Skip to comments.Two popes, two Palm Sundays (a visual contrast)
Posted on 03/24/2013 2:39:36 PM PDT by NYer
click here to read article
I gave you the dictionary definitions...and they go back several hundred years. The ‘veneration’ of Mary is not a new thing, and the definitions of old would apply to that.
I find this comparing disheartening. Deacon Kandra should know better.
Pope [Francis]: Homily for Palm Sunday Mass [full text]
Pope, Just Back From Trip, Celebrates Palm Sunday (with good news from Cuba)
Are You Ready for Palm Sunday? [Ecumenical]
A week with the Lord [Reflections on Passion Sunday and Holy Week]
Celebration of Palm Sunday Of The Passion Of Our Lord; Homily Of His Holiness Benedict XVI
HOSANNA (Palm) SUNDAY - Shanini Sunday
In Agony Until the End of the World
Being Catholic: Sacred Things, Palm Branches
Pope Says Youth Sound Have 'Innocent Hands and Pure Hearts' at Palm Sunday Mass
Passion (Palm) Sunday
Pope Opens Holy Week With Palm Sunday Mass
Traditions Related to Palm Sunday
HOMILIES PREACHED BY FATHER ALTIER ON PALM SUNDAY FROM 2001-2005.
Baghdad Christians celebrate Palm Sunday without fear
Holy Week Starts Today - Hosanna to the King of Kings!
Palm Sunday (In Art)
Palm Sunday (Artistic Representations)
RELIGIOUS HISTORY: On Palm Sunday, the path to Golgotha
Actually, that usage that wasn't even a part of English until after the KJV of the Bible was written.
In the US and in languages other than English, adoration didn't include "worship" as an acceptable usage until after 1900, and then only due to the fact the English had added at that usage about the time they wrote the KJV Bible. Even then, it appears as the third or forth acceptable usage.
Besides, what it means in English is meaningless since English wasn't even a written language when the doctrine was established. That's why when someone starts the garbage about what adoration means in English after sixteen hundred it's obvious they don't care one iota about the truth. All such folks care about is spreading their propaganda and lies so if the truth can't be twisted to fit into their agenda they're more than happy to tell any sort of lie they think they can get away with.
Anyone who thinks the Bible, which is composed of books written two thousand and more years ago in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, can be understood by relying on definitions altered to suit Englishmen who were beholden to a monarchy that first outlawed Christianity and confiscated Church property, then wrote a new translation of the Bible to suit their queer King, is someone who doesn't much care about Scripture to begin with. People who don't care what the Scripture means anyway only show up and blabber about what something in Church doctrine or Scripture means in hopes of spreading divisions among Christians.
It's a shame to see, but that sort of folks are under a strong delusion, the same delusion Scripture says leads to destruction. Such folks need to stop worshiping their own, "Most High and Holy Self" and following Eve rather than Jesus Christ. If they would surrender to Christ they'd begin to understand Scripture rather than trying to impose their own conceptions and misconceptions on Scripture.
Dag nabit, I forgot to include you folks in the ping to my post #54
WEll said, in fact I would add in that the English we know didn't even exist at that time.
Old English is more akin to Low German than to the English we know...
I suspect it's something to do with microphones.
Although most people are at some point in their lives called to the married state, the vocation of celibacy is explicitly advocatedas well as practicedby both Jesus and Paul.
As I noted above, so far from "commanding" marriage in 1 Corinthians 7, in that very chapter Paul actually endorses celibacy for those capable of it: "To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion".
It is only because of this "temptation to immorality" (7:2) that Paul gives the teaching about each man and woman having a spouse and giving each other their "conjugal rights" (7:3); he specifically clarifies, "I say this by way of concession, not of command. I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another"
Paul even goes on to make a case for preferring celibacy to marriage: "Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage. . . those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. . . . The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband" (1 Corinthians 7:27-34).
Pauls conclusion: He who marries "does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better" (1 Corinthians 7:38).
Paul was not the first apostle to conclude that celibacy is, in some sense, "better" than marriage. After Jesus teaching in Matthew 19 on divorce and remarriage, the disciples exclaimed, "If such is the case between a man and his wife, it is better not to marry" (Matt 19:10). This remark prompted Jesus teaching on the value of celibacy "for the sake of the kingdom": Notice that this sort of celibacy "for the sake of the kingdom" is a gift, a call that is not granted to all, or even most people, but is granted to some.
When he tells Titus that a bishop should be the husband of one woman, I would take that as excluding men who had remarried after their first wife died.
The point of Pauls requirement that a bishop be "the husband of one wife" is not that he must have one wife, but that he must have only one wife. The truth is, it is precisely those who are uniquely "concerned about the affairs of the Lord" (1 Cor. 7:32), those to whom it has been given to "renounce marriage for the sake of the kingdom" (Matt. 19:12), who are ideally suited to follow in the footsteps of those who have "left everything" to follow Christ (cf. Matt. 19:27)the calling of the clergy and consecrated religious (i.e., monks and nuns).
Thus Paul warned Timothy, a young bishop, that those called to be "soldiers" of Christ must avoid "civilian pursuits": "Share in suffering as a good soldier of Christ Jesus. No soldier on service gets entangled in civilian pursuits, since his aim is to satisfy the one who enlisted him" (2 Tim. 2:34). In light of Pauls remarks in 1 Corinthians 7 about the advantages of celibacy, marriage and family clearly stand out in connection with these "civilian pursuits."
It is obvious to all that Paul endorsed celibacy. But, you are still ignoring my point that, as a Pharisee, he was almost certainly married himself. Maybe that’s why he said “those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that”. The other problem I have with celibacy is that the first command that God gave to man was to”be fruitful and multiply” (Gen 1:28). I would suggest that celibacy would be the exception to the rule, not the norm for all priests and nuns.
The meaningof ANY word varies according to action, usage, and intent. My home-schooled kids knew that by 3rd grade.
I cited typical examples of how the word "veneration" is commonly used. Now I will cite what the action of veneration does: it honors.
One cannot "inadvertently" (or even "surreptitiously") adore one's officers in the armed forces, for instance, when offering them the common signs of honor.
"Honor those to whom honor is due," says St. Paul.
I am not ignoring your point. According to scripture, Paul was not married. He chose celibacy. There is nothing in scripture to suggest that he had ever been married.
Somebody in this board asked at what age did Paul marry? I don't know, but we can see what was the common marriage age at the time since Paul set himself forth as an example of Pharisaical piety (Phil. 3:5; Gal. 1:14; Acts 22:3). In the rabbinical tradition it was said that "he who is twenty years of age and is not married spends all his days in sin". I don't agree with that, but it shows what the thought was at the time. I'll be shocked if one day I find out that Paul was not married!
The Greek word used by Paul in 1 Cor., agamos, includes both bachelors and widowers. So, it does not say anything about whether or not Paul had been married.
Not everybody has the gift of celibacy. I DO NOT expect the Catholic church to change its stance on celibate priests. All I'm trying to do is to show that it is not a requirement to dedicate one's life to God. What did Paul say, exactly? "For I wish that all men were even as I myself. But each one has his own gift from God, one in this manner and another in that". So, even he acknowledged that not everybody was called/gifted to be celibate!
Now, of all the things we believe on as Christians, celibacy is not at the top of the list. Let us agree on what really matters, such as the virgin birth, substitutionary death on the cross, resurrection..., and stop fussing at each other about man-made traditions. There's nothing wrong with Catholic priests being celibate, just like there's nothing wrong with my Southern Baptist pastor being married!
At the time of writing his letters, Paul was not married. The Bible does not mention if he once had been or not. Some think it is likely that he once could have been because he appeared to be, or was about to become, a member of the Sanhedrin and a Rabbi (Galatians 1). Qualifications for those positions were that a man had to have been at least 40 year old, married, and with a minimum of one son. Paul also held some degree of power to persecute (Acts 26). However, the main point is that he was not married at the time he wrote and neither do we know definitively one way or another if he ever was.
There is absolutely no evidence from the New Testament that Paul was ever married or that he had a son, another pre-requisite.
In total charity, I truly fail to comprehend why it is so difficult for anyone who believes so strongly in scripture to challenge Paul's own words. Perhaps you should go back to the individual who posed the question on Paul's marriage and direct them to the scriptural proof that he was not.
That sometimes needs to be saluted. "Honor to whom honor is due!"
The Greek text does not have a word corresponding to "single." Rather, St. Paul says "I wish for all persons to be as I am myself" which in the context means unmarried.
I am sorry, you lost me. The inscription talks about evil not apples!
Yes, I know. I was just playing with the fact that the Latin word for apple is spelled the same as the word meaning evil.
Old Latin class verse:
Malo I would rather be
Malo in an apple tree.
Malo than an evil man
Malo in adversity!