Russians Flock to See Virgin Mary Relic

MSNBC ^ | 11/23/11 | Mansur Mirovalev

[marshmallow]

Tens of thousands wait for hours in freezing temperatures to kiss belt that Christians believe was worn by Jesus' mother

MOSCOW — Braving freezing cold temperatures and ice-covered sidewalks, tens of thousands of Russians stood in line Wednesday to see and kiss a newly arrived relic of the Virgin Mary in Russia's largest Orthodox cathedral.

The Virgin Mary's Cincture, a belt that Christians believe was worn by Jesus' mother, was brought to Russia last month from Mount Athos, a monastic community in Greece.

Kissing the relic, which is encased in an ornamental box, is believed to help barren women conceive and heal other ailments.

The line of people, mostly women, waiting to enter the golden-domed Christ the Savior Cathedral stretched for 2.5 miles (4 kilometers) along the Moscow River despite temperatures that dropped to below minus 5 Celsius (23 Fahrenheit).

[narses]

the Internet Expert / Elder / Popess RnMomof7 says:

“BTW there is no record of Peter being pope.. until hundreds of years after the fact ...”

Sadlty for HH RnMomof7, many proddies disagree:

Just one for now, but many more exist:

Jesus now sums up Peter’s significance in a name, Peter . . . It describes not so much Peter’s character (he did not prove to be ‘rock-like’ in terms of stability or reliability), but his function, as the foundation-stone of Jesus’ church. The feminine word for ‘rock’, ‘petra’, is necessarily changed to the masculine ‘petros’ (stone) to give a man’s name, but the word-play is unmistakable (and in Aramaic would be even more so, as the same form ‘kepha’ would occur in both places). It is only Protestant overreaction to the Roman Catholic claim . . . that what is here said of Peter applies also to the later bishops of Rome, that has led some to claim that the ‘rock’ here is not Peter at all but the faith which he has just confessed. The word-play, and the whole structure of the passage, demands that this verse is every bit as much Jesus’ declaration about Peter as v.16 was Peter’s declaration about Jesus . . . It is to Peter, not to his confession, that the rock metaphor is applied . . . Peter is to be the foundation-stone of Jesus’ new community . . . which will last forever.

(R.T. France (Anglican); in Morris, Leon, General editor, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press / Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1985, vol. 1: Matthew, 254, 256)

[RnMomof7]

Jvette..just point out to us anytime this "gift" was used by the apostles.. hint..there is NONE ..not one example.. but there is examples of the ecclesiastical gift over the church being exercised in excommunication.. THAT is what that gift was for..the foundation of the church.. nothing else.....

There was no 'sacrament" of confession as now practiced until the 1200's

[CynicalBear]

If you want reference to God as the Rock here are some verses.

Deut. 32:4 He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.

2 Sam. 22:2 And he said, The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; 3 The God of my rock; in him will I trust: he is my shield, and the horn of my salvation, my high tower, and my refuge, my saviour; thou savest me from violence.

Psalm 18:31, "And who is a rock, except our God."

Isaiah 44:8, "Is there any God besides Me, or is there any other Rock? I know of none."

Rom. 9:33, "Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, and he who believes in Him will not be disappointed."

1 Cor. 3:11, "For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ,"

1 Cor. 10:4, "and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock (petras) which followed them; and the rock (petra) was Christ."

1 Pet. 2:8, speaking of Jesus says that he is "A stone of stumbling and a rock (petra) of offense"; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed."

[RnMomof7]

Peter applies also to the later bishops of Rome, that has led some to claim that the ‘rock’ here is not Peter at all but the faith which he has just confessed. The

Yea like that great heretic Doctor of the church Augustine

...Why have I wanted to make this little introduction? In order to suggest to you that in Peter the Church is to be recognized.Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter's confession. What is Peter's confession? 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' There's the rock for you, there's the foundation, there's where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer. Sermons, Volume III/6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327

Read the scripture and note..
Jesus did not say upon YOU I will build my church ..but on this rock

From catholic Answers

Catholic Answers states, "Admittedly, the Bible nowhere explicitly says Peter was in Rome; but, on the other hand, it doesn't say he wasn't. Just as the New Testament never says, 'Peter then went to Rome,' it never says, 'Peter did not go to Rome.' In fact, very little is said about where he, or any of the apostles other than Paul, went in the years after the Ascension. For the most part, we have to rely on books other than the New Testament for information about what happened to the apostles, Peter included, in later years."

LOL just another tradition built on silence

Catholics call the pope "the vicar" of Christ.. ..but the "vicar Christ left us is the Holy Spirit not a sinful man

'I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.' Matthew 28:20.

He is with us through the Holy Spirit, and not by a visible head, called the Pope.

Jesus said: 'It is expedient for you that I go away, for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send Him unto you. And when He is come, He will reprove the world of sin... Howbeit when He, the Spirit of truth is come, He will guide you into all truth.' John 16:7-13.

[CynicalBear]

>> BTW there is no record of Peter being pope.. until hundreds of years after the fact <<

Actually they have a problem with showing that Peter ever spent time in Rome.

[RnMomof7]

Actually they have a problem with showing that Peter ever spent time in Rome.

Everything they say and do depends on peter being Pope.. without him as the "pope" the entire foundation of Rome collapses

Now the funny thing is IF peter was ever in Rome, if he ministered in Rome, if he was "bishop " of Rome.. he was being disobedient to the call of Christ..he was to be the apostle to the JEWS not the gentiles.. Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles.. but one has to actually read the scriptures to know that :)

[narses]

So what backwoods faux seminary did you get your degree at?

Maybe an honest prod scholar’s view will persuade you that you MIGHT just be WRONG?

On the basis of the distinction between ‘petros’ . . . and ‘petra’ . . . , many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Peter is a mere ‘stone,’ it is alleged; but Jesus himself is the ‘rock’ . . . Others adopt some other distinction . . . Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretation, it is doubtful whether many would have taken ‘rock’ to be anything or anyone other than Peter . . .

The Greek makes the distinction between ‘petros’ and ‘petra’ simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine ‘petra’ could not very well serve as a masculine name . . .

Had Matthew wanted to say no more than that Peter was a stone in contrast with Jesus the Rock, the more common word would have been ‘lithos’ (’stone’ of almost any size). Then there would have been no pun - and that is just the point! . . .

In this passage Jesus is the builder of the church and it would be a strange mixture of metaphors that also sees him within the same clauses as its foundation . . .

(D.A. Carson (Baptist); in Gaebelein, Frank E., Gen. editor, Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984, vol. 8: Matthew, Mark, Luke {Matthew: D.A. Carson}, 368)

[editor-surveyor]

>> “Jesus says nothing about what Peter has confirmed, other than to tell him(and by extension us)that God has revealed this to Peter.” <<

.
Just as God reveals it to us. Peter is just like us in every way.

Your confusion is typical of those that do not study the OT sufficiently. Christ is identified as the rock is several places in the OT.

How could the church be based on a weak and sinful man? Such a church would satisfy man’s desires, but not his spiritual needs. Such a “church” would have lots of members, who would come in weekly to have their false “salvation” administered to them by an equally hopelessly lost “priest.”

[narses]

editor-surveyor (another internet “scholar”) says: “Your confusion is typical of those that do not study the OT sufficiently.”

Or we can ask a real scholar (and another proddie):

The word refers neither to Christ as a rock, distinguished from Simon, a stone, nor to Peter’s confession, but to Peter himself, . . . The reference of petra to Christ is forced and unnatural. The obvious reference of the word is to Peter. The emphatic this naturally refers to the nearest antecedent; and besides, the metaphor is thus weakened, since Christ appears here, not as the foundation, but as the architect: “On this rock will I build.” Again, Christ is the great foundation, the chief cornerstone, but the New Testament writers recognize no impropriety in applying to the members of Christ’s church certain terms which are applied to him. For instance, Peter himself (1 Peter 2:4), calls Christ a living stone, and in ver. 5, addresses the church as living stones . . .

Equally untenable is the explanation which refers petra to Simon’s confession. Both the play upon the words and the natural reading of the passage are against it, and besides, it does not conform to the fact, since the church is built, not on confessions, but on confessors - living men . . . . . .

The reference to Simon himself is confirmed by the actual relation of Peter to the early church . . . See Acts 1:15; 2:14,37; 3:2; 4:8; 5:15,29; 9:34,40; 10:25-6; Galatians 1:18.

(Word Studies in the New Testament, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1946 [orig. 1887], 4 vols., vol. 1, 91-92; emphasis in original)

[CynicalBear]

>>It describes not so much Peter’s character (he did not prove to be ‘rock-like’ in terms of stability or reliability), but his function, as the foundation-stone of Jesus’ church.<<

Peter the foundation stone?

1 Cor. 3:11, "For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ,"

How much plainer can it get?

[narses]

Some interpreters have . . . referred to Jesus as the rock here, but the context is against this. Nor is it likely that Peter’s faith or Peter’s confession is meant. It is undoubtedly Peter himself who is to be the rock, but Peter confessing, faithful and obedient . . . The leading role which Peter played is shown throughout the early chapters of Acts.

(New Bible Commentary, Guthrie, D. & J.A. Motyer, eds., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 3rd ed., 1970 [Reprinted, 1987, as The Eerdmans Bible Commentary], 837)

[HossB86]

Wow, narses... or is it narcis... that's a whole lotta vitriol for one post! I hope it was in some fashion a purgative for you so that you feel better now!

HH 'NetPope HossB86 says:

NetPope? Well, if I'm the "NetPope" you should be much more polite and accepting of what I say since I'm apparently a Pope... isn't the RCC Sola Popa? Hush and kiss my ring and the toe of my Red, White, and Blue Shoes.... wait... let me get my pointy hat first.

Sheesh.

When Christ taught the disciples to pray, what did He say? Who did He say to pray to? I hope some Jesuit taught you well enough to read the simple truth that Christ taught us to pray saying, "....our Father who is in heaven....."

Did you see Mary's name anywhere in there?

Remember -- since you're electing me NetPope, I demand and expect obedience to what I say as I am pronouncing it ex Interwebzia

Chill out. Relax. You're not showing much fruit of the Spirit.

Hossus Net Popius

[narses]

Hey you are the One claiming all knowledge and infallibility. If the facts bother you, bow out.

Tell us again about the backwoods seminary where you got your Doctor of Divinity. You do have a degree in theology, right?

[CynicalBear]

It amazes me that the RCC would base one of its central doctrines if not the most important doctrine to the CC on one sentence in scripture. And that, after multiple times scripture shows there is not other rock upon which anything rests other than God.

If you want reference to God as the Rock here are some verses.

Deut. 32:4 He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.

2 Sam. 22:2 And he said, The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; 3 The God of my rock; in him will I trust: he is my shield, and the horn of my salvation, my high tower, and my refuge, my saviour; thou savest me from violence.

Psalm 18:31, "And who is a rock, except our God."

Isaiah 44:8, "Is there any God besides Me, or is there any other Rock? I know of none."

Rom. 9:33, "Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, and he who believes in Him will not be disappointed."

1 Cor. 3:11, "For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ,"

1 Cor. 10:4, "and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock (petras) which followed them; and the rock (petra) was Christ."

1 Pet. 2:8, speaking of Jesus says that he is "A stone of stumbling and a rock (petra) of offense"; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed."

After all those references the CC claims that one sentence eliminates all that evidence and replaces God with Peter. It’s utter nonsense.

[CynicalBear]

>>I don't think that Jvette was referring to Matthew, but to John 20:23<<

Yep, got that information late last night, thanks for the info. I had missed that verse. Actually the same understanding applies to that verse as it does to the verses in Matthew.

Barnes notes on the Bible has this to say:

“It was not authority to forgive individuals, but to establish in all the churches the terms and conditions on which men might be pardoned, with a promise that God would confirm all that they taught; that all might have assurance of forgiveness who would comply with those terms; and that those who did not comply should not be forgiven, but that their sins should be retained.”

In Matthew 9:5-8 we read:

5 For whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and walk? 6 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house. 7 And he arose, and departed to his house. 8 But when the multitudes saw it, they marvelled, and glorified God, which had given such power unto men.

Jesus said the ability to forgive sins was proven by the ability to heal the sick. The day I see a man immediately heal a sick person I will believe that man also has the ability to forgive sins. The apostles were given that ability. I have seen no man since that does.

[narses]

Let’s ask the orginial Protestant, Martin Luther:

What is the Office of the Keys?

It is the peculiar power which Christ has given to His Church on earth to forgive the sins of penitent sinners, but to retain the sins of the impenitent as long as they do not repent. . . .

What do you believe according to these words?

. . . when they absolve those who repent of their sins and are willing to amend, this is as valid and certain, in heaven also, as if Christ, our dear Lord, dealt with us Himself.

What is Confession?

Confession embraces two parts. One is that we confess our sins; the other, that we receive absolution, or forgiveness, from the pastor as from God Himself, and in no wise doubt, but firmly believe, that by it our sins are forgiven before God in heaven.

(Small Catechism, 1529, 18-19)

[CynicalBear]

>>Let’s ask the orginial Protestant, Martin Luther<<

Martin Luther was a Catholic Priest wasn’t he? In fact wasn’t he a professor of theology for Catholics? Is it any wonder he still held views taught in his many years in the monastery and Catholic teaching? Luther was not a protestant and at the end of his life was son anti Semitic one would wonder in amazement at how God indeed can use anyone to accomplish his purposes. The one greatest thing Luther did was translate the Bible from Lain to the common mans language.

>>the other, that we receive absolution, or forgiveness, from the pastor as from God Himself<<

If that is in the pastors power than the pastor must also show that he can heal as Jesus said. No fakes allowed.

[narses]

It amazes me that the RCC would base one of its central doctrines if not the most important doctrine to the CC on one sentence in scripture. And that, after multiple times scripture shows there is not other rock upon which anything rests other than God.

Why are you amazed? You remain willfully ignorant of what the Catholic Church actually believes or teaches - proudly so, based on your posts on this very thread (about the Russian Orthodox Church, by the way). You build up strawmen of your own invention, you choose to interpret the entire Bible and the Talmud according to your own self designated status as an "ELDER" and then you are "amazed" at what you claim others believe. How odd.

[narses]

If that is in the pastors power than the pastor must also show that he can heal as Jesus said. No fakes allowed.

More Ex Cathedra nonsense from the Internet Papacy of the self proclaimed ELDER CynicalBear the Foist! Sad.

[CynicalBear]

Then why don’t you tell me what other scripture the RCC uses for the establishment of the church being built on Peter?