but in my observation the ones who judge it are the ones who are close-minded and listen to whoever they get their anti-catholic ranting lessons from. My question is to the anti-catholics have you ever read a book explaining what catholic doctrine actually is before coming on here and saying stuff that is in no way correct to catholic belief?
2007-03-01 12:00:59 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
See co-redemptrix is not even a doctrine. John paul 2 coul have believed whatever he wanted it doesn't make it doctrine.
2007-03-01 12:10:40 · update #1
Pastor Billy says: I understand your question but see only a few anti-catholics showed up to answer. I'm a Catholic the name is a parody on poorly trained or well trained Protestant preachers however you take that it means denying the fullness of Christian faith on their part. Enough on my name, the irony is this, all Christian doctrine does not and should not be singulary backed up by scripture as scripture is only a portion of God's revelation and of course if you study Christian history you begin to understand the Church came before all of scripture had been completely written. This is however not to say that there is no scripture to support all of what Catholics believe but the point is even if there was not it is not required to make it true for we are told from scripture itself that the Church and not the bible is the pillar of truth. Finally St. Paul wrote that we are believe his instruction whether by word of mouth or epistle (letter). Paul was making clear holy tradition which contains oral instruction is just as valid and probably more so than the written scripture.
2007-03-01 20:40:36 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Co-redemptrix makes sense Biblically. It's when people take the word at face value and don't think about it logically that it doesn't make sense.
Jesus came to Earth through Mary (litterally through her womb). God is also eternal, so in the eternal sense we can say that Jesus is eternally an infant in her womb, and also eternally born, eternally a toddler, eternally on the cross, etc...
So Salvation is eternally coming from Jesus out from Mary. Thus, she is Co-redemptrix.
2007-03-05 01:08:59 · answer #2 · answered by Dysthymia 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely
0:)
Christ did not say, "Sit down and write Bibles and scatter them over the earth, and let every man read his Bible and judge for himself." If Christ had said that, there would never have been a Christianity on the earth at all, but a Babylon and confusion instead, and never one Church, the union of one body. Hence, Christ never said to His Apostles, "Go and write Bibles and distribute them, and let everyone judge for himself." That injunction was reserved for the Sixteenth Century, and we have seen the result of it. Ever since the Sixteenth Century there have been springing up religion upon religion, and churches upon churches, all fighting and quarreling with one another, and all because of the private interpretation of the Bible.
Christ sent His Apostles with authority to teach all nations, and never gave them any command of writing the Bible. And the Apostles went forth and preached everywhere, and planted the Church of God throughout the earth, but never thought of writing.
.
2007-03-02 15:10:36 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Confirmation?
I read in a book about Protestant denomination, that the Catholic writer said that he did not look down on any Protestant ceremonies or traditions, just because they were not scripture based, like confirmation in the Catholic church.
2007-03-01 20:11:31 · answer #4 · answered by tim 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
and an entire comic strip can be reproduced with silly putty...but in both cases, you have to do a heck of a lot of stretching, and it ends up distorted from the original...put bluntly, scripture has been stretched, twisted, 'implied' in order to back up the rituals, top-down authority structure, and unique aspects of catholicism...with all the robes, rings, gold, ritual, dogma, and formal procedures, it resembles more than anything else the temple establishment of Christ's time, and as you know, when He was crucified, the temple was shaken to its very foundation, and the 'veil' was torn top to bottom to signal that mankind no longer needed any earthly intercessor or go-between except Christ...
2007-03-01 20:18:31 · answer #5 · answered by spike missing debra m 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Yes, I did.
And no, JPII never declared Mary Co-redemptrix. In fact, he specifically rejected that as a heretical teaching.
He was absolutely clear that her part in Jesus's mission was vital, but it was not, itself, part of the salvation grace.
2007-03-01 20:06:46 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Excuse me but......"Which" doctrine are you referring too? I'm sorry but there's been so many new and improved doctrines that I just want to make sure that we're on the same page if you know what I mean........Please proceed..........
2007-03-01 22:20:38 · answer #7 · answered by SLEDGE 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
AMEN BROTHER! That's why I am a Catholic, proud of it and am always having to defend my faith. I can defend it because I have many references to look to. Keep spread the good news of our Lord, Jesus Christ!
God bless!
2007-03-01 20:10:08 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
all catholic doctrine can be backed up with scripture if you use a lot of eisegesis instead of exegesis to come up with an idea of papal authority that is not found in scripture and then say that some of the rulings found by the vatican are then based on scripture because of that.
Yes, I do know my Catholic doctrine. It's a false doctrine.
2007-03-01 20:05:27 · answer #9 · answered by goofyguy47 3 · 1⤊ 8⤋
Can you tell me where in the Bible it says that mary is co-redemptrix with Christ?
JPII said that she was, but where in the Bible is that?
2007-03-01 20:04:18 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋