False Mariam Doctrines

[MorphRC]

Pax:

[b]False Doctrines:[/b]

[b]Source:[/b] [url="http://jloughnan.tripod.com/dogma.htm"]http://jloughnan.tripod.com/dogma.htm[/url]

Mary's Co-operation in the Work of the Redeemer
Mary gave the Redeemer, the Source of all graces, to the world, and in this way she is the channel of all graces. (Sent. certa.)
Since Mary's Assumption into Heaven no grace is conferred on man without her actual intercessory co-operation. (Sent. pia et probabilis.)
Mary is the Mediatrix of all graces by her co-operation in the Incarnation. (Mediatio in universali.)
Mary is the Mediatrix of all graces by her intercession in Heaven. (Mediatio in speciali.)
Mary, the Mother of God, is entitled to the Cult of Hyperdulia. (Sent certa.)

-------------------------------------------------

Are these really doctrines of the Catholic Church? I still thought the Co-Medi. Doctrine is still being discussed and debated over.

[b]"she is the channel of all graces."[/b]

That doesnt mean she give graces right???

[b]Since Mary's Assumption into Heaven no grace is conferred on man without her actual intercessory co-operation.[/b]

That aint biblical, or early tradition. Why is that there???

---------------------------------------------------

Please Explain!!! I got a differing list here:

[url="http://www.enddays.ws/dogma.html#Dogma-IV-Mother"]http://www.enddays.ws/dogma.html#Dogma-IV-Mother[/url]

Pax

[Brother Adam]

It's entirely biblical when you stop looking at induvidual words for a little while and look at the whole picture and message of scripture.

Sources:

[i]"Hail, Holy Queen"[/i] by Scott Hahn

[url="http://www.flyfreeministries.org/QuickReference4.htm"]http://www.flyfreeministries.org/QuickReference4.htm[/url]

[url="http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=5421"]http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=5421[/url]

Edited June 9, 2004 by Brother Adam

[MorphRC]

Pax

[b]1:[/b]Mary's Co-operation in the Work of the Redeemer

That I understand I have no problem with

[b]2:[/b]Mary gave the Redeemer, the Source of all graces, to the world, and in this way she is the channel of all graces. (Sent. certa.)

In re-thinking that, Im guess that is just re-affirming that Mary bore the saviour of the world, but she doesnt give ANY graces, since Only God does. Is that right?

[b]3:[/b]Since Mary's Assumption into Heaven no grace is conferred on man without her actual intercessory co-operation. (Sent. pia et probabilis.)

[i]That I dont understand.[/i]

[b]4:[/b] Mary is the Mediatrix of all graces by her co-operation in the Incarnation. (Mediatio in universali.)

[i]That I dont understand.[/i]

[b]5:[/b] Mary is the Mediatrix of all graces by her intercession in Heaven. (Mediatio in speciali.)

[i]That I dont understand.[/i]

[b]6:[/b] Mary, the Mother of God, is entitled to the Cult of Hyperdulia. (Sent certa.)

That I understand and I believe.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Can you explain the parts I stated I didnt understand.

Btw: This part I know certainly of:

"Luke 1:28 And coming to her, he said, "Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you."

Prot. Rendering. Its Full of Grace. I cant remember the Greek thou, but its in Jpii's 'Theokotos: Mother, Woman, Disciple Book'

------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks.

Pax Iesus

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='MorphRC' date='Jun 9 2004, 08:01 AM'] Pax

[b]1:[/b]Mary's Co-operation in the Work of the Redeemer

That I understand I have no problem with

[b]2:[/b]Mary gave the Redeemer, the Source of all graces, to the world, and in this way she is the channel of all graces. (Sent. certa.)

In re-thinking that, Im guess that is just re-affirming that Mary bore the saviour of the world, but she doesnt give ANY graces, since Only God does. Is that right?

[b]3:[/b]Since Mary's Assumption into Heaven no grace is conferred on man without her actual intercessory co-operation. (Sent. pia et probabilis.)

[i]That I dont understand.[/i]

[b]4:[/b] Mary is the Mediatrix of all graces by her co-operation in the Incarnation. (Mediatio in universali.)

[i]That I dont understand.[/i]

[b]5:[/b] Mary is the Mediatrix of all graces by her intercession in Heaven. (Mediatio in speciali.)

[i]That I dont understand.[/i]

[b]6:[/b] Mary, the Mother of God, is entitled to the Cult of Hyperdulia. (Sent certa.)

That I understand and I believe.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Can you explain the parts I stated I didnt understand.

Btw: This part I know certainly of:

"Luke 1:28 And coming to her, he said, "Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you."

Prot. Rendering. Its Full of Grace. I cant remember the Greek thou, but its in Jpii's 'Theokotos: Mother, Woman, Disciple Book'

------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks.

Pax Iesus [/quote]
[quote][b]2:[/b]Mary gave the Redeemer, the Source of all graces, to the world, and in this way she is the channel of all graces. (Sent. certa.)

In re-thinking that, Im guess that is just re-affirming that Mary bore the saviour of the world, but she doesnt give ANY graces, since Only God does. Is that right?[/quote]

Grace flows through Mary to us from God. Remember that what Mary asks for us on our behalf the Lord will give (wedding of Cana)

[quote][b]3:[/b]Since Mary's Assumption into Heaven no grace is conferred on man without her actual intercessory co-operation. (Sent. pia et probabilis.) [/quote]

Just the whole graces flow through Mary from God thing. Seriously, read Hail, Holy Queen. It clicks like you wouldn' t believe.


[quote][b]4:[/b] Mary is the Mediatrix of all graces by her co-operation in the Incarnation. (Mediatio in universali.)
[b]5:[/b] Mary is the Mediatrix of all graces by her intercession in Heaven. (Mediatio in speciali.) [/quote]

"Thus Mary, a daughter of Adam, consenting to the divine Word, became the mother of Jesus, the one and only Mediator. 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."(6*) Hence not a few of the early Fathers gladly assert in their preaching, "The knot of Eve's disobedience was untied by Mary's obedience; what the virgin Eve bound through her unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosened by her faith."(7*) Comparing Mary with Eve, they call her "the Mother of the living,"(8*) and still more often they say: "death through Eve, life through Mary."(9*))" - Lumen Gentium (Second Vatican Council)

[Bruce S]

Scripture reveals that Jesus is the ONLY One who can provide salvation

"Taken up to heaven she (Mary) did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation..." Pg. 252, #969 CC

According to God's Word, scripture in our bibles, Mary has never had anything to do with the salvation process.

"Being obedient she (Mary) became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race." Pg. 125, #494 CC


He is the ONLY way to heaven, Jesus Himself declared

"I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved... " John 10:9

"Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." Acts 4:12

"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." John 14:6

Moving on:

"She (Mary) is inseparably linked with the saving work of her Son." Pg. 303, #1172 CC

We have a conflict here, the Catholic Church teaches one thing, but scripture seems to teach something else.

"Yet I am the LORD thy God... there is no saviour beside me." Hosea 13:4

Before Jesus was born, an angel announced that He would be the Savior:

"And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins." Matthew 1:21

After Jesus' birth, the angel repeated himself:

"For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord." Luke 2:11

Over and over, we read that Jesus is the Savior:

"... we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world." John 4:42
"Him (Jesus) hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour..." Acts 5:31

"Of this man's seed hath God according to his promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus:" Acts 13:23

"But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ..." 2 Timothy 1:10

"Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour." Titus 1:4

"Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;" Titus 3:6

"... the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world." 1 John 4:14


Look at the words of Peter, recognized as Catholicism's first pope:

"... through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:" 2 Peter 1:1
"... into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ." 2 Peter 1:11

"... through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ..." 2 Peter 2:20


Certainly, Peter knew that Jesus, not Mary, was the Savior. Peter glorified Jesus as the Savior, not Mary:

"But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen." 2 Peter 3:18

This same Peter declares that:

"... ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:" 1 Peter 1:18-19

Without question, Jesus is the Savior, not Mary.

"For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ:" Philippians 3:20

So, we need to question [Protestant position] WHY this doctrine of Mary 'Evolved' and WHY it became so prominent recently, with apparitions, and "Mary" appearing all over the world, almost monthly now it would seem.

I would like to keep this on the basis of SCRIPTURE for a little while, TRADITION is such a funny thing, growing, changing, and morphing as it has.

Why the Catholic Church can't even nail down if Mary even died or not.

That would seem to be something that TRADITION would agree on, we know there are TWO "official" sites of Mary's Tomb, but other TRADITIONS seem to indicate, that many believed she didn't ever die.

Good topic.

Edited June 9, 2004 by Bruce S

[Jake Huether]

[quote]"Taken up to heaven she (Mary) did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation..." Pg. 252, #969 CC

According to God's Word, scripture in our bibles, Mary has never had anything to do with the salvation process.[/quote]


Um. Giving birth to the Redeemer is has "to do with the salvation process", would you not agree?

And you should reread the above CC quote. "her manifold INTERCESSION continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation"...

Her intercession, not her. She prays to her Son for us, and He gives us the gift. She asks for us.


[quote]"Being obedient she (Mary) became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race." Pg. 125, #494 CC


He is the ONLY way to heaven, Jesus Himself declared

"I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved... " John 10:9

"Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." Acts 4:12 

"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." John 14:6 [/quote]


Bruce, it would behoove you to take some critical reading courses (just my observation). Mary in her obedience, became the cause of salvation. She caused, through her obedience, the birth of Christ - who is our salvation. Do you not agree that Mary gave birth to Jesus the Christ, through obedience to the Father, through the Holy Spirit?


[quote]Moving on:

"She (Mary) is inseparably linked with the saving work of her Son." Pg. 303, #1172  CC

We have a conflict here, the Catholic Church teaches one thing, but scripture seems to teach something else.

"Yet I am the LORD thy God... there is no saviour beside me." Hosea 13:4 [/quote]


It doesn't say that Mary is a saviour. It says that Mary is inseparably linked with the saving work! We are also participants in the "saving work", because we are being saved! The Church doesn't teach that Mary is a saviour. Dude, please stop playing this game.



[quote]Certainly, Peter knew that Jesus, not Mary, was the Savior. Peter glorified Jesus as the Savior, not Mary: [/quote]

Mary is not our savior. Bruce, you aren't that ignorant are you? Do you think we believe Mary saved us? We believe she played a very important role in our Salvation. She brought us the Savior. But the Savior saved us. I have a hard time understanding where you seem to disconnect on things...

[quote]So, we need to question [Protestant position] WHY this doctrine of Mary 'Evolved' and WHY it became so prominent recently, with apparitions, and "Mary" appearing all over the world, almost monthly now it would seem.[/quote]


Hmmm. As a Protestant, you should also be asking yourself, "what does the Church say about these apparitions". And the fact of the matter is, there are only a handfull (if that) of approved apparitions. These "monthly" ones aren't approved, and some of them are condemned.

And I don't understand how "this doctrine of Mary" is connected with apparitions etc. You seem to just connect two aspects of Mary to try to discredit one with the other. The Marian Doctrines haven't "evolved", they have only developed. They have exsisted since Christ, yet have began to become better understood. Mary gave birth to Jesus, the early Church fathers knew this. But when you start to think about what exactly that means, you develope the Doctrines surrounding this reality.



[quote]I would like to keep this on the basis of SCRIPTURE for a little while, TRADITION is such a funny thing, growing, changing, and morphing as it has.[/quote]


You have a gift, Bruce! Being able to slip in lies with truth. Tradition does grow and it develops. But it doesn't change or morph. You have never shown this, and you will never be able to back this up substantially. So, if you don't have a backing for your claims, then keep your opinion to yourself.


[quote]Why the Catholic Church can't even nail down if Mary even died or not.[/quote]


Because it doesn't matter. If she died, then she was only dead bodily for a infinitely small time, since she was assumed into heaven. And if she didn't die bodily, the fact remains that she was assumed into heaven. So, either way, there is no evidence of her remains (bodily) on earth, and so it really doesn't matter. She was alive on earth for some time, and now she is alive in heaven. What does it matter if she died?

The real concern is over Jesus' death. He must have died, because if Jesus didn't die, then His resurrection didn't conquer death! And the Catholic Church knows that He in fact did die.

No other humans death is of importance.

[quote]That would seem to be something that TRADITION would agree on, we know there are TWO "official" sites of Mary's Tomb, but other TRADITIONS seem to indicate, that many believed she didn't ever die.[/quote]


Um, Bruce. You should try to understand Tradition vs. tradition. The capital T indicates that it is a Church teaching. So, it is only a tradition (little t) that mary may have died, and it is only a little t tradition of where Mary's tomb may be. Big T Tradition (Church Teaching) says nothing of Mary's death. It doesn't need to, because it doesn't matter. Big T Tradition confirms that Mary was a real human, giving birth to the Christ, and big T Tradition confirms that Mary is now alive in Heaven with her Son.

[MorphRC]

Ok that explains i a bit better. God I wish the Church would be more defining, its hard to know what they mean sometimes.

[Jake Huether]

[quote name='MorphRC' date='Jun 9 2004, 10:04 AM'] Ok that explains i a bit better. God I wish the Church would be more defining, its hard to know what they mean sometimes. [/quote]
Actually, despite pop-consept, the Church is very defining. To the point that sometimes it's hard to find the right definition. I mean, c'mon, the Catechism is like a few thousand pages long, the Bible, another few thousand pages, combined all Church documents are probably bordering on a few million pages! Defining? The Catholic Church is the ONLY Church that has it's very own guide lines. None of this, "every man for himself" idea of sola-Scriptura.

Yet despite the overwhelming amount of info the Church produces to substantiate it's theology, it is actually very easy to find out what the Church means. The trick is knowing NOT to look at anti-Catholic sources, who will try to obscure it.

[Guest JeffCR07]

Hey, this is certainly not passing judgement, nor is it a reprimand in a fatherly or judicial sense. But I think it is important that we all - Protestant and Catholic - remember charity. The a wise apologetic argument cannot truly be very wise if it doesn't bring others towards Christ or the Churches teachings. (much like a "faith" in God cannot be much of a faith without the deeds that true faith necessitates).

If I might try a *very* short reiteration of the Mariam apology argued above, as well as add a little insight of my own.

Mary is not the Source of Salvation, nor is the the Performer of the Salvific Act. Only Christ saved the world, and only Christ saves the souls of each and every one of us. This is the Church's teaching, and, as you helped show with your reference to Peter, always has been. However, the Church points Mary out as having had a unique role to play in the Father's plan for saving mankind from original sin. As brought up before, she is the New Eve. So too, is Christ the New Adam. The sin of Adam, which led to the fall of mankind, was undeniably propogated by the actions of Eve, and it would be foolish to say that she played no part in the Fall. In the same way, the salvation of the world, which is Christ's and Christ's alone, was propogated by Mary, and it would be foolish to say she had no part in it. Read the story of the fall, then read the wedding feast at Cana, they are amazingly similar. Mary is not our salvation, but she played a part in it. Allow me to use a very, very rough analogy:

We are all knights and there is a battle. We are losing, bad. Our army is being crushed, and it seems like we have no hope. However, a noble lady humbles herself before a warrior of insurmountable might, who puts on his armor, picks up his shield and sword, and joins the fray. Quickly the tides turn, and it is our opponents who are fleeing. In fact, they can't run from him fast enough. The battle ends, and we have won. No one on that battlefield would say that anyone other than the heroic warrior won the battle. It is His victory, and His alone. However, we would also be remiss to say that the noble lady had no part.

This is what the teachings of the Church mean. Through Mary's humility, but entirely by the Power of Christ, are we saved. It isn't a perfect analogy, but it is close. I can imagine some pointing and saying, "But the knight might have joined in even without the woman" and this is true, but I would like to make a counterpoint.

In the argument we are having, the "knight" is not only all-knowing, but all-powerful. If we count that into the mix, then the Knight must have willed for the woman to come and humble herself before him and bring him into the battlefield. This is what He, in his Wisdom and Power, chose, and God does not do anything idly or without purpose.

If we were to praise the Knight's sword, by saying "blessed is the sword of God, for he has cut down his enemies and humbled the proud and haughty with it" - this would not be wrong, we are still doing Glory to God. How much more perfect, then, is the Glory we give to Christ when we honor each other (humans, made in the image of God, are his greatest creations), let alone when we honor Mary, conceived without sin and made to be the perfect ark of the covenant, bearing inside her the New Covenant, who is the salvation of the world?

[MorphRC]

Pax.

Even though I understand them now a lot better, Thanks to Brother Adams Latin which explained what it means. It still isnt apostolic teaching, but teaching and belief of Christians after them, therefore it cant be made doctrine, since Public revelation ended with the last Apostle.

Someone told me it could be Dogma, but Im confused on the difference between Doctrine and Dogma, I know Doctrine is revealed beliefs, by the Apostles, from Jesus and the Father, but Dogma i dont know.

[Oik]

I'm not sure what you mean when you say that it isn't apostolic teahcing. Also, here's some quotes straight from newadvent.org

Under [i]The Blesses Virgin Mary[/i]
"For the attitude of the Churches of Asia Minor and of Lyons we may appeal to the words of St. Irenaeus, a pupil of St. John's disciple Polycarp [145]; he calls Mary our most eminent advocate."

Under[i]The Feast Of The Assumption[/i]
"Regarding the day, year, and manner of Our Lady's death, nothing certain is known. The earliest known literary reference to the Assumption is found in the Greek work De Obitu S. Dominae. Catholic faith, however, has always derived our knowledge of the mystery from Apostolic Tradition...The belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is founded on the apocryphal treatise De Obitu S. Dominae, bearing the name of St. John, which belongs however to the fourth or fifth century....Note: By promulgating the Bull Munificentissimus Deus, 1 November, 1950, Pope Pius XII declared infallibly that the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary was a dogma of the Catholic Faith. Likewise, the Second Vatican Council taught in the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium that "the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, when her earthly life was over, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things (n. 59)."

[Bruce S]

[quote]Jake Said:

You have a gift, Bruce! Being able to slip in lies with truth.

Tradition does grow and it develops. But it doesn't change or morph. You have never shown this, and you will never be able to back this up substantially.

[b]So, if you don't have a backing for your claims, then[u] keep your opinion to yourself.[/u]  .[/b]

[/quote]

My, such a pleasant reply Jake. It would seem, that the INTERFAITH *DIALOGUE* forum, in your opinion, should NOT allow "opinions" ... stange discussion site that doesn't ENCOURAGE divergent "opinions" [ like all the scripture I used, and quotes from the CC] in a thread where Protestants, are EXPECTED to have different "opinions"

My "OPINION" that the doctrines surrounding the elevation and 'morphing' on Mary just are not my "opinion" Jake, but REALITY, and everyone knows that.

But, to thwart your return charge, designed to 'quite the happy heritic inside of my soul" I DO understand these issues Joe, you know that, I watch EWTN nightly, go to Mass [35 times in the past three months] spend HOURS a day on these issues, visit EVERY Catholic official/semi-official news site most days that I have bookmared, monitor this board daily, etc.

However, my FAVORITE place, and "my" Catholic patron 'saints' are two people, one is the one that actually DEFINED the Magisterium and Developed the concept of the DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE [fancy term for change with smoke and mirrors] Cardinal Newman, the same man who has so many colleges with Newman Centers. The other is Malachai Martin, the Jesuit turned novelist.

Anyway, go read Newman, where he in massive overwhelming complexity, sets forth the DEVELOPMENT of the [b] Marialis Cultus [/b] [the term the Popes have assigned to the Marian Hyperdulia] it is a fascinating read, and one that has Tradition, taken to heights that will make your head spin.

Just so you know, that I *try* hard, to use scripture, Catholic sourcing, accurately as possible. I just don't agree with the CONCLUSIONS that you draw, of course, if I did, I would return to the Catholic Church, and no longer BE a Pentecostal/Messianic/Protestant, would I?

Best to everyone, and God Bless.

Link to Newman on Mary: -> [url="http://www.newmanreader.org/works/development/chapter4.html#section2"]http://www.newmanreader.org/works/developm...4.html#section2[/url]

Edited June 10, 2004 by Bruce S

[Jake Huether]

[quote]
My, such a pleasant reply Jake. It would seem, that the INTERFAITH *DIALOGUE* forum, in your opinion, should NOT allow "opinions" ... stange discussion site that doesn't ENCOURAGE divergent "opinions" [ like all the scripture I used, and quotes from the CC] in a thread where Protestants, are EXPECTED to have different "opinions"[/quote]



LOL. Bruce. We know you too well.

For all those new peeps here. Charity has definitly been used and exacerbated on Bruce.

He's heard the answer to his questions / comments / opionions several times before. It's bait. That's all it is.

And we can't fall for it. But it must, at times, be responded to for the sake of those reading.


[quote]My "OPINION" that the doctrines surrounding the elevation and 'morphing' on Mary just are not my "opinion" Jake, but REALITY, and everyone knows that.[/quote]


Everyone except for knowledgeable Catholics I suppose.

[quote]
But, to thwart your return charge, designed to 'quite the happy heritic inside of my soul" I DO understand these issues Joe, you know that, I watch EWTN nightly, go to Mass [35 times in the past three months] spend HOURS a day on these issues, visit EVERY Catholic official/semi-official news site most days that I have bookmared, monitor this board daily, etc.[/quote]


It doesn't matter how many times you watch EWTN, how many times you go to Mass, nor does it matter the books you read or the degrees you earn. What you've written, Bruce, displays your ignorance on True Catholic Teaching.

The proof is in black in white right in front of us.

Newman must have been too complex tor you, Bruce. Because you just don't get it.

Don't just vomit out every percieved conflict. Take it to heart and pray about it. The Holy Spirit is in the Church, and He will only guide you TO the Church.





Burce,

All I can say is: May the peace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you. For the sake of Christian Love, please do not state things about the Catholic Church and her Teachings that just aren't true.


God bless you.

[Guest JeffCR07]

Jake, I definately sympathize with everything you've been saying, and, if Bruce truly is just "bating" us. I guess we should just answer his questions (as you have) in the best way possible, and remain charitable. But don't get frustrated, if he TRULY knows what the church teaches (ie is TRULY formed and TRULY [i]understands[/i] the fullness of what the Church's response to his questions are) and still refuses to agree, then there, sadly, is nothing we can do for him besides try to provide an example for him, through our words and deeds, that may lead him back. Remember, no one can save someone who rejects the Spirit, and while that is definately a sobering thought, we can't get riled up about it. We MUST stay charitable, and, in all honesty, sarcasm, bitterness, and anger, while they may be hard to avoid, add nothing to our arguments.

Bruce, I [i]would[/i] like to know how you feel about the analogy from my previous post. If you're still around, and would humor me by addressing it, I'd love to hear your response

[the lumberjack]

[quote name='MorphRC' date='Jun 9 2004, 11:04 PM'] Pax.

Even though I understand them now a lot better, Thanks to Brother Adams Latin which explained what it means. It still isnt apostolic teaching, but teaching and belief of Christians after them, therefore it cant be made doctrine, since Public revelation ended with the last Apostle.

Someone told me it could be Dogma, but Im confused on the difference between Doctrine and Dogma, I know Doctrine is revealed beliefs, by the Apostles, from Jesus and the Father, but Dogma i dont know. [/quote]
and thats exactly what I keep asking, morph...

but from discussions before, it seems as if anything that is doctrine is dogma and teaching...or not, if thats what is chosen.

this is what I've been told...it can be dogma but not doctrine...it can be dogma AND doctrine, which makes it a teaching...but if its dogma, it can be a teaching, but not always is it doctrine...

thats how likos splained it to me.