What, you mean she's like a Pez machine?
Posted on 10/08/2007 6:08:42 AM PDT by NYer
LOL. The old drunk.
This is a heck of a lot more than veneration for her being the vessel our Saviour used to be with us. She now has the power to bring her believers to heaven.
Exactly. And more than just a co-Redemptrix.
A dispensary is a liquor store - any connection?
Did you even open the thread and read it. After the Early Church Fathers are the quotes from Scripture. Take a look before you start throwing rocks at me.
What, you mean she's like a Pez machine?
Mary shows partiality. She chooses based on her own preference! How can that be fair?
It doesn't have to stay that way. Just believe on Jesus alone.
ICor. 15:1 Moreover brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, by which also you are saved,...
The Sacrifice of the Cross took place in time, but it transcends the limitations of time.
Hey, you watched the same Star Trek movie that I did...
Beam me up Scotty...
What's really ironic is the folks that believe this, are the same that mock those of us that believe everything has to be measured by what SCRIPTURE says. IOW, Sola Scriptura.
This is what happens when "Tradition" is more important than Sola Scriptura.
If she shows partiality she must have the power to discern who is worthy and who isn't. Mary must be omniscient!
I'm not surprised we don't see much defense of these beliefs. The logical conclusion makes no sense.
Mary was a wonderful woman who fulfilled a special task given to her. I look forward to finding out from her when she truly knew who Jesus really was.
Such is the way of Sola Sabbatine Privilegists. They think their way is the better way. I wonder what the early Church Fathers [Ignatius, Irenaeus, et al] would say to this wayward generation of Mariologists. They would not be pleased.
“”I wonder what the early Church Fathers [Ignatius, Irenaeus, et al] would say to this wayward generation of Mariologists. They would not be pleased.””
Perhaps you should read what they said before you make such a comment.
Here....
“In accordance with this design, Mary the Virgin is found obedient, saying, ‘Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word.’ But Eve was disobedient; for she did not obey when as yet she was a virgin. And even as she, having indeed a husband, Adam, but being nevertheless as yet a virgin (for in Paradise ‘they were both naked, and were not ashamed,’ inasmuch as they, having been created a short time previously, had no understanding of the procreation of children: for it was necessary that they should first come to adult age, and then multiply from that time onward), having become disobedient, was made the cause of death, both to herself and to the entire human race; so also did Mary, having a man betrothed [to her], and being nevertheless a virgin, by yielding obedience,BECAME THE CAUSE OF SALVATION, BOTH TO HERSELF AND THE WHOLE HUMAN RACE. And on this account does the law term a woman betrothed to a man, the wife of him who had betrothed her, although she was as yet a virgin; thus indicating the back-reference from Mary to Eve, because what is joined together could not otherwise be put asunder than by inversion of the process by which these bonds of union had arisen; s so that the former ties be cancelled by the latter, that the latter may set the former again at liberty… Wherefore also Luke, commencing the genealogy with the Lord, carried it back to Adam, indicating that it was He who regenerated them into the Gospel of life, and not they Him. And thus also it was that the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. For what the virgin Eve had bound fast through unbelief, this did the virgin Mary set free through faith.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:22 (A.D. 180).
“For as Eve was seduced by the word of an angel to flee from God, having rebelled against His Word, so Mary by the word of an angel received the glad tidings that she would bear God by obeying his Word. The former was seduced to disobey God, but the latter was persuaded to obey God, so that the Virgin Mary might become the advocate of the virgin Eve. As the human race was subjected to death through [the act of] a virgin, SO IT WAS SAVED BY A VIRGIN.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V:19,1 (A.D. 180).
“Thou alone and thy Mother are in all things fair, there is no flaw in thee and no stain in thy Mother.” Ephraem, Nisibene Hymns, 27:8 (A.D. 370).
“O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides.” Athanasius, Homily of the Papyrus of Turin, 71:216 (ante AD 373).
“Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin.” Ambrose, Sermon 22:30 (A.D. 388).
“Our Lord Jesus Christ, however, who came to liberate mankind, in which both males and females are destined to salvation, was not averse to males, for He took the form of a male, nor to females, for of a female He was born. Besides, there is a great mystery here: that just as death comes to us through a woman, Life is born to us through a woman; that the devil, defeated, would be tormented by each nature, feminine and masculine, since he had taken delight in the defection of both.”
Saint Augustine, Christian Combat (22,24) 396 A.D.
Were those patriarchs wearing Mary’s scapulars when they wrote that?? Where do they write about the Sabbatine Privilege? They said wonderful things about the Apostles but they didn’t wear their scapulars and look to them for their redemption.
I just read a chapter on church history saying Irenaeus was martyred after writing “Against Heresies,” in which he defended the church by using scripture. I doubt that Irenaeus cried out “Madonna.”
Christ was conceived without sin. It was HE that was the 'Immaculate Conception'. No sin was transfered to Christ, as original sin is passed on by way of the mans seed. With Mary, being a virgin, and Christ being conceived of a virgin, He was born without sin.
Perhaps you should read what Blessed Saint Irenueas really said. It was not solo scripture at all
St. Irenaeus writes as if he was anticipating the Solo Scripture error of Protestantism.
According to Irenaeus, Tradition is substantive in content, normative in authority and continues to live in the Catholic Church
Take a look......
“When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of TRADITION...It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture or tradition” (Against Heresies 3,2:1).
“Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the TRADITION which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?” (Against Heresies 3,4:1).
“But, again, when we refer them to that TRADITION which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the successions of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying they themselves are wiser...” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3,2:2).
“His testimony, therefore, is true, and the doctrine of the apostles is open and steadfast, holding nothing in reserve; nor did they teach one set of doctrines in private, and another in public” (Against Heresies 3,15:1).
Here is what a few other Church Fathers had to say...
“But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture BUT FROM TRADITION, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept either by the Apostles themselves or by plenary COUNCILS, THE AUTHORITY OF WHICH IS QUITE VITAL TO THE CHURCH.”
Letter of Augustine to Januarius 54,1,1, 400 A.D.
“I believe that this practice comes from apostolic tradition, just as so many other practices NOT FOUND IN THEIR WRITINGS nor in the councils of their successors, but which, because they are kept by the whole Church everywhere, are believed to have been commended and handed down by the Apostles themselves.”
St. Augustine, Baptism 1,12,20, 400 A.D.
“But what is also to the point, let us note that the very TRADITION, teaching and faith of the CATHOLIC CHURCH from the beginning, WHICH THE LORD GAVE, was preached by the Apostles, and was preserved by the Fathers. On this was the Church founded; and if anyone departs from this, he neither is nor any longer ought to be called a Christian.”
St. Athanasius, Letters to Serapion of Thmuis, 1,28, 359 A.D.
St. Gregory of Nyssa(c.A.D. 335-394),brother of St. Basil the Great, Doctor of the Catholic Church and bishop of Nyssa writes:
“[F]or it is enough for proof of our statement, that the TRADITION has come down to us from our fathers, handed on, like some inheritance, by succession from the apostles and the saints who came after them. They, on the other hand, who change their doctrines to this novelty, would need the support of arguments in abundance, if they were about to bring over to their views, not men light as dust, and unstable, but men of weight and steadiness: but so long as their statement is advanced without being established, and without being proved, who is so foolish and so brutish as to account the teaching of the evangelists and apostles, and of those who have successively shone like lights in the churches, of less force than this undemonstrated nonsense?” (Against Eunomius,4:6).
“Of the dogmas and kergymas preserved in the Church, some we possess from written teaching and others we receive from the tradition of the Apostles, handed on to us in mystery. In respect to piety both are of the same force. No one will contradict any of these, no one, at any rate, who is even moderately versed in manners ecclesiastical. Indeed, were we to try to reject the unwritten customs as having no great authority, we would unwittingly injure the Gospel in its vitals; or rather, we would reduce kergyma to a mere term” (Holy Spirt 27:66).
Likewise Tertullian writes.....
“Error of doctrine in the churches must necessarily have produced various issues. When, however, that which is deposited among many is found to be one and the same, it is not the result of error, but of tradition. Can any one, then, be reckless enough to say that they were in error who handed on the tradition” (Prescription against the Heretics,28).
All the complete copies of the NT are from the 4th century unless you count shreds of parchemtn and papyrus, and even they are 2nd and third century copies of copies. By this logic we can doubt the entire NT.
Since the Apostles overwhelmingly quote from the Septuagint, by your theory the Septuagint was written to "fit" the New Testament rather than the other way around! If the Septuagint did not exit before the 4th century AD, then the Apostles in the NT are actually misquoting the Old Testament!
I don’t think there will be much argument with many Jesuits.
“DEPART FROM ME YOU WORKERS OF INIQUITY”
just doesn’t sound like it leaves much room for argument.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.