Posted on 11/17/2010 11:38:55 AM PST by Alex Murphy
It's all Greek to me. How about a translation?
Precisely. Yet there remains this inexplicable desire to elevate Mary, the mortal, biological mother of Jesus, into equivalency with Him as participating in the godhead with all the divine powers implied therein.
What’s the problem? Is not God’s Messiah sufficient unto the Father’s purpose in begetting Him? Was not the sacrifice of the Christ sufficient to atone for the sins of the world? The Holy Scriptures teach that it is. Are we to doubt and contradict the clear words of holy writ, and invent an alternative or parallel path to salvation?
The word “blasphemy” comes readily to mind in contemplating Mariolatry.
Kolo, my apologies, but my Greek is not nearly good enough to parse that paragraph...could I trouble you for a translation at least of the key sentence?
Something about the body coming from the Holy Spirit *and* the Virgin Mary?
Enanthroposanta is also throwing me for a loop. :)
Hint: it’s the Nicene Creed, starting with “And in one Lord Jesus Christ . . .” You can probably figure out the rest! ;-)
Well, any such desire is rank heresy obviously, and elevating Mary to the Godhead has no place whatsoever in the Christian faith. But we must be careful, we must be *very very careful* about ascribing heresy/idolatry/blasphemy to practices that we do not really understand.
Our bodies aren't "part of our parents bodies," though. They have their origin from and in our parents' bodies, but they aren't part of them. My son's body is not part of my body; it's a whole body similar to my own (but younger and better-looking).
Christ's human soul did not originate in Mary, because it is Catholic dogma that human souls are directly created by God. (Some Protestants hold to a doctrine called "traducianism," which says that souls are derived from one's parents in somewhat the same way our bodies are. That belief is heretical for Catholics.)
Christ's divinity certainly did not originate in Mary, because it pre-existed her, and also, of course, "you can't give what you don't have," and Mary has no divinity to give.
By analogy, if you sent me a lock of your hair in an envelope, is your mother present in the envelope? (The analogy is imperfect, because every particle of the Eucharist is the whole Christ, while the lock of hair is only a part of you, but still ...)
And in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
“the only begotten Son of God,
begotten from the Father before all ages,
light from light,
true God from true God,
begotten not made,
of one essence with the Father,
through Whom all things came into existence,
Who on account of us men and on account of our salvation came down from the heavens,
and was enfleshed from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary
and became man”
This is true, but His body did. That's what the question is about. His body. Does His body contain DNA from Mary, to put it in today's terms. And in the Eucharist, the wafer becomes the REAL and TRUE BODY OF CHRIST. Are you saying that Jesus Christ's body was part of Mary's DNA, but the Eucharist, even though it claims to be the REAL body of Christ, does not contain the "Mary" part of His DNA? I don't know how to ask this right. ;)
Aw shucks. But lil ole me can’t take all the credit; I certainly (and luckily) don’t own the rights to calling the Body of Christ a “cracker”
Something about the body coming from the Holy Spirit *and* the Virgin Mary?
"and was enfleshed from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man
Enanthroposanta is also throwing me for a loop. :)"
The word "σαρκωθέντα" really means "enfleshed" while the word "ἐνανθρωπήσαντα" means "became man". They are two of my absolute favorite words. Note also the word "ὁμοούσιον", one in essence. Add a single ι, thusly "ὁμοιούσιος", and we have "of similar essence", a Trinitarian heresy; indeed an iota's worth of difference! Greek is REAL important when it comes to understanding Christianity.
Sure, exactly the same way my body contains DNA from my mother. (To be really accurate, it's DNA that's copied from my mother's.)
Eucharist, even though it claims to be the REAL body of Christ, does not contain the "Mary" part of His DNA?
This gets into the metaphysics of transubstantiation. If you were to analyze a consecrated Host, the only DNA you would find would be wheat DNA. That's the -- to use a metaphysical term -- "accident". But the "substance" (to speak metaphysically) is Christ's Body and Blood. Whether it makes sense to speak of DNA in connection with a metaphysical substance (not a chemical substance!) ... is debatable.
Really, the most orthodox way to understand this, IMO, is that God works two miracles. He turns bread and wine into the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ -- that's miracle #1. He then prevents us from being "grossed out" by working a second miracle to keep it looking and tasting like bread and wine to all of our senses.
What Catholics call a "Eucharistic miracle" is really one where the second miracle was not worked at all, or was reversed, in order to sustain or strengthen our faith. (google "Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano")
This is directly analogous to the Incarnation, BTW, where God comes into our world looking exactly like a little Galilean baby in a stable. But he's not merely that; our senses deceive us. He's God.
Would a good way to understand this be: Mary was RESPONSIBLE for the Eucharist, but she is not PRESENT in the Eucharist?
"The Holy Eucharist is the Bread that comes from our Heavenly Mother. It is Bread produced by Mary from the flour of Her immaculate flesh, kneaded into dough with her virginal milk. St. Augustine wrote, Jesus took His Flesh from the flesh of Mary. We know, too, that united to the Divinity in the Eucharist there is Jesus' Body and Blood taken from the body and blood of the Blessed Virgin. Therefore at every Holy Communion we receive, it would be quite correct, and a very beautiful thing, to TAKE NOTICE OF OUR HOLY MOTHERS SWEET AND MYSTERIOUS PRESENCE, INSEPARABLY UNITED WITH JESUS IN THIS HOST.
There are thousands of examples like this all over the internet; all from Roman Catholic sources, Roman Catholic apologists, Roman Catholic theology.
This is what they believe.
The more you layers one peels back from Roman Catholicism, the more pagan it becomes.
You da man. I will have to read this again when I’m a little less ... ahem, well ... more capable of assimilating the content and passing it on to the First Grade, who are so terribly concrete in their understanding, sometimes.
At the very least, such elevating is un-Christian.
There is absolutely nowhere in scripture where Christ would have, and did not, give this type of statement concerning Mary..and God certainly would have something to say to Manelli for even suggesting this! This is nut case talk as far as I'm concerned. What a sicko slam against Mary and the Christ!
Look how things change, suddenly. It seems she IS true and real in the Eucharist. My, my... imagine that...one says one thing, another comes along and disputes that while mocking the notion, and eventually the TRUTH comes out. Do all Catholics know this and claim ignorance when asked, or are they truly ignorant of this teaching? Perhaps the smartest thing to do is ask a ‘first grader’. They would..ahem..get it.
I think I'll take the Cardinal Archbishop of Boston's opinion on matters of theology as somewhat more authoritative than the opinion of a priest in some book Dr. E came up with, thanks very much.
But I'm amused at how one priest's opinion suddenly becomes über-authoritative Catholic dogma, as long as y'all can use it to make the Church look bad.
But a Cardinal's opinion which happens to be theologically accurate, well, that's just swept under the carpet. After all, it doesn't do what we want, so let's ditch it.
What was that Dan Rather line about the infamous National Guard bogus evaluations? "It's not the accuracy of the evidence, but the seriousness of the charge"?
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.