Results 601 - 620 of 1443
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Emmaus Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
601 | Why do catholic call Mary mother of God. | Amos 1:1 | Emmaus | 69632 | ||
Crossman, "But do you never answer my question about worshiping mary?" Because I don't worship her. You are under the misapprehension that I do. "Why is mary so important to you?" Because she is the Mother of Jesus, my Savior and whoever He loves I love. Could I ever honor Mary more than God the Father who chose her to be the mother of Jesus, the Son, who obeyed and fulfilled the commandment to honor his mother, and the Holy Spirit who over shadowed her so that she conceived the Son by Him? "Where does it say you must worship mary?" It doesn't and I don't. But is does say in Luke 1 that all generations will call her blessed and I do. "Where does it say she reunites God and man?" It doesn't and I did not say she reunited anyone or anything. God and man are united in Jesus Christ. Nor did I ever say anywhere that Jesus is not her Savior, since He is. "Mary is a vessel who carried the Holy Spirit..." Mary also carried the Second Person of the Holy Trinity for nine months in her womb, "blessed is the fruit of your womb," and the Lord knows how long in her arms. Quite a few privileges bestowed on her by God I would say. Who else in the Bible comes even close? It appears to me you have a lot of misinformation received from biased sources or misunderstandings about what Catholics believe. Don't believe everything you hear and be careful not to misinterpret what you may see. Emmaus |
||||||
602 | Why do catholic call Mary mother of God. | Amos 1:1 | Emmaus | 69651 | ||
Crossman, As St. Lawrence, the Deacon of Rome, said to his Romnan executioners as they were roasting him on a gridiron: "Turn me over, I'm done on this side." I am relunctant to cover the same ground I have been over before on this forum more than once. You can, however, see my explanation of Catholic belief in the archives of previous discussions. Go to the yellow Search box on the left side of the screen, click on Search. When you get to the query page type in 12-08-2001 for all posts after that date and then type in Emmaus in the block for the person posting. Click enter and you will get right into the substance of things. It will give you a clear idea of where I and the Catholic Church are coming from and the biblical support for those positions. Welcome to the Forum. Emmaus |
||||||
603 | Why do catholic call Mary mother of God. | Amos 1:1 | Emmaus | 69654 | ||
Crossman, You are welcome. Always a pleausre to give a reason for the hope that is in me. You will find a detailed multi-posting answer to your last question on the intercessory prayer of the saints, along with other subjects like that old favorite, Papal infallability in the archives to which I directed you. Emmaus |
||||||
604 | Why do catholic call Mary mother of God. | Amos 1:1 | Emmaus | 69708 | ||
Joe, I am not so sure about you fears of Cathlics erring in the way you described. The whole One Person, two natures concept was hammered home pretty hard in the grade school catechism classes of my generation. Others I can't speak for, but I do know what the Church teaches. What her children learn in every case I could not say. As for Christ's finite human nature, don't you think it was transformed and elevated by the Resurrection? Wasn't Christ death and Resurrection meant to transform and elevate our very natures? Something to meditate on. These are just my own personal immediate thoughts in response to you comment, not any theological or doctrinal response. Emmaus |
||||||
605 | Why do catholic call Mary mother of God. | Amos 1:1 | Emmaus | 69796 | ||
Joe, Not if it meant what you think it does, for reasons I have made clear before. But we can't be sure you are correct in your assumption. I have to say I have never seen anything like what you have described. I have seen many imagas of Our Lady of Guadalupe and even have one in my home. But I have never seen one with the words around it as you describe. I would be hard pressed to say exactly what they mean to whoever produced it or is displaying it. Who is speaking the words? The Virgin to the Christ child in her womb, the Christ child in her womb to the Virgin, the owner of the truck? Whose is the voice? For all I know it could be some kind of pro life decal. Our Lady of Guadalupe is very prominent in pro life circles because Mary is depicted as pregnant in the image. You speak the language, not me. Perhaps you will be able to ask someone local about it. You can't even presume the owner is Catholic. In these parts, some Protestant Churches hang out big banner images of Our Lady of Guadalupe to draw in Hispanics. Some even celebrate the feast day of Our Lady of Guadalupe and say rosaries in those churches. I think there is some cross pollination going on here. We might have to fight back by hanging out portrait of Luther and Calvin. At least they were Catholics once. :-) By the way, I can tell my surgeon that my life is in his hands without any connotation of worship. Same goes for my daughter when she is driving and I am riding with her. Sometimes I think I put my life in your hands when I post on this forum. Figuatively and poetically, not worshipfully, speaking of course. I am not sure I fully understand your question on the Eucharist. It lacks your usual clarity. What exactly in Rev 1 are you alluding to? I see it in the other passages you cite, although you avoid the citation of the instituition narratives of the Gospels and 1 Cor 11, which are key to the doctrine of the Real Presence. Emmaus |
||||||
606 | Why do catholic call Mary mother of God. | Amos 1:1 | Emmaus | 69829 | ||
Joe, When we are speaking of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist we are dealing with one of the highest mysteries of the Faith. One I do not feel completely adequate to address in depth. I like what the author of The Imitation of Christ had to say on the subject in his last chapter where he warned against "useless and curious searching into this profound Sacrament." That being said I want to address one issue you brought up and let another author address it at least in part, perhaps in way suprising to you. "I hold to the Real Presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Supper (which is also clearly presented in 1 Corinthians 10 as well, and at least has some connection to Jesus' statements at the end of John 6 as well). However, I disagree that Jesus Christ is physically and locally in place of, in, with, or under the substance of the elements."... Joe! You make a very important point here. Look carefully at Catholic doctrinal statements on the Real Presence, including transubstantiation and you will notice that the word "physical" is scrupulosly avoided and absent. The terms used for the Presence are always "substanially" and "sacramentally," but never physically. Here is a little of what Thomas Merton had say on this subject in his book The Living Bread: "Here we must empahsize the distinction made by the Church between Chrsit's natural presence and His presence in the Sacrament. Both presences are real, and both are equally real, but nevertheless only the former is a strictly "local" presence. For only in His quantatative dimensions is the Body of Christ directly localized--and this direct localization is realized in heaven, but not on our altars, where He is present indirectly localized by the quantitative dimensions of the Host. These dimensions are not His own, and he is therefore not in immediate physical contact with His material surroundings. His contact with us is spititual and mystical. "The presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament is therefore not a local presence. He becomes present in the Host not by any change in Himself but by a change which He effects, by divine power, in the bread, converting its substance into His own Body. Transubstantiation is in no sense a "production" of the Body of Christ or a local "adduction" of His Fleash. This is not so hard to conceive if we remember He did the same thing at the Last Supper. Nothing happened to His own Person when He pronounced the words which changed bread into His Body. He remained locally present at the head of the supper table and became sacramentally present in the bread which He had changed, by transubstantiation, into Himself, and which was eaten by His disciples." The Living Bread by Thomas Merton Farrar, Straus, Girroux, N.Y. 1956 p. 61-62 Still in print I think you might aprreciate this book. I think from now on I would like to stick to more mundane bible questions. Are you teaching techniques for Spanish as challanging as your forum style? They must hate you now, but the survivors prbably love you later if they gain proficiency. Emmaus |
||||||
607 | Why do catholic call Mary mother of God. | Amos 1:1 | Emmaus | 69891 | ||
Ed, You are wrong on this. I have never heard any such thing as Mary forgiving sins. As for Mary not dying and ascending into heaven. That is also incorrect. The Church does not teach that Mary did not die. It does not have a formal teaching on that subject. The majority consensus of theologians is that she did die. It does teach her Assumption, which in a different thing from ascension. Only Jesus ascended by his own power. The Church teaches, based on Tradition, that Mary was assumed into heaven by God's power like Enoch and Elijah. Emmaus |
||||||
608 | Is it right to pray to mary or the dead? | Amos 1:1 | Emmaus | 69947 | ||
Crossman, Because you asked it again as if I had not answered it. Get out of bigotry and realize that everyone does not have to agree with you to be in a relationship with Jeus Christ. Emmaus |
||||||
609 | Is it right to pray to mary or the dead? | Amos 1:1 | Emmaus | 69949 | ||
Please tell me Crossman, how you know that I do not have a personal relationship with Christ. Emmaus |
||||||
610 | Why do catholic call Mary mother of God. | Amos 1:1 | Emmaus | 69957 | ||
Joe, You are right about the relative significance of the subject. We are also past the level of "get out of religion and into a relationship with Christ." At least I hope so. I don't think I can answer better than Merton. You really should get the book, which is about a lot more than just Transubstantiation. Basically the substance is the answer to the essential question, What is this? and the answer is, the Body of Christ. The accidents are the outward appearence and sensory perceptions but not the essential quality of the reality. But I may not be exactly precise. It has a long time since I studied the exact meaning of these philosophical terms dealing with reality and existence. I must admit my conversations with non Catholics rarely get to this level. See my "get out of religion" comment. What I like about this forum is that the people I most often interact with are not that way. And conversations with people who always agree with you are not very stimulating, assuming you can even get a conversation going in such a circumstance. Your question about what is the difference between the Calvinist position and the Catholic is the right question. I am sorry to say I don't have a ready answer for you. So it seems we are in the same spot in that regard. But I knew that the information would surprise you. I also think the answer to your question about "production" is that Merton was saying that the Body of Christ was not "produced" or "adduced" by the priest but the change is effected by Christ through the Holy Spirit as the prayer called the epiclesis just before the consecration asks. Another book I highly recommend: The Lambs Supper: The Mass as Heaven on Earth, by Scott Hahn, is a treatment of the Mass in the context of covenant and a participation in the liturgy of heaven as seen in Revelation. I gave it to another Presbyterian friend after we got into a dicussion of covenant theology. Her note in the book when she returned it said she found it "very interesting and thought provoking." The section of the Catechism on the Eucharist, I think you would also find interesting if you have not already read it. Sometimes I prefer these kinds of discussion where we are left with something to think about. Emmaus |
||||||
611 | Why do catholic call Mary mother of God. | Amos 1:1 | Emmaus | 70023 | ||
Ed, The link given by Joe is to one section of the Catechism about Mary. Here is a link to another section also about Mary. http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/creed3.html#MARY Here is a link to the footnotes footnotes for the other links. http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/creed3.html#MARY May I suggest that it may be easier for you to look at Mary's Assumption as a preview of coming attractions, i.e. the Rapture. What happened to her is special in that it happened to her earlier than the same thing will happen to us. You may also wish to check the archives of my posts. I am sure this question has come up before and I have addressed it. You can also get and inexpensive paperback copy of The Catechism of the Catholic Church at any major bookstore chain. They usually have them on the shelf. That way when a question comes up you can peruse it at you leisure with the benefit of the footnote also. Emmaus |
||||||
612 | Why do catholic call Mary mother of God. | Amos 1:1 | Emmaus | 70055 | ||
Ed, This link will give you the history. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02006b.htm Emmaus |
||||||
613 | Why do catholic call Mary mother of God. | Amos 1:1 | Emmaus | 70070 | ||
Ed, It doesn't scare me a bit. I am not sola scriptura and it does not contradict scripture since scripture does not address the question directly. Although there is Rev 11:19 -12:2. It does however deal with what will, by the grace of God, happen to you and me and all believers at the Second Coming. So what is to be scared about. Emmaus |
||||||
614 | Why do catholic call Mary mother of God. | Amos 1:1 | Emmaus | 70071 | ||
Ed, It doesn't scare me a bit. I am not sola scriptura and it does not contradict scripture since scripture does not address the question directly. Although there is Rev 11:19 -12:2. It does however deal with what will, by the grace of God, happen to you and me and all believers at the Second Coming. So what is to be scared about. Emmaus |
||||||
615 | Why do catholic call Mary mother of God. | Amos 1:1 | Emmaus | 70076 | ||
Joe, I have some of Madrid's books, but not his debate tapes. I don't have an opinion on his opinion. I have enough to do defending my own and those with Magesterial authority. It was not my goal in life to become the Catholic Answer Man on this forum. The Catechism is available to anyone who wants all the official answers in a single source. One thing about the Catholic Church is that all its offical teachings are out then in print for anyone to see and accept or reject. Emmaus |
||||||
616 | Does God judge nations directly? | Obad 1:2 | Emmaus | 131437 | ||
Reighnskye, Regarding Rev 2:17. "The promise of the hidden manna to the victors can be seen as a counter to the sin of indulging in idolatrous meals. St. paul contrasts sacrifices to idols with with the Eucharistic scrifice; and tells the Corintians that they cannot "drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons[...]cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons" (1 Cor 10:21). Elsewhere, St. John tells us of the Lord's referring to manna when speaking about the Eucharist (cf.John 6:21-33). The nourishment which Yaweh gave his people in the desert was described as "bread from heaven" (cf. ex 16:4)and "the bread of abgels" (Psalm 78:25), kept in the Ark of the Covenant to be revered by the people(cf.Heb 9:4). Here it is described as "hidden" manna, a reference to the supernatural, divine, character of the reward of heavenly beatitude; we share in this in Holy Communion, to a degree; in eternal life it is partaken of fully. "The "white stone" is a reference to the custom of showing a alittle stone with some appropriate mark on it, to gain entrance to a feast or banguet. The name incribed on the stone referred to here shows that the Christian has a right to partake in the good things which the Lord reserves for those who win the victory. "The fact that only the recipient knows what is written on the stonepoints to the personal, intimate relationship between god (who issues the invitation) and the invited guest. ... "I have redeemed you, I have called you by name, you are mine." (Is 43:1)" footnote on Rev 2:17 from the Navarre Bible Four Courts Press Cpoyright 1992 Emmaus |
||||||
617 | Are all the 12 tribes in Israel today? | Mic 2:12 | Emmaus | 69335 | ||
Makarios, I have an interesting 4 tape set Bible Study of Romans 9-11 that takes the position that the ingathering of the "lost tribes of Israel" takes place by the spread of the Gospel among the Gentiles among whom the ten tribes were dispersed and disappeared. They are reclaimed by being converted to the Church by the Gospel. It is a rather fascinating and indepth analysis of Romans 9-11. Emmaus |
||||||
618 | Who Prophesied Christs Birth? | Mic 5:2 | Emmaus | 118548 | ||
Lancelot, I don' think you are going to find an explicit verse saying what you are looking for. Below are some footnotes on Matt 2 from the NABB. 3 [2] We saw his star: it was a common ancient belief that a new star appeared at the time of a ruler's birth. Matthew also draws upon the Old Testament story of Balaam, who had prophesied that "A star shall advance from Jacob" (Numbers 24:17), though there the star means not an astral phenomenon but the king himself. 4 [4] Herod's consultation with the chief priests and scribes has some similarity to a Jewish legend about the child Moses in which the "sacred scribes" warn Pharaoh about the imminent birth of one who will deliver Israel from Egypt and the king makes plans to destroy him. Matthew 2:11: Cf Psalm 72:10, 15; Isaiah 60:6. These Old Testament texts led to the interpretation of the magi as kings. 5 [11] Psalm 72:10; Psalm 72:15; Isaiah 60:6; These Old Testament texts led to the interpretation of the magi as Kings. Emmaus |
||||||
619 | past prophecy or future or both? | Mic 7:5 | Emmaus | 59017 | ||
Melanie, He must be speaking as a sinner himself,since he speaks of God saving him in verse 7 and he says it directly in verse 9 that he is a sinner who suffers the anger of Yahweh. See Romans 1:18. I don't see this as a messianic prophecy,but the sinner here seems to foreshadow what St Paul says in Romans 6:5 As for your question How does one study the bible without a teacher?, I don't think it can be done effectively as indicated in Acts 8:26-39. But that does not stop people from trying. In my particular case I belong to a Church with Sacred Tradition and authoriy to shed light on and in some case authoritatively interpret difficult or disputed passages of the scripture. I truly believe that most of those who profess "scripture alone" with only the Holy Spirit to guide them usually in reality are also following the teaching and tradition of their own churches. And some of them even acknowlege the place of their tradition in their learning although perhaps not in the same manner as Catholics. Emmaus |
||||||
620 | past prophecy or future or both? | Mic 7:5 | Emmaus | 59027 | ||
Melanie, What an interesting story you have! I will give some thought to a course of reading and send you a list by e-mail. There is a lot out there but I would like to keep any list of recommended titles reasonably limited. I am happy to continue any discussion of particular passages online, but I feel it would not be fair to the rest of the forum or within the rules to set up a separate "Catholic Scripture Study Program" so to speak, on the forum. Emmaus |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 ] Next > Last [73] >> |