"?

And remember: This title does not make her a "redeemer", just as I am not a savior even though I played a part in our hypothetical person's salvation. "Co-" here means "a cooperator in-" our redemption. Mary's perfect cooperation with God brought our redeemer into the world.

Mary is called "blessed" and "full of grace" and is the human in which the Savior is carried.  Those are tremendously generous words used by the Holy Spirit to talk about her and they cannot be taken lightly.  Mary is totally cool.  I don't think we can sit in our comfortable armchairs and really understand the fear and wonder that she must have felt.  Mary was a devout believer, and I mean devout!  How many of us could even contemplate answering an ANGEL in such a faithful manner:  "I am the Lord's servant," Mary answered. "May it be to me as you have said."
So I don't want my answer to seem to denigrate this wonderful woman in any way, but I just see no purpose in elevating her to such a high position with the use of the title "Co-Redemptrix", nor am I so sure she would want this.  It seems to me that Mary, with her wonderful faith and humility, would be happy to be called a "co-worker" like Paul.

I think this is well said, extranos, and I think most here, if stepping back and breathing a second, would agree this far. Sometimes I think in the disagreements over Mariology people swing back too far on the ever-wild pendulum and forget that she is indeed worthy of much respect for her faith and courage.

[antiaging]

It is a wonder to me that those who are critical of the Roman Catholic Church go to such extremes of irrationality, illogic and hysterical conspiracy theories in their criticisms.  The dregs of the internet have been scraped deeply to uncover stuff that would be worthy of an X-files movie.

Such irrational and hysterical moves are sheer desperation on the part of the critics.

But why are they so desperate?  If most of the critics of the Roman Catholic Church on these boards are advocates of sola scriptura, why do they go to such extreme lengths to go outside of Scripture to attempt to tar and feather Roman Catholicism with such banal tripe?  Doesn't it stand to reason that if the Roman Catholic Church is, in fact, as thoroughly anti-Christian as these critics claim, that there would be no need to posit such questionable conspiracy theories or tenuous pagan connections, but all that need simply be done is to read and cite official Roman Catholic teaching (from the Catechism and other Catholic official documents) and make the comparisons to Scripture?

Why, it's so simple.  So, why are the critics so desparate?

I think there are two main reasons:

1) Critics of the Roman Catholic Church are, themselves, ignorant both of what the Roman Catholic Church teaches as well as ignorant of the fullness of the Scriptures. 

Most critics of the Roman Catholic Church don't even know what Rome actually teaches but rely on popular and populist bigoted propaganda.  They do not read the official Catholic documents--or, if they read them, they do not read them in full and in context, but only read the selective citations found in anti-Roman screeds--and so they really do not know that Rome doesn't actually teach many of the things they claim it does: for example, that we are to pray to Mary and the saints like we pray to God and instead of praying to God; that we cannot get to God except through Mary; that we must worship and pray to statues; and so on.

Also, most critics of the Roman Catholic Church are also ignorant of the fullness of the Scriptures.  They have focused on Romans to the exclusion of the rest of the Epistles, and so not only misread Romans, but misread the rest of the New Testament.  Therefore they explain away Jesus' command to be perfect as our father in heaven is perfect, St. Paul's admonition to work out our salvation with fear and trembling, and the effective removal of the epistle of James from the New Testament canon.  We Eastern Orthodox have a humorous quip we often pull out in doctrinal disputes: "We believe the parts of the Bible you didn't underline."  So, when we point out that we are to become partakers of the divine nature (a la 2 Peter 1:3-4), most critics are stumped.  They don't even know what that means.  They don't know what to do with 1 Corinthians 10:16-17, since they are so used to explaining away chapter 11.  And so it goes.

2. The other reason that critics of the Roman Catholic Church are so desperate is that their twofold ignorance--of Catholic doctrine and of Scripture--causes their quick if never-acknowledged defeat in arguments over doctrinal matters.  At best, such critics can hold their own but cannot win the case--the arguments appear to end in a draw.  But at their worst, since they cannot win the hard work of argumentative proof, they settle for conspiracy theories, hallucinogenic connections to the Illuminati, paganism and the Masons, and other wacky stuff.

I've got my own criticisms of Rome on other matters--I'm Eastern Orthodox after all--but I deeply sympathize with my co-religionists because it is utterly frustrating to combat the irrational.

I'm just glad few of these desperate critics have any idea what the Orthodox Church even is.

It is not desperation as you suppose. Real Christians, the ones that are saved, born again, and they know it, who use the bible, the inspired scriptures or Word of God, know that it is a warfare of God's truth versus Satan's deceptions. If people don't really get saved then they will burn in hell forever. [There is no purgatory; catholicism invented that to make money and aid in people obeying them.] Hell is eternal. So is heaven.
They are trying to pull as many people out of Satan's lies and deceptions, and get them saved as they possibly can. It is out of caring for what is going to happen to them if they don't really get saved that they go to lengths to pull people out of their errors.
[Note: According to the council of Trent, still in effect, a person is not allowed to believe he is saved; Catholicism thinks it is heresy if a person even believes he has assurance of salvation. See the anathemas in the council of Trent. Catholicism won't even allow a strict catholic to believe he is right with God.]
The apostle John would be called a heretic by the council of Trent.
John wrote this under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit:
1 John 5:13   These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
John the apostle had assurance of salvation and wrote to other Christians that they could have it.
I am using that as an example of how wrong and incorrect catholic doctrine can be.