I am not in league with Donna, or in the same league as her...I never knew her until I discovered her on this blog..She is a little belter...how she has patiently handled your demands and answered you, and the mother of five children at the same time.

Donna, I think you must be the women described in Proverbs, and Mr Green is a very Blessed man. Hope that doesn’t make you cringe.

Diane ..Christ’s death is the perfect and final sacrifice....if I were in a situation where I couldn’t receive priestly absolution, I could make an act of perfect contition and be forgiven..however I would be bound to seek a priest at a later date. Sin has a progressively hardening effect on the soul, and perfect contrition can be difficult...therefore the Church mindful of her commission ato teach and to save souls, requires us to go to confession, if we have sinned seriously. ( there is a greate r sin that leads to death)

However God could give me the grace of necessary for a perfect contrition...say I was stuck in Saudi Arabia with no chance of seeing a priest.

Note on the term co- redemptrix , dealt with by Donna

We are co-heirs with Christ but that does not put us on a par with him. i can make a cat , co-heir to a family member in my will.

I would just like to make brief comments on linguistic issues, I’ll leave others to respond to the other matters Donna has raised.

[quote author="Donna Green"]Let’s look at Genesis 3:15 – “And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; She (ipsa)shall crush they head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.  The word ipsa is a direct translation from the vulgate.

Just to be pedantic (because I find it helps when dealing with issues of language), ipsa is not a translation of the Vulgate but a quotation from the Vulgate. A “direct translation from the vulgate” of this term would be “she.”

However, that’s really the tip of the iceberg, for the reading of the Vulgate is unique and not supported by the Hebrew, Greek, or Syriac, which all use a masculine pronoun, “he.” (Granted the Hebrew pronoun could be parsed differently except that the context demands it be masculine.) It is difficult to read the Hebrew or Greek of Gen 3:15 as saying anything about Mary, only about Eve, her seed, and the serpent.

[quote author="Donna Green"]Luke 1:28 – The angel addressed Mary “full of grace”.  This term in Greek is Kecharitomene which means perfected in grace.  If someone is full of grace, surely there is no room for sin.

This argument seems to be stretching things since Eph 1:6 uses the same verb (χαριτοω), but in reference to all Christians!

[quote author="Donna Green"]When the angel greeted Mary and told her that “…the Most High will overshadow you;…” Luke 1:35, that overshadowing was the same overshadowing that the Ark of the Covenant had – the Shekinah cloud which means to cover.

Regarding “the Shekinah cloud which means to cover,” well, no it doesn’t. “Shekinah” is an English transliteration of the Hebrew שכינה (a form not found in the Bible, but related to the verb meaning “to dwell") and used of the presence of God. The word becomes significant and may have influenced the use of σκηνοω in John 1:14 (because the Greek skēnoō resembles the Hebrew šĕkînâh). I further suspect that the allusion you note here is rather forced (since “overshadow” is used in other contexts and so lacks a ready connection to the Ark of the Covenant).

Thanks for your reply Donna. I will look over your answers more closely with time.

How you arrived at your answers? I suspect they from an official Catholic source. Do you agree with all your answers?

I will try to respond, although I would probably have to go to a similar source from the Bible based perspective. And, you could go to that source yourself, if you were looking for the view that I would probably agree with.

I guess one has to ask oneself “why am I a Roman Catholic, and why am I so loyal?”. It could simply be that one has been born that way, and has not investigated other denominations with a desire to compare. That may not be so in your case.

When I first accepted Jesus, I was going out with A RC girl. I went to masses with her, and thought of becoming a Catholic. I sent for the Catholic information booklets. But after I compared their teaching with the words of Jesus in scripture, I could see a difference which prevented me from converting. It was not the same religion in my eyes.

Later on I went to a very good Bible teaching evangelistic church, and the teaching there was the same as Jesus said, so I have stayed for the last 22 years in that place, and have no regrets.

Any way, thanks again for your efforts to respond.

Ken Austin - 25 July 2008 09:45 AM

I guess one has to ask oneself “why am I a Roman Catholic, and why am I so loyal?”. It could simply be that one has been born that way, and has not investigated other denominations with a desire to compare. That may not be so in your case.

Not a particularly helpful comment Ken.  People become Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Baptist, Pentecostals, etc. for a variety of reasons.  In my case I was raised in an Anglican church, which at one stage I was very dissatisfied with and seriously contemplated leaving.  But my investigations led me to stay where I am, without denying the good in a number of other denominations.  Donna has, I think, shown that she has done a lot more than simply accept the way she was “brung up” without questioning it!
Bob

I’m loving this debate and I really want to congratulate all on their efforts. I wish their could be a Christian coffeehouse for this stuff.

As a high church interloper, I increasingly think all this debate about what one passage means or another means proves Donna’s point. If the Bible is meant to be THE clear authority, why does everyone disagree so vehemently? I mean, I can’t (for my own efforts) get a straight answer on why Christ’s words in Mt25:31-46 and St James’ letter which support salvation by works, doesn’t obliterate St Paul’s justification by faith alone.  if the Bible is so clear, why do even Protestants need voluminous commentaries? My other fear is that, by being Bible-obsessives, even when good people can disagree, we reduce Christianity to some sort of fundamentalism or Koranism, which it shouldn’t be.

One other question Robert Williams implicitly raises is what about the historical Church? Christianity didn’t just start yesterday. The Bible isn’t canonical until the 300s (smarties please correct my dates here).  So in the space of that 300 years, the role of Christ’s disciples, apostolic successors and communities is much more critical. They carried on what Christ had told them. They defended the faith. They martyred themsleves. These early Christians weren’t any less Christians because they didn’t have the KJV.

I am for the Bible (obliviously) but it is ridiculous to say it is the be all and end all, especially given the role granted to St Paul by more militant Protestants, when Paul wasn’t an original disciple but someone who received a vision. Meanwhile the Papacy is already in place with St Peter.

You can’t escape the Papacy as the centre of Christian unity. It’s where Christianity starts. It errs, sure, but it is ridiculous - to me - to pretend it is not vital from day 1 of the Church. Given what happens at Lambeth, it’s probably even more critical.

Again well done all.

DJW

Bob
Thanks for the positive comments and for the support.  I understand that you may not agree with what has been put forward.  This has never been my attempt.  My intention has always been to, hopefully, clear up some misconceptions about Catholicism.
Donna

Martin
I am not going to elaborate any further on what I have submitted to you.  What you have objected to in your latest post could also be argued by theologians, both on the protestant side and the catholic side.  I think you have made a lame attempt to dispute my claims.  The great doctors of the Church must have been stretching things a bit too.
Donna

Ken
You said in relation to using scripture as a source “.....You could go to that source yourself, if you were looking for the view that I would probably agree with”.  I am not particularly concerned whether you agree with me or not.  But I think you are being unfair if you think I haven’t used scripture.  What more scripture do you want! 

You question my sources.  I have tried to debate where you are at - scripture.  Scripture has been my main source.  I have a Catholic bible and a Protestant version.  I use both.  The pages are thinning and they are looking like they need a makeover.  Sure, I use the knowledge of theologians, the catechism and whatever I can use that is has an orthodox approach to Christianity.  Are there some rules to debating on this forum that I have overlooked?

Regarding your experience with enquiring about Catholicism, all I can say is that it is unfortunate you didn’t have someone to help you with understanding the faith better.  I think the Church could do better in regard to educating, not just newcomers, but the cradle Catholics. 

You ask whether I am just Catholic because I was born that way.  Partly, yes and partly no.  I was baptised Catholic and was given a very good understanding of the faith. You see I thank God for the grace He gave me in giving me the Catholic Church.  I thank Him for the faith He has given me.  None of what I have is to my credit.

I went out with a Baptist who later became an Assemblies of God member.  We married.  I spent 16 years with protestant influences in my life.  I was challenged very severely during those 16 years, not only by my husband but from members of his church.  Many prayers went out for my salvation.  I read many books and tracks opposing Catholicism.  My husband prayed regularly that we would be united in the one church.  During those years, I never thought that my husband should be Catholic for his salvation.  I was happy enough that he was a Christian.  That was not the same reception I received from members of his church.  The pressure to respond to an “altar call” was immense.  By the way, a very scriptural practice.  No altar either in fundamentalist churches!  In all those years I never asked my husband to read anything defending the Catholic Faith.  One day he did.  He now has been a Catholic for 12 years.  The best decision of his life (his words).  He said it was like a veil being lifted.
So to answer your question regarding looking at other denominations - I hope you content with my response.

IDonna

[quote author="Donna Green"]I am not going to elaborate any further on what I have submitted to you.  What you have objected to in your latest post could also be argued by theologians, both on the protestant side and the catholic side.  I think you have made a lame attempt to dispute my claims.  The great doctors of the Church must have been stretching things a bit too.

Donna, technically the debate would be among biblical scholars, not theologians, and most biblical scholars would agree with the observations I’ve made in my previous posts (whether they are Roman Catholic or not). All I have done is question the accuracy of your linguistic claims. At a basic level, if you are going to make claims about the meaning of the Bible and include argumentation relating to the meaning of the underlying language (and I’m thinking particularly of the previous unanswered issues relating to the Lord’s Supper), I think you ought to be able to substantiate your claims.

I’m still interested in knowing the source for your claim that Aramaic has 30 different ways of saying “represents.”

Martin
You are a nitpicker aren’t you. 

You play hard ball.  Substantiate your claims!  You set the rules, you play by them!

I was intending to substantiate my claims in response to Tim (which was also a response to your objections). 

Most bible scholars would agree with your claims would they Martin?  I think this requires substantiation Martin! 

Donna

Hi folks,

I think it’s time for a coffee break - and a breath of fresh air. It’s time to reflect and find some inner peace - instead of getting hot under the collar.

Cheers, Kevin

Hi David Webb…

My understanding of pre-Constantine church doesn’t gel with what you have stated.

1. Some of Paul’s epistles were written before any of the apostles got to Rome!

2. The gospels and most of the epistles had ‘canonical’ authority right from the beginning. You can see this by reading the generation of church leaders after the apostles like Clement. The key texts were never in question. Fixing the ‘canon’ was about smoothing out some of the rough edges.

3. In my view there was no ‘papacy’ until the 6th century at the earliest when the church tries to (understandably) rest spiritual authority from the control of the Byzantine Emporers. This is the origin of papal authority ie the papacy. Rome was not the pre-eminent bishopric in the early days with Alexandria, Jerusalem and Antioch being equally, or even more important. Then post-300s came Constantinople (which was the capital of the Empire for some time). This was the period of the 5 patriachs

I am aware this is a sensitive issue for Roman Catholics. But it easy for us weterners to overlook the importance of the eastern churches in the early centuries.

Anyway, happy to be corrected.

cheers
JH

Regarding Mary of the RCC

Donna,

Thankyou for all your hard work! I appreciate it greatly, as I am sure everyone else here does also!

Ok...here we go!

MARIAN DOCTRINES
Although Luther is one my greatest heroes, he is only a man, and can get things wrong. Calvin also. What matters foremost is what Scripture says, as this is the Word of God.

Mary Without Sin
To begin, it must be pointed out that any honour given to Mary is and always should be Christ centred.  We do not worship Mary.  The Catholic Church would see worship of Mary as idolatrous.
Whilst the scriptures are not explicit in dealing with these issues, the scriptures are also not explicit in dealing with the trinity.

Let’s look at Genesis 3:15 – “And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; She (ipsa)shall crush they head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.  The word isa is a direct translation from the vulgate.  Even if it reads ipsum (the seed) this still shows that Mary brings to us salvation.  She brings us salvation through her complete conformity to God’s will.  “Be it done unto me according to they word”.  This, in no way, takes away from Jesus Christ being our saviour.  All Mary’s blessings are received through grace. 

This is double speak, as you say on the one hand Mary brings to us salvation and then say “in no way takes away from Jesus Christ being our saviour”. “In Luke 1:47 Mary acknowledges God as her saviour, so Mary knew she was a sinner (just like every other human being on the earth). If there is only one Saviour then Mary cannot bring to us salvation.

Scripture begins and ends with the Woman battling satan.  See also Rev 12:1

Your interpretation of the woman in Rev 12:1 is incorrect. The woman is not Mary because in v.1 John says that he saw a wondrous sign in heaven. The woman is a sign, not literally a woman. Also the language that desribes the woman seems rather over the top to be Mary.  A woman clothed with the sun, with the moon and stars under her feet and crown of twelve stars on her head. Mary rightly responded to the news of her virgin conception by saying that she rejoiced in God her saviour and that women will call her blessed. But clothed with the sun, is talking about being glorious and exalted. The RCC is no doubt happy with this, but the entire New Testament never speaks of Mary in this way. The woman is in fact God’s people (both old covenant worshippers of Yahweh & New Covenant worshipers of Christ.) God’s people, both old covenant and new. One people – and it was out of this one people that Christ was born.

Just like Christ is the new Adam, so Mary is the new Eve.  Adam and Eve, you could say, were partners in crime and conversely Jesus and Mary were partners in salvation.  Bear in mind that I am not saying Mary is also the saviour.

Luke 1:28 – The angel addressed Mary “full of grace”.  This term in Greek is Kecharitomene which means perfected in grace.  If someone is full of grace, surely there is no room for sin.

This is not correct. The term means favoured one, and does not syuggest that one is without sin. If you have a look at John 1, it tells us that Jesus Christ is the one that is full of grace. Mary is never said to be full of grace in Scripture in a way that suggests that she is without sin.  John goes on to tell us in v.16 that we are all full of His grace (which means God’s unfavoured love,) and truth, because all believers have Jesus dwelling within them. Only in this sense could Mary have been full of grace. The grace that Mary would have been full of whilst carrying the Saviour is the same grace that God bestows on every believer.

cont.
[quote ]When the angel greeted Mary and told her that “…the Most High will overshadow you;…” Luke 1:35, that overshadowing was the same overshadowing that the Ark of the Covenant had – the Shekinah cloud which means to cover.  The Ark of the Covenant held the holy of holies.  Mary was also carrying the Holy of Holies Here are some more parallel texts:
Luke 1:39/2 Sam:6:2 – Mary arose and went; David arose and went.
Luke 1:41/2 Sam:6:16 – John the Baptist/King David leap for joy before Mary/Ark.
Luke 1:43/2 Sam. 6:9 – How can the Mother/Ark of the Lord come to me?
Luke 1:56/2Sam 6:11 and 1 Chron. 13:14 – Mary/the Ark remained in the house for about three months.

Rev 11:19; Rev 12 1 -17. – these verses go from John seeing the Ark of the Covenant then describing the woman clothed with sun, moon under her feet and on her head a crown of twelve stars.  It goes on to describe the defeat of satan and how he continues to persecute and sets off to make with the “rest of her offspring, who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus”.  A typical interpretation for this passage is that the woman is Israel, the 12 stars represents the tribes of Israel.  The problem is that the woman has offspring who keep the commandments.  The children of Israel have not done this.  So it is the children of her (Christians) because she mothered the Son.

Again, this you have misinterpreted Rev 12:1-17. The woman is the people of God, not just Israel but the people of God (both BC and AD).

I ask you this question – if you could create your mother, would you create her stained with sin or would you create her beautiful and spotless.  Jesus, who is God almighty could not exist in something defiled just as the holy of holies could not exist in something not holy, hence God commanded an Ark be created.  Was not Adam and Eve created sinless.  If God could create sinless creatures at the beginning of time, there is no reason that he wouldn’t do it again.  The New fulfils the Old.  To say Mary is sinless does not make her a deity.  In fact, it glorifies God even more because we can say “You have done great things”.  When an artist brings people along to see his artwork, is he offended if we admire his creations or does he want us to come along and look at him and tell him how wonderful he is.  It’s the same with being a parent, don’t we feel wonderful when our children are praised.  God shares his glory.

The problem Donna is that Mary herself acknowledges that God is her saviour. (Which I earlier have pointed out). If Mary were without sin, why would she call God her saviour? Also Scripture tells us that the only one without sin is Christ, (Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews 4:15; 1 Peter 2:22; Hebrews 7:26). Furthermore, Scripture also teaches that every human being is a sinner,( Rom 3:10, 23; 5:12; Psalm 51:5; Galatians 3:22;)this includes Mary as well. Jesus died on the cross for her sins also.

In John 2:4 Jesus corrects Mary as he wants her to know that she needs to relate to him differently – not as a Mother to a son, but as a creature to the Creator. Jesus is the Word who became flesh, he is God the one and only and Jesus now tells Mary that now that he had entered into the purpose of his coming, everything, even family ties has to come under his Divine authority.

This is why Jesus says what he says responds to her motherly request in v.4. “What do you and I have in common?” or “What does this have to do with you and me?”

Can you see the distance that Jesus maintains between his mother and himself Donna? The reason he does this is not only because he is God the one and only, but because of the cross, which is what he is referring to when he says “My time (or my hour) has not yet come. Mary had a special role, she gave birth to Jesus, but He is her saviour, He died on the cross for her sin, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. Mary is to no longer approach Jesus as his mother, but as a believer.

Mary understood this and we can see that is the case by her response in v.5. She moved into the background and told the servants this about Jesus, “Do what ever he tells you”.  If people really believed her and took her advice, from this moment forward they would be devotees of Jesus Christ, not of Mary. The key to eternal life and the grace of God is the Lord Jesus Christ, not Mary. The Lord Jesus said every one should honour him even as they honour God the Father (John 5:23). We are not told to honor Mary as divine or heavenly. We are not told to present our requests to her so that she will pass them on to the Lord Jesus. There is no place in the Scriptures where the Apostles or early Christians prayed to Mary or venerated her. Did you know that there is no Rosary anywhere in the New Testament? When the Lord Jesus spoke of heaven, He said he alone was the way the truth and the life and that he was the only way to the Father (John 14:6). He never said, “No one comes to the Father except through me via Mary”, but rather, as His words indicate, the way to God the Father is through Jesus Christ.

One more post to go

Assumption of Mary
Assumption does not mean Mary mustered the power to raise herself into Heaven.  Assumed means taken up.  Very different to ascension.
Some ‘types’ or parallel texts:
Gen 5:24, Heb 11:5 – Enoch was bodily assumed into heaven without dying.  Would not the mother of our saviour be given the same honor?

No. And there is no where in Scripture that even hints at Mary being assumed. Also 1 Cor 15:22-23 we see that Christ is the firstfruits.The first to resurrect, After him are all the believers raised up (this includes Mary)

2 Kings 2:11-12, 1 Mac 2:58 – Elijah was assumed into heaven in a fiery chariot.
2Cor 12:2 – Paul certainly thought it possible for a person to be caught up into a third in the body.
Rev 12:1 – here Mary is clothed with the sun (she has a body).  In Rev 6:9 only the souls of the martyrs are visible in Heaven.

The first two examples say nothing about Mary’s assumption into heaven. If the RCC uses these verses to justify this doctrine, then this an example of having a doctrine that is not in the Bible, and then using the Bible to try and justify it. The Rev passage I have dealt with twice previously.

Apostolic tradition says Mary was assumed into heaven.  It was common practice during these times to claim the bones of the saints.  Surely, the burial place of the mother of Jesus, her bones, her garments or anything else would have been claimed and preserved.  The bones of her mother, Anne, were found.  Take a look at the catacombs and how much the early Church venerated the burial places of the Saints gone before us.  It seems that Mary did not have a burial place.

Again, this is human reasoning. In Acts Mary is mentioned once in 1:14 and that is it. The Bible says nothing about Mary’s mother. No one knows who she is. In this case Iit is clear that Scripture and Apostolic tradiction are in contradiction and what you have done is interpreted Scripture to fit RCC tradition.

Personally, I don’t see what the big deal is.  This does not take away from the work of Christ.  Mary’s assumption IS the work of Christ.

The bid deal is this:
Mary is the young virgin woman who was chosen by God to bear the Messiah into the world (Mt. 1:18-25; Lk. 1:27-32, 39-41). Although Mary was “greatly troubled” (Lk. 1:29) by the angel’s announcement of her chosen role, she faithfully submitted to God’s will: “May it be to me as you have said” (Lk. 1:38). Throughout her life, she was amazed at the privilege God had given her. When she visited Elizabeth and heard Elizabeth prophesy amazing things about her child, she said, “My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior” (Lk. 1:46–47). When Jesus was born and the shepherds worshipped Him and told of their angelic visitation (what the angels had told them about Jesus), “Mary treasured up all these things and pondered them in her heart” (Lk. 2:19). At Jesus’ dedication in the temple, she was even more awed over the prophecies given about her child (Lk. 2:23).
Thus, the biblical portrait of Mary is of a godly woman who was, not surprisingly, often taken aback in her role as Jesus’ mother. But was she in any way unique or different from the rest of the human race? No! According to the Bible, she was different only in her earthly role as Jesus’ mother; otherwise, she had no special graces, powers, or abilities.
Although the RCC has a billion followers and claims that it accepts biblical teaching, we find in Scripture just the opposite of what the RCC teaches about Mary. The RCC teaches that Mary was sinless, but Mary is clearly seen to be a sinner (just like the rest of us - Lk. 1:47; Rom. 3:23). The RCCh teaches that Mary was a perpetual virgin, but the Scripture teaches she had at least six other children (Mt. 13:55–56). See also Matthew 1:24-25 - she had sex with her husband.
The big deal is that although Jesus gave the appropriate respect to Mary as His mother, He never set her apart as the RCC has. According to Rome, Mary has been more blessed by God than any other mortal. In the words of Pope Paul VI, citing Vatican II, “The place she occupies in the Church [is] ‘the highest place and the closest to us after Jesus.’” But according to Luke 11:27–28, it says:

“As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd called out, ‘Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you.’ He replied, ‘Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.’”

The Lord Jesus Himself denied the RCC when He taught that those who obey God are actually far more blessed than Mary—than if they had given birth to the Messiah Himself:
The big deal is that the RCC cast a lengthy shadow of doubt upon the saving role & mediatorship of Christ alone, as well as His sufficiency in interceding for all believers. They also detract from the worship that only Christ is worthy of.
Catholics pray to Mary; expect her to intercede for them with Jesus on their behalf;venerate and/or worship her—thousands of shrines are dedicated to the worship of Mary throughout the world. Catholics believe she plays a crucial role in their personal salvation and that she can relieve their suffering in purgatory because she was coronated as Queen in heaven and reigns with Jesus. Catholics believe Mary pleads in heaven for divine graces and then distributes them to the faithful.
The RCC may deny that Mary is worshipped (as you claim also), butif she is to hear [and answer] the prayers of millions then this is to attribute to her powers which involve omniscience and omnipresence, attributes that God alone has. Furthermore, the prayers themselves are phrased in such a way that it is hard to distinguish them from those offered to God. It is idolatry and blasphemy.