Posted on 01/01/2009 3:51:01 PM PST by NYer
I would answer your post if it were anywhere near related to the point I was making....alas it isn’t.
One of the sermons the pastor gave sticks with me re protestant understanding of Mary. He said of the passage from Luke below that this is Mary's song. It is not for us to understand. That struck me as rather odd. It was almost a dismissal of one of the most recited passages of the entire Bible. It's sung or said in every Office and at every vespers. Yes, according to the Evangelist she predicts her own veneration. This translation is the Douay-Rheims, one of many that was done following the protestant revolt to correct scriptural errors in the vernacular.
46 And Mary said: My soul doth magnify the Lord. 47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. 48 Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid; for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. 49 Because he that is mighty, hath done great things to me; and holy is his name. 50 And his mercy is from generation unto generations, to them that fear him.
From the Douay Rheims commentary: 48 "Shall call me blessed"... These words are a prediction of that honour which the church in all ages should pay to the Blessed Virgin. Let Protestants examine whether they are any way concerned in this prophecy.
51 He hath showed might in his arm: he hath scattered the proud in the conceit of their heart. 52 He hath put down the mighty from their seat, and hath exalted the humble. 53 He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away. 54 He hath received Israel his servant, being mindful of his mercy: 55 As he spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to his seed for ever.
Actually, I think the translator in the commentary asks a good question. Is there any concern for the prophesy? That's what it is.
. . . and lots of Catholics on FR talk about accepting Christ as their Saviour, you just were too busy looking for symptoms of Mariolatry to notice. . . .
I saw “speciosior sole” and figured it was Rev. 12:1 without reading further — thanks for the translation and the cite!
You wrote:
“You’re wrong, of course...Jesus told the apostles NOT to preach to Gentiles...There wasn’t a Gentile in the bunch when Jesus made the reference to Gentiles...Hence, no Catholic church...”
Your comment makes no sense. Jesus was speaking to Jewish Apostles. It was perfectly appropriate to use a reference to Gentiles as an example of how to avoid people since every Jew would know what Jesus meant. The existence of the Catholic Church, however, is not dependent upon the participation, membership or even the existence of Gentiles. If Christ had founded a Church that was NEVER to seek out Gentile converts it would still be the Catholic Church in that it would be the true Church. It just wouldn’t be exactly as we know it today.
Also your point that “Jesus told the apostles NOT to preach to Gentiles...” is nonsensical in the way you appear to be using it. Yes, Jesus told the Apostles not to preach to the Gentiles in Matthew 10. But that was to fulfill prophecy.
Acts 13:40-42 “Beware therefore, lest that come on you which is spoken in the prophets: ‘Behold, you scoffers, and wonder, and perish; for I work a work in your days, a work which you will in no way believe, if one declares it to you.’ “ So when the Jews went out of the synagogue, the Gentiles begged that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath.”
It was only after the Resurrection that the Apostles were sent to the Gentiles as well by Jesus’ command: Matthew 28:18-20, Mark 16:16.
The Catholic Church has always known this, of course, and teaches it:
CCC 543 Everyone is called to enter the kingdom. First announced to the children of Israel, this messianic kingdom is intended to accept men of all nations.251 To enter it, one must first accept Jesus’ word: “The word of the Lord is compared to a seed which is sown in a field; those who hear it with faith and are numbered among the little flock of Christ have truly received the kingdom. Then, by its own power, the seed sprouts and grows until the harvest.” 252
(252 LG 5; cf. Mk 4:14, 26-29; Lk 12:32.)
Trying to use Holy Scripture to disprove the existence of the Church established by Christ, given to the Apostles and their successors to lead, and protected by the Holy Spirit, becomes a messy business, which relies on wild interpretations and abridgments of Holy Scripture....just the way the deceiver would want it.
Making Peter the foundation of the church instead of the gospel of Jesus is what is messy business.
***Making Peter the foundation of the church instead of the gospel of Jesus is what is messy business.***
Peter was made the steward. Notice the symbolism of the keys. That is what the caretaker of the kingdom was given when the King departed in Biblical times throughout the Middle East (and later in Europe).
If Jesus was a child, he was a child. That means he was—literally—a normal human being. That means he learned his language from her. That means he playd with other children. Furthermore if she was a pious woman from, as the story goes, a priestly family, she was the one who taught him his prayers. He grew up as a Jew among Jews, was from a family of Judeans who probably had settled in Galilee during the time after the Macabees had won independence from the Syrians. It goes without saying that he had resources that no other child had, but he definitely was not a superman.
Well, she may have spoken Greek.
You sure have to twist some scripture to get to there...In fact, scripture will never take you there...The Catholic church didn't exist until 400 A.D....It's the (c)atholic church you are referring to and it had nothing to do with your church...And still doesn't...
Peter's ministry to the Jew (and Jews only) was a doctrine of faith, and works...That's what the first three Gospels teach...
And that's where your church is at...
After the Resurrection, Salvation was offered to the Gentiles as well...Under a different doctrine...A different Gospel...Paul called it his gospel...And if a person didn't follow Paul's gospel, it would be anathama on that person...It is a gospel of faith only...Faith without works...Jesus did this to make the Jews jealous...
And you guys are stuck in Peter's gospel...Your gospel and your church are not the church that Paul formed...That church was a mystery from times past and apparently it's still a mystery to your church...
Not at all...It's the difference between studying the scripture and studying your catechism...
He didn't learn this stuff from Mary...
Luk 2:49 And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?
Luk 2:50 And they understood not the saying which he spake unto them.
So you’d like to squash us, eh??? Lucky for us; not that many years ago, you would have burned us alive at the stake...
You wrote:
“You sure have to twist some scripture to get to there...In fact, scripture will never take you there...The Catholic church didn’t exist until 400 A.D....”
Actually it existed since Christ founded it and that was more than 3.5 centuries before A.D. 400. It was already mentioned or discussed (by 400) by Ignatius, Ambrose, Augustine, Lactantius, the author of the Martyrdom of St. Polycarp, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, and St. Athanasius just to mention a few. But you say it didn’t exist until long after some of these men were dead?
“It’s the (c)atholic church you are referring to and it had nothing to do with your church...And still doesn’t...”
No, It is the Catholic Church I am referring to and it is my Church. While you are a member of a Protestant sect - which may or may not even be a century old - I am in the Catholic Church founded by Christ, led by the Holy Ghost and made great and brought to the ends of the earth by the saints and martyrs of nearly 2,000 years.
I know many Protestant anti-Catholics hate that sort of triumphalism, but too bad. The various Protestant sects out there are exactly that - sects. Here today, changed tomorrow, replaced the next day by some other sect.
“Peter’s ministry to the Jew (and Jews only) was a doctrine of faith, and works...That’s what the first three Gospels teach...”
What? 1) Peter’s ministry was to Jews and Gentiles (or have you forgotten the centurion Cornelius?). I am often surprised by how many anti-Catholics don’t remember that Peter ministered to Gentiles as well as Jews. At one moment, these same anti-Catholics throw up Paul’s rebuke of Peter at us as if it refutes papal infallibility and then moments later forget that Peter’s transgression was treating his Gentile converts differently from his Jewish ones! Peter ministered to anyone interested. St. Paul, likewise, was the Apostles to the Gentiles, yet he went to Jews first - always!
“And that’s where your church is at...”
The Word of God tells us that we are a people who in grace have faith and perform works. Hence Paul’s use of the phrase “obedience of faith”.
“After the Resurrection, Salvation was offered to the Gentiles as well...Under a different doctrine...A different Gospel...”
No. There was ONE gospel. ONLY ONE GOSPEL. It was the same gospel offered to every man, woman and child on this earth by the Apostles. Or have you forgotten “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” ( Ephesians 4:5 ). One faith would necessitate ONE GOSPEL. If there were two gospels, then there would be two faiths. Sorry, but what you’re saying makes no sense whatsoever.
“Paul called it his gospel...And if a person didn’t follow Paul’s gospel, it would be anathama on that person...It is a gospel of faith only...Faith without works...Jesus did this to make the Jews jealous...”
Paul did call it his gospel (e.g. Romans 2:16, 16:25). But it did not come from him. It came from God and His Church and all Paul did was preach it - he did not invent it nor did he teach a gospel of his own as separate from that of Christ and His Apostles. Jesus’ every act and word made His enemies jealous. The idea that He would allow two different gospels to be taught by the Apostles just to make the Jews jealous is simply wrong. There can only be ONE gospel. If there are two, then one is wrong. Paul made this clear enough in 2 Corinthians 11:13-15.
“And you guys are stuck in Peter’s gospel...Your gospel and your church are not the church that Paul formed...That church was a mystery from times past and apparently it’s still a mystery to your church...”
Paul formed no Church other than what Christ gave to him. You are actually claiming Peter opposed Paul, that Paul opposed Christ. Nonsense. Christ sent one Church and it taught one gospel through both Peter and Paul.
In the ideas you offered we see the destructive power of anti-Catholicism. Anti-Catholics are so desperate that they would even set Paul against Peter and Paul against Christ just to attack the Catholic Church. How sad.
Beautiful post! Thank you.
I didn’t say he did. although Luke may have learned about this from her. And One may assume that he learned about the circumstance of his birth from her and many other things, such as reverence for Torah. His humanity was no mere cloak for a god. He chose to share our weakness, to come as a babe and to become a man as we do. He was as tradition says, true God and true man.
Like I said, Peter's ministry during Jesus' walk on earth (the Gospels) was to the Jews only...
Mat 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:
I don't know what to tell you...God says Peter's ministry was to the Jews only...Apparently your church tradition disagrees with that...You'll have to take that up with God...
No. There was ONE gospel. ONLY ONE GOSPEL. It was the same gospel offered to every man, woman and child on this earth by the Apostles. Or have you forgotten “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” ( Ephesians 4:5 ).
But more than one Gospel...Gospel doesn't mean Lord, Faith or Baptism...
Paul's gosple was the Gospel of Grace...
I. In itself, the word Gospel means good news.
II. Four forms of the Gospel are to be distinguished:
(1) The Gospel of the kingdom. This is the good news that God purposes to set up on the earth, in fulfilment of the Davidic Covenant: (2Sa_7:16): a kingdom, political, spiritual, Israelitish, universal, over which God's Son, David's heir, shall be King, and which shall be, for one thousand years, the manifestation of the righteousness of God in human affairs.
(See) - (Mat_3:2).
Two preachings of this Gospel are mentioned, one past, beginning with the ministry of John the Baptist, continued by our Lord and His disciples, and ending with the Jewish rejection of the King. The other is yet future (Mat_24:14) during the great tribulation, and immediately preceding the coming of the King in glory.
(2) The Gospel of the grace of God. This is the good news that Jesus Christ, the rejected King, has died on the cross for the sins of the world, that He was raised from the dead for our justification, and that, by Him, all that believe are justified from all things. This form of the Gospel is described in many ways. It is the Gospel...
"of God" (Rom_1:1) because it originates in His love;
"of Christ" (2Co_10:14) because it flows from His sacrifice, and because He is the alone Object of Gospel faith;
of the "grace of God" (Act_20:24) because it saves those whom the law curses;
of "the glory"; (1Ti_1:11); (2Co_4:4) because it concerns Him who is in the glory, and who is bringing the many sons to glory; (Heb_2:10);
of "our salvation" (Eph_1:13) because it is the "power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth"; (Rom_1:16);
of "the uncircumcision" (Gal_2:7) because it saves wholly apart from forms and ordinances of "peace"
(Eph_6:15) because through Christ it makes peace between the sinner and God, and imparts inward peace.
(3) The everlasting Gospel. (Rev_14:6). This is to be preached to the earth-dwellers at the very end of the great tribulation and immediately preceding the judgment of the nations (Mat_15:31). It is neither the Gospel of the kingdom, nor of grace. Though its burden is judgment, not salvation, it is good news to Israel and to those who, during the tribulation, have been saved; (Rev_7:9-14); (Luk_21:28); (Psa_96:11-13); (Isa_35:4-10).
(4) That which Paul calls, "my Gospel" (Rom_2:16). This is the Gospel of the grace of God in its fullest development, but includes the revelation of the result of that Gospel in the outcalling of the church, her relationships, position, privileges, and responsibility. It is the distinctive truth of Ephesians and Colossians, but interpenetrates all of Paul's writings.
III. There is "another Gospel" (Gal_1:6); (2Co_11:4) "which is not another," but a perversion of the Gospel of the grace of God, against which we are warned. It has many seductive forms, but the test is one -- it invariably denies the sufficiency of grace alone to save, keep, and perfect, and mingles with grace some kind of human merit. In Galatia it was law, in Colosse fanaticism (Col_2:18); etc. In any form, its teachers lie under the awful anathema of God.
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.