REAL debate thread for RELIGION

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I mean "minor" ONLY in the sense of they are not salvation issues, IMO, and they are not the "basics" preached by Peter and Paul and co. in Acts (as Paul said, "we preach Christ crucified"). I'm glad for you and Guill. (need to find a good abbrev. for him!) that you are very blessed by this. I am always blessed by taking communion, too - in fact, our church does this weekly.

But many Christians disagree on salvation issues. For instance, Calvin believed in predestination to the point that “once a man is born, it is too late to damn or save him�. But many Christians believe that we have free will to accept God. Many Christians believe that Baptism is something which is a vital part of salvation; many others believe that it is, at the most, a public declaration of faith. “Traditionalist Catholics� believe that only Catholics [maybe only Traditionalists, I’m not sure] can be saved; regular Catholics (and of course non-Catholics) do not.
By the way, I am not as yet blessed by it; I believe in the Catholic Church, and the Catholic Church teaches that those who are not formally members (and in a state of grace) are not to receive the Eucharist; therefore, I do not. But I have heard absolutely awesome stories, both spiritual and regarding Eucharistic miracles, and I merely bear witness to the blessing received by Catholics from the beginning of the Catholic Church.

And if so, how is Mary exempt from it, since it says "all men"?

To paraphrase Captain Jack Sparrow, “except for Mary, who is in fact, a woman.� Seriously, though; “all� does not always mean “all�. As I have said before; the Bible says that All have sinned; but Christ did not. David wrote in the Psalms, “There is none righteous, no not one�; but at least one person during the time of David was called “righteous�; I don’t remember who. Matthew 3:5 says that “all Judea� went out to John the Baptist, and were baptized by him. Acts 3:9 says that all the people saw the lame man at the Temple. Romans 3:9 says that Jews and Greeks are “all under sin�. Does that make sense?

Because it may have been a proper action, but asked with an improper heart attitude (which would have been evident to Jesus, IMO).

Well, I must say that I can’t agree with that. I don’t think Jesus would acquiesce to good action with a bad attitude, because, as you coincidentally pointed out earlier, He looks on the heart, not the outward appearance.

I’m no expert in Mariology, so I’ll let Arein do the foot work.

Me neither; I’m much more into Eucharistic theology. But I’ll try to help you answer any questions, Ar. Teamwork!

I'm off, guys! I'll let you know what I think of ROTK tomorrow

Looking forward to it.

You're talking to a proud descendant of Robert the Bruce

Sweeeeeeeeeet. IIRC, my father's family comes from the same town as Martin Luther.

I think I first found out a few years ago when I saw some information about a movement within the Catholic Church to name Mary as "co-redemtrix" or something like that. So - you Catholic 'mooters - I'm curious about your thoughts on this. And also curious to know how you would react if you're opposed to it (as I gather about Gwaimir from his opening sentence above), but it becomes accepted as church doctrine.

If I remember correctly, "Co-redemptrix", a Latin title, does not mean what it sounds like in English. I believe that it actually means "She who is with the Redeemer", not that the Virgin with Christ redeems us; that would be ridiculous, IMO. And, presuming that it does in fact mean that, then I have no problem with it at all, being quite certain that she is with the Redeemer.