Evidence for God from Science

In my country there are many people believe in the messages in this page. I tried to stop them but now I found no reason to do that.
Anybody here has ideas about this.
http://www.thewarningsecondcoming.com/messages/

Oh dear...

Oh my...

From the link:

Mary had three loves in her Immaculate Heart: God, her Son, and souls. She so loved the world that she gave her only Son. As St. Bernard said, “The sword would not have reached Jesus if it had not pierced Mary’s heart.” Mary loved souls and on Calvary, after suffering such cruel torments she merited being the mother of all mankind.

Mary is the Apostle because she is Co-redemptrix: Behold Mary on Calvary, she suffers and prays; she stands, as one offering sacrifice.

Absolutely disgusting.

RickD wrote:From the link:

Mary had three loves in her Immaculate Heart: God, her Son, and souls. She so loved the world that she gave her only Son. As St. Bernard said, “The sword would not have reached Jesus if it had not pierced Mary’s heart.” Mary loved souls and on Calvary, after suffering such cruel torments she merited being the mother of all mankind.

Mary is the Apostle because she is Co-redemptrix: Behold Mary on Calvary, she suffers and prays; she stands, as one offering sacrifice.

Absolutely disgusting.

Well, before you start puking literally, you might want to look up what co-redemptrix actually means (actually how Catholic intend to use the term, not what others say what Catholics mean).

Here's a quick reference link.

FYI, for those of you who want to avoid nausea and not bother clicking on the link, Co-redemptrix = “The woman with the Redeemer”

Byblos wrote:
FYI, for those of you who want to avoid nausea and not bother clicking on the link, Co-redemptrix = “The woman with the Redeemer”

To those who did bother to read the link:

So the literal meaning of the word Coredemptrix translates as, “The woman who buys back with”.

And again, here's the sugar coated translation:

The woman with the Redeemer

Let's just go with Byblos' choice. We certainly don't want to offend any Catholics.

RickD wrote:

Byblos wrote:
FYI, for those of you who want to avoid nausea and not bother clicking on the link, Co-redemptrix = “The woman with the Redeemer”

To those who did bother to read the link:

So the literal meaning of the word Coredemptrix translates as, “The woman who buys back with”.

And again, here's the sugar coated translation:

The woman with the Redeemer

Let's just go with Byblos' choice. We certainly don't want to offend any Catholics.

Yes and while we are at it lets ignore the early Christian teachings on the literal presence of the eucharist while we are at it. Or better yet lets pretend they don't exist. I wonder what ignatius of Antioch and justin martyr would think of this . Or better yet lets forget what ignatius (a student of John the apostle said about a valid eucharist under the bishop in 110ad. But then again wasnt it Constantine that invented the eucharist in the 300's ad?

As far as the Catholic church's teaching on Mary's role, her participation was in saying yes to God while Eve said no.
http://www.voxpopuli.org/response_to_7_ ... _part1.php

And in his commentary on 1 Timothy 2:5 and Mary's maternal mediation, John Paul II further states:

We recall that Mary's mediation is essentially defined by her divine motherhood. Recognition of her role as mediatrix is moreover implicit in the expression "our Mother," which presents the doctrine of Marian mediation by putting the accent on her motherhood.... In proclaiming Christ the one mediator (cf. 1 Tim. 2:5-6), the text of St. Paul's Letter to Timothy excludes any other parallel mediation, but not subordinate mediation. In fact, before emphasizing the one exclusive mediation of Christ, the author urges "that supplications, prayers, intercessions and thanksgivings be made for all men" (2:1). Are not prayers a form of mediation? Indeed, according to St. Paul, the unique mediation of Christ is meant to encourage other dependent, ministerial forms of mediation.... In truth, what is Mary's maternal mediation if not the Father's gift to humanity? [23]

Therefore we can see Mary's participation in the one mediation of Jesus Christ as unique and unparalleled by any other human or angelic participation, and yet entirely subordinate and dependent upon the one mediation of Jesus Christ. As such, Mary's motherly mediation manifests the true glory and power of Christ's mediation as no other. The Marian titles and roles of Co-redemptrix and Mediatrix of all graces (and Advocate as well) do not in any way violate the prohibition of 1 Tim. 2:5 against any parallel, autonomous, or rival mediation, but bespeak a unique and exceptional motherly participation in that one, perfect, and saving mediation of Jesus Christ.

In the words of Anglican Oxford scholar, Dr. John Macquarrie:

The matter [of Marian mediation] cannot be settled by pointing to the danger of exaggeration and abuse, or by appealing to isolated texts of scripture as the verse quoted above from 1 Timothy 2:5 or by the desire not to say anything that might offend one's partners in ecumenical dialogue. Unthinking enthusiasts may have elevated Mary's position to a virtual equality with Christ, but this aberration is not a necessary consequence of recognizing that there may be a truth striving for expression in words like Mediatrix and Co-redemptrix.

All responsible theologians would agree that Mary's co-redemptive role is subordinate and auxiliary to the central role of Christ. But if she does have such a role, the more clearly we understand it, the better. And like other doctrines concerning Mary, it is not only saying something about her, but something more general about the Church as a whole, and even humanity as a whole. [24]

I remember when I was going to evengelical bible study as I was looking into it, I was constantly asked why I prayed to Mary, and when I answered that I didn't , they pulled out the hail Mary prayer. I then asked them to point out anywhere in the Hail Mary that I was praying to Mary. In the prayer you are specifically asking Mary to pray for you since she had a unique role as the theotokos (mother of God). Please don't confuse mother of God as a goddess or something.
My bible study partners then told me that I don't need to ask Mary to pray for me since I could pray directly to Christ himself, which I do a lot . I then told my fellow Christians to stop praying for each other as they can just pray to Jesus directly. They then understood what I meant. Also in the bible it says the prayers of the righteous carry greater weight with God, so who is more righteous the angels and saints in heaven or us here on earth. There is no comparison.
Mary herself said that she is blessed among women because of her unique relationship with The Lord here on earth.

The doctrine of the theotokos is as old as the doctrine of the trinity , of which both took over 250 years after Christ to be a fully developed doctrine. Which church gave us the doctrine of the trinity? Rick I'm sure that you know this answer as well as I do since I believe that you did study the early church fathers.
Every time you pick up the New Testament and read from it your basically picking up a catholic book. It was the Catholic Church that was given the authority to decide which books were God inspired and therefore belonged in the bible and which weren't God inspired and didn't belong in the bible. It was no other church that did this. Now if you are going to respond by saying that all Christians were basically in agreement about which books belonged in the New Testament this is incorrect, as a little late 3rd to early 4th century reading would tell you that the African Church wanted the book of Hebrews discarded from the bible because they didnt believe that it was God inspired scripture ,but who was it that made the final judgment on this which is binding by all mainline Christians regardless of denomination? That's right it was the church in Rome.

As the great Christian doctor of the Church Saint Augustine of Hippo which all Christian denominations recognize said "Rome has decided, the matter is settled"
The bible was put together by 4 Catholic Church councils from the late 3rd to early 4th centuries called the councils of Rome, nicea, hippo and Carthage . The New Testament canon was basically decided on by the Catholic Church.
Remember that everytime you read your bible Rick

Lets hear what a catholic priest is taught about the coredemtrix teaching directly from his mouth.

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.p ... Redemptrix


#2
Apr 29, '05, 10:27 am
Fr. Vincent Serpa
Catholic Answers Apologist

Join Date: May 4, 2004
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 4,040
Re: Mary as Co-Redemptrix?
Dear Un,

The Church does not teach that we are redeemed by Mary. That would be heresy. It is important to realize that co-redemptrix does not mean co-equal. She co-operated in His mission of redeeming the world. He alone is the redeemer. She co-operated by the fact that the Father chose her to be the channel through which His Son entered the human race. She gave birth to Him and sustained Him through His childhood until adulthood. This is truly co-operation and this is all that is really meant by “co-redemptrix.” Because it is so easy to misunderstand this term, the Church has not made it an official title.

As for all the “Hail Marys” in the rosary, we are asking her to pray for us, but our thoughts are on the mysteries of her Son’s life. In repeating the words: “Hail Mary, full of grace. The Lord is with you…,” we are only reiterating what the Father instructed the Angel Gabriel to say to her. They are God’s words.

Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.

bippy123 wrote:Lets hear what a catholic priest is taught about the coredemtrix teaching directly from his mouth.

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.p ... Redemptrix


#2
Apr 29, '05, 10:27 am
Fr. Vincent Serpa
Catholic Answers Apologist

Join Date: May 4, 2004
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 4,040
Re: Mary as Co-Redemptrix?
Dear Un,

The Church does not teach that we are redeemed by Mary. That would be heresy. It is important to realize that co-redemptrix does not mean co-equal. She co-operated in His mission of redeeming the world. He alone is the redeemer. She co-operated by the fact that the Father chose her to be the channel through which His Son entered the human race. She gave birth to Him and sustained Him through His childhood until adulthood. This is truly co-operation and this is all that is really meant by “co-redemptrix.” Because it is so easy to misunderstand this term, the Church has not made it an official title.

As for all the “Hail Marys” in the rosary, we are asking her to pray for us, but our thoughts are on the mysteries of her Son’s life. In repeating the words: “Hail Mary, full of grace. The Lord is with you…,” we are only reiterating what the Father instructed the Angel Gabriel to say to her. They are God’s words.

Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.

Does not mean that Mary is divine - or that we have to pray to her - because lets face it she is dead. Or that we have to pray through anyone for that matter. God ripped the veil in the temple - there is no one standing between me and my God.

RickD wrote:

Byblos wrote:
FYI, for those of you who want to avoid nausea and not bother clicking on the link, Co-redemptrix = “The woman with the Redeemer”

To those who did bother to read the link:

So the literal meaning of the word Coredemptrix translates as, “The woman who buys back with”.

And again, here's the sugar coated translation:

The woman with the Redeemer

Let's just go with Byblos' choice. We certainly don't want to offend any Catholics.

True to Protestant fashion Rick, cherry-picking. If that's all you got out of the article, instead of how the Marian doctrine starts with Christ, centers on Christ, and ends with Christ, then I can only conclude you didn't bother reading it or if you did, you didn't bother trying to comprehend it. Most Protestants react exactly as you do at first, with utter contempt at the mere suggestion that Mary's label as co-redemptrix, oh the horror! Never mind the fact that her role is subordinate to her son's, never mind the fact that her role is to bring souls closer to her son (not to her), never mind all that. Just focus on a few words taken completely out of context.

P.S. I could not care less about being offended. If that were true I'd long been gone outta here.

Silvertusk wrote:

bippy123 wrote:Lets hear what a catholic priest is taught about the coredemtrix teaching directly from his mouth.

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.p ... Redemptrix


#2
Apr 29, '05, 10:27 am
Fr. Vincent Serpa
Catholic Answers Apologist

Join Date: May 4, 2004
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 4,040
Re: Mary as Co-Redemptrix?
Dear Un,

The Church does not teach that we are redeemed by Mary. That would be heresy. It is important to realize that co-redemptrix does not mean co-equal. She co-operated in His mission of redeeming the world. He alone is the redeemer. She co-operated by the fact that the Father chose her to be the channel through which His Son entered the human race. She gave birth to Him and sustained Him through His childhood until adulthood. This is truly co-operation and this is all that is really meant by “co-redemptrix.” Because it is so easy to misunderstand this term, the Church has not made it an official title.

As for all the “Hail Marys” in the rosary, we are asking her to pray for us, but our thoughts are on the mysteries of her Son’s life. In repeating the words: “Hail Mary, full of grace. The Lord is with you…,” we are only reiterating what the Father instructed the Angel Gabriel to say to her. They are God’s words.

Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.

Does not mean that Mary is divine - or that we have to pray to her - because lets face it she is dead. Or that we have to pray through anyone for that matter. God ripped the veil in the temple - there is no one standing between me and my God.

Sorry Silvertusk, but our God is the God of the living not of the dead. No one said there is anyone standing in front of you and God. Do you not pray for others and do you not ask others to pray for u ?
Do not the seraphim carry our prayers to the throne of God?
The bible that we both read says this much, and it also says the prayers of the righteous carry greater weight with The Lord.
Who is more righteous, us sinners here on earth or the angels and saints in heaven who have their sins and the effects of their sins taken away from them. You can't just follow the parts of scripture that you agree with and sis are the rest.
Did not ignatius of Antioch talk about the eucharist and call it the medicine of immortality? He was a student of John the apostle. Now who will u agree with, someone that personally knew the apostles and understand the interpretation of scripture as taught to them by the apostles or someone that came 1500 years after Christ. Ill take the students of the apostles any day as they were in the position to understand fully what the apostles meant instead of me personally interpreting it myself. I wanna know what the original Christians believed and were taught to worship by the apostles.
You know the apostles, the ones with the power to bind and loose?

What was ignatius of Antioch taught tobelieve?
What was polycarp taught to believe?
What was clement of Rome taught to believe?

And why do so many of our great appologists use their writings to show that the earliest Christiants believed in the divinity of Christ and ignore all of the other things they were taught?

What Iraneaus taught by the apostolic fathers?
What was Justin Martyr taught by the apostolic fathers?

It's almost like some people are allergic to some of their teachings and are not allergic to the rest of their teachings?
This is early Christian it's folks and I specifically mentioned these early Christians so no one would use the excuse that Christian it's was hijacked by Constantine 300 years later.

bippy123 wrote:Who is more righteous, us sinners here on earth or the angels and saints in heaven who have their sins and the effects of their sins taken away from them. You can't just follow the parts of scripture that you agree with and sis are the rest.

There you go again bip, spreading more Catholic heresy. Don't you know Christ paid for all our sins, past present and future? We're all saints.

Byblos wrote:

bippy123 wrote:Who is more righteous, us sinners here on earth or the angels and saints in heaven who have their sins and the effects of their sins taken away from them. You can't just follow the parts of scripture that you agree with and ignore the rest.

There you go again bip, spreading more Catholic heresy. Don't you know Christ paid for all our sins, past present and future? We're all saints.

Yea sorry Byblos, how dare I mention things like only the Catholic Church having the authority to decide what belonged in the New Testament and what didnt. Notice Byblos that I didn't even bring the Old Testament and the deuterocanonicals or the Septuagint into this because that is a whole nother discussion.

How dare I bring up the first 1054 years of church history into this. For Pete's sake, it's like we are supposed to ignore everything that happened for the first 1517 years of Christianity. Even Martin Luther the first Protestant prayed the rosary and had a devotion to Mary . How dare I mention those 1500 years of Christianity?

Even saint Augustine prayed for the soul of his dead mother. This is in the late 4th century and no Christian called him a heretic back then. What can we possible know that the early Christians didnt know.

Byblos wrote:
True to Protestant fashion Rick, cherry-picking. If that's all you got out of the article, instead of how the Marian doctrine starts with Christ, centers on Christ, and ends with Christ, then I can only conclude you didn't bother reading it or if you did, you didn't bother trying to comprehend it. Most Protestants react exactly as you do at first, with utter contempt at the mere suggestion that Mary's label as co-redemptrix, oh the horror! Never mind the fact that her role is subordinate to her son's, never mind the fact that her role is to bring souls closer to her son (not to her), never mind all that. Just focus on a few words taken completely out of context.

Ok. Let's get back to what I originally had a problem with from the OP's link here:

Mary had three loves in her Immaculate Heart: God, her Son, and souls. She so loved the world that she gave her only Son. As St. Bernard said, “The sword would not have reached Jesus if it had not pierced Mary’s heart.” Mary loved souls and on Calvary, after suffering such cruel torments she merited being the mother of all mankind.
H
Mary is the Apostle because she is Co-redemptrix: Behold Mary on Calvary, she suffers and prays; she stands, as one offering sacrifice.

First off, I wasn't associating the author of the articles in the link, with Catholicism. I'm taking the words as words written by an individual, not representing the Catholic Church.
First,

She so loved the world that she gave her only Son.

This makes a mockery of John 3:16. And, there's sufficient biblical evidence that Mary had other children after Jesus.

Next:

Behold Mary on Calvary, she suffers and prays; she stands, as one offering sacrifice.

Again, making a mockery of Christ's sacrifice by bringing attention to what he believes was Mary's sacrifice.

You then wanted to show me what coredemptrix means from a Catholic pov. I read what you linked, and saw what it said. What was taken out of context?

Byblos wrote:
P.S. I could not care less about being offended. If that were true I'd long been gone outta here.

Byblos, I wasn't meaning you. I was referring to Catholics that have much thinner skin than you. In other words, I have no problem speaking my mind with you. You know me well enough.