I get mixed messages. Protestantism declares that justification is by faith alone. Catholicism declares that justification requires faith supplemented with various stipulations. **Yet both Protestants and Catholics seem to declare that what they really need are the shedding of divine blood.** Faith, works and divine blood... what part does each play in effectual justification for Catholics vs Protestantism?

From the website Catholic.Org comes this explanation of what is meant by the title Co-Redemptrix as applied to Mary, the Mother of Jesus: > In his helpful Introduction to Mary: The Heart of Marian Doctrine and Devotion, Deacon Mark I. Miravalle, S.T.D., Professor of Theology and Mariology at the Franciscan University of Steubenville in Steubenville, Ohio, offers a valuable explanation of this term. > "The title, "Co-redemptix," refers to Mary's unique participation with and under her Divine Son Jesus Christ, in the historic Redemption of humanity. The prefix, "Co," comes from the Latin "cum," which means "with." The title of Coredemptrix applied to the Mother of Jesus **never places Mary on a level of equality with Jesus Christ**, the divine Lord of all, in the saving process of humanity's Redemption. Rather, **it denotes Mary's singular and unique sharing with her Son in the saving work** of Redemption for the human family. The **Mother of Jesus participates in the redemptive work** of her Savior Son, who alone could reconcile humanity with the Father in his glorious divinity and humanity." Deacon Miravalle states: > "Mary uniquely **participated in the sacrifice of Jesus** on Calvary and in the acquisition of the graces of Redemption for humanity And Pope Pius XII, in his encyclical On the Mystical Body, confirmed that: > **Mary offered Him on Golgotha to the Eternal Father**, together with the holocaust of her maternal rights and her motherly love, like a New Eve for all children of Adam. The apostle Paul, deeply concerned that the Corinthians were being deceived away from undiluted devotion to Christ, wrote: > I wish you would bear with me in a little foolishness. Do bear with me! For I feel a divine jealousy for you, since I betrothed you to one husband, to present you as a pure virgin to Christ. **But I am afraid that** as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, **your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ**. For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough. - 2 Corinthians 11:1-4 "Sincere and pure devotion to Christ" here in the ESV is sometimes rendered "simplicity towards Christ" (ASV), "simplicity that is in the Christ" (YLT) or "sincere [and pure] commitment to Christ" (NABRE). **Douay-Rheims and the Latin Vulgate both contain "simplicity that is in Christ".** While some take the meaning to refer to an uncomplicated presentation of the Gospel message and some decry doctrinal teaching as muddying the "simple Gospel" the idea actually appears to refer not to some quality in Christ (although He exemplified simplicity as explained below towards the Father) or in the Gospel message itself but to us: > It is not simplicity *in* Christ, but *towards* Christ of which the Apostle is speaking; not a quality in *Him*, but a quality in *us towards Him*. - MacLaren's Expositions This seems well in keeping with the apostles concern that anything (in the immediate context, the teachings of the Judiezers) be received as an admixture to what Christ has done in redemption. MacLaren goes on further to describe the word picture intended in the Greek haplotēs (ἁπλότης): > To be ‘without a fold,’ which is the meaning of the Greek word and of its equivalent ‘simplicity,’ is, in one aspect, to be transparently honest and true, and in another to be out and out of a piece. There is no underside of the cloth, doubled up beneath the upper which shows, and running in the opposite direction; but all tends in one way. A man with no under-currents, no by-ends, who is down to the very roots what he looks, and all whose being is knit together and hurled in one direction, without reservation or back-drawing, that is the ‘simple’ man whom the Apostle means. Catholicism currently holds 4 Marian dogmas (from Wikipedia ): 1) Mother of God - 1st magisterial definition, Council of Ephesus, 431 AD 2) Perpetual Virginity - wikipedia has the 1st magisterial definition as (one of the?) Synod of Milan (345, 355, 389, 451, 860), but the University of Dayton lists the Fifth Ecumenical Council held at Constantinople in 553 3) Immaculate Conception - 1st magisterial definition, Pope Pius IX, 1854 4) Assumption in Heaven - 1st magisterial definition, Pope Pius XII, 1950 Of the four dogmas the latter two are relatively recent, at least in terms of their formal definition and acquisition of dogmatic status. An article in the National Catholic Register on Pope Francis' spontaneous remarks regarding the Marian title "co-redemptix" during a Dec. 12 2019 Vatican Mass explains the evolution of these latter two dogmatic statements as being the results of massive "people of God petition drives". This appears in the context of a current, worldwide, and century old "people of God petition drive" to introduce a fifth Marian Dogma, namely Mary's Spiritual Motherhood of All People: > The century-old international movement for a proposed fifth Marian dogma of Mary’s Spiritual Motherhood (**which necessarily includes her foundational roles as Co-redemptrix and Mediatrix of all graces**) was started by the renowned Belgian cardinal, Cardinal Désiré Mercier, in 1915, and by 1918, Pope Benedict XV has received hundreds of other cardinal and bishop petitions for the solemn papal definition or “dogma” of Mary’s relationship with humanity as a “mother to us in the order of grace” as delineated by the Second Vatican Council (Lumen Gentium, 61).But over the course of the last 100 years, it has especially been the holy People of God who, as an expression of the sensus fidelium, the common consensus of the faithful, have prayed and petitioned the various popes for this dogmatic crowning for Our Lady. Over the past 25 years, the People of God from over 170 countries have sent over 8 million petitions to the Holy See for this dogmatic crowning for Our Lady. This contemporary movement of the Christian faithful has constituted a massive worldwide “People of God petition drive” to recent pontiffs, which follows the Church precedent of the past petition drives from the laity that successfully led to the last two Marian dogmas of the Immaculate Conception (1854) and the Assumption (1950). The following is from CRUX: Taking the Catholic Pulse : > ROME — Pope Francis appeared to flatly reject proposals in some theological circles to add “co-redemptrix” to the list of titles of the Virgin Mary, saying the mother of Jesus never took anything that belonged to her son, and calling the invention of new titles and dogmas “foolishness.” > > “She never wanted for herself something that was of her son,” Francis > said. “She never introduced herself as co-redemptrix. No. Disciple,” > he said, **meaning that Mary saw herself as a disciple of Jesus**. > > Mary, the pope insisted, “never stole for herself anything that was of > her son,” instead “serving him. Because she is mother. She gives > life.” > > “When they come to us with the story of declaring her this or making > that dogma, let’s not get lost in foolishness [in Spanish, tonteras],” > he said. How does the petitioning for a new Dogmatic definition, which necessarily includes the naming of Mary as "co-redemptix", to the highest levels of Roman Catholic authority, "grass-roots" style from the laity, exemplify and encourage simplicity and purity of commitment towards Christ (sole-mediator between God and man), especially when the current Pope appears to reject the notion, calling her a disciple?

Trying to come up with a list of essentials to center a gospel message on. I've seen the "Roman road of salvation" used before, but I am wondering if there are any specific summaries in the Bible I can use to create my own approach. **Edit\}** _(in response to input given thus far)_ **Thank you** for **all** your answers, suggestions, and comments. I **wish** there was the possibility to favorite more than one answer as i found a number of them extremely helpful and instructive. I will check back occasionally to see what other information might be shared in answering my question.

William Golding wrote about a group of Boy Scouts who were stranded on an island, and who tried to set up a society among themselves. At first they were quite civil and logical in their social interactions. But as time went on they became less civil, and eventually barbaric in their treatment of each other...even setting up a pig's head for worship! The story ended with a rescue, before they annihilated each other completely...by a warship! Showing the need of society at large in the world. Does this represent faithfully what Protestants teach about the Fallen Nature of Man as presented in the Bible? (Romans 3:23, 6:23) And does it lead to the incisive conclusion that Fallenness directs us to: the need of a Transcendent Savior? Note that the troop of boys had no outside, cultural influences. They only acted according to their inherent instincts. Which instincts gradually manifested themselves in evil conduct, growing worse and worse by the days. Is this an accurate illustration, by the novelist, of Paul's thesis in Romans 1-2 (wittingly or unwittingly on the part of Mr. Goldman)? >What then? Are we better than they? No, in no wise, for we have proven before both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin. As it is written, *There is none righteous, no, not one...* (Psalm 14:1; Romans 3:9-10)
*For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.* (Romans 3:23) Did Golding have any connection with Christianity in his personal life? Was there any knowable influence that theology had in forming his motifs in writing his novels?

In the Old testament, it was important for the High priest to present a bowl of pure, spotless blood in the Holies of Holies. If accepted by Jehovah, the Israelites would be in God's favor. In the New Testament, it is revealed that Jesus, as High Priest, presented a bowl,*but this time, His own blood* and placed it in the Holy of Holies (spiritually speaking: in the heavenlies). Hebrews 9:7,11-14. *But only the High Priest entered the inner room, and that only once a year, and never without blood which he offered for himself and for the sins of the people...(Jesus) did not enter by mens of the blood of goats and calves, but He entered the Most Holy Place once for all by His own blood, having obtained eternal redemption.* (NIV, 1984) *In Him (Jesus) we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins.* (Ephesians 1:7, NIV) When during the Passion week did this happen?

While on this earth Jesus lived a sinless life. If you belive on him his perfect righteousness is imputed unto you as if you lived a sinless life. God is a perfectionist. If you have commited even one sin in your entire life, he won't allow you to enter his kingdom. If you have commited even only one sin in your life you will need to believe on Jesus so that his perfect righteousness is imputed unto you and then you can enter the kingdom of God. Is that right?

We see Jesus entering his Passion , in Lk 22: 41-43 (NRSVCE): > Then he withdrew from them about a stone’s throw, knelt down, and prayed, “Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me; yet, not my will but yours be done.” Then an angel from heaven appeared to him and gave him strength. That implies that Jesus had an individual will of his own, which was distinct from the Will of the Father. But we do not see Jesus detailing it to His disciples after the resurrection. My question therefore, is: Are there apocryphal writings or messages received by the mystics explaining what Jesus, prior to the Passion, had in mind on how to accomplish his redemptive mission?

The Creed of the Apostles say that Jesus descended into hell after his death on the cross. He is referred to as the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. In this context, it would be useful to have a look at the tradition relating to absolution from sins, that was prevalent among the Jews of ancient times,following Leviticus 16: 6-10 . Two goats were procured, similar in respect of appearance, height, cost, and time of selection. Having one of these on his right and the other on his left, the high priest, who was assisted in this rite by two subordinates, put both his hands into a wooden case, and took out two labels, one inscribed "for Yahweh" and the other "for Azazel". The high priest then laid his hands with the labels upon the two goats and said, "A sin-offering to Yahweh" . He then fastened a scarlet woolen thread to the head of the goat "for Azazel"; and laying his hands upon it again, recited the confession of sin and prayer for forgiveness.This prayer was responded to by the congregation present. A man was selected, preferably a priest, to take the goat to the precipice in the wilderness; When he came to the precipice he divided the scarlet thread into two parts, one of which he tied to the rock and the other to the goat's horns, and then pushed the goat down . The cliff was so high and rugged that before the goat had traversed half the distance to the plain below, its limbs were utterly shattered. Men were stationed at intervals along the way, and as soon as the goat was thrown down the precipice, they signaled to one another by means of kerchiefs or flags, until the information reached the high priest, whereat he proceeded with the other parts of the ritual. So, we see the scapegoat descending to the ravine with the sins of the faithful. Of course, there are different schools of thought on what is actually meant by hell in the Apostles'Creed. Would it not, however, make sense if Jesus put into practice for the first and the last time, the descend of the scapegoat of the older times which symbolized the remission of sins of Israel ? My question, therefore is: According to Catholic scholars, does Jesus' descending into hell in the Apostles Creed have any reference to the scapegoat's descend in the Jewish tradition ?

I might get homeless. Is there any holy sacred good clean Christ-like homeless hospice run by Archdiocese of Toronto? Cardinal Collin's administration.

Has anyone heard of or seen anything that Angels can be redeemed as My boyfriend prayed that he could save the angel and offered to give himself to the lake of fire. Can someone please help?

According to Catholic faith and theology, once God decreed to save mankind, redemption would be by the work of God-made-man. > For us men and for our salvation, he came down from heaven: > [...] and became man. For our sake he was > crucified. - **The Nicene Creed** . And > But God decided that man should be shown mercy and be pardoned. His > mercy was to be above all His works; and He also decreed that this > mercy and pardon were to be granted because of the full satisfaction > of justice by adequate atonement. Hence **it became necessary that One > of the Trinity assume created nature and in that nature offer > reparation to God for man's great sin**. - Library: The theology of > the Precious Blood | Catholic Culture . Within Catholicism is there an explanation of why it was the Son and not the Father or the Holy Spirit *who for us men and our salvation became man and was crucified*?

Where does the belief come from? Why is her intercession believed to be necessary? Please provide Biblical evidence for the belief as well as Traditional sources.

What is chronologically the last mention of redemption in the Bible?

What is the Catholic teaching on uniting with Christ's suffering? Specifically when we go through some kind of suffering and we acknowledge it as God's will and converse it with Christ. It reminds us of His suffering and helps us to realize what Christ did for us. My question is: Does it also subtract from his suffering? When he went through his passion Jesus saw all sins of past, present, and future. But he also saw the fruit and the saint's responds which gave him comfort. Does uniting to Christ's suffering only comforts the heart of Jesus or also subtract his suffering during crucifixion where he would otherwise have gone through them? For example: If I suffer some pain and take it as sharing Jesus's suffering, was that sharing now split between me and him and now Christ doesn't need to suffer as much(back in time) because I took some part on myself? > "In bringing about the Redemption through suffering, Christ raised > human suffering to the level of the Redemption. Thus each man, in his > sufferings, can also become a sharer in the redemptive suffering of > Christ" (Salvifici Doloris).

This question is not about whether Catholics think salvation is a process or a one time thing, it is more nuanced than that. I am looking for precise theological interpretations of Christ's redemptive work but not so much its relation to us if that makes sense. For example the dominant view in Protestantism is Penal Substitionary Atonement which teaches for instance that the Father poured his wrath on the Son. I am looking for the official view of the Catholic Church and it would be well appreciated if the answer includes elements like whether or not thi view has always been the official one and if it is elevated to the level of dogma rather than merely an encouraged interpretation of dogma. A brief explanation of the characteristics of the view is also necessary to have one's answer validated.

Who is the author who first described the biblical metanarrative of scripture as Creation, Fall, Redemption -- and some include Restoration or New Creation?

Catholics say:The soul is immortal; all humans have one. Adam sinned and his physical body returned to dust, but his soul moved on to phase 2. According to Catholic doctrine, why does the whole plan of redemption depend on the physical death of Jesus Christs human body? How are we saved from Adamic death which according to doctrine was death of physical body only?