Skip to comments.Pope Francis: self-help courses can turn Catholics into Pelagians
Posted on 03/28/2013 5:58:16 AM PDT by markomalley
click here to read article
Irenaeus let his imagination make connections not quite kosher. Eve didn't give birth to the original Adam [think about it].
By one man it is written, sin entered the world. The woman herself was not primarily charged with the crime, being punished for her association with it, by the pain of childbirth itself, though she too, as wife of Adam, was expelled from the Garden.
Now seeing Mary as Daughter of Israel, as spoken of by the prophets...that is safely enough more fully kosher, from a Christian perspective [with apology for borrowing the word kosher, to any Jew of faith whom may come along].
According to Hebrew law & custom, humans do not become diety. But we do see, in Jesus, God becoming for a time, man. Yet regardless of specious objections to the contrary, this praying to those whom have lived previously as humans, and only as human, themselves being merely created beings from the very onset (such as Mary) is too much much like the polytheism Abram was instructed to leave, in the first place! Those people prayed to various departed long-lived, powerful and influential kings (along with some ladies who became promoted to the goddesses once passing on from this world) as city-State god-protectors whom could be appealed to in times of need, or as objects of adoration.
One can be forgiven for praying to Jesus, for He was diety before having a brief period of human Incarnation.
As you touched upon earlier, "god-bearer" is more accurately translated than capitalized "Mother of God". For although it is said that Mary be not a Goddess...the attention paid to her is so much like goddess worship it not only approaches that same, but is difficult to discern much difference, upon more than a few instances of expression towards her, in RC theology and practice.
The title "mother of Christ our Lord and Saviour" or "mother of the Incarnation" can be more precise, though it takes longer to say.
Even Christ did not instruct to pray to himself, but more precisely to pray to the Creator more directly, in his name. A subtle difference, but one worth remembering.
It is your imagination, or maybe just your knowledge, that is lacking here, because Irenaeus was comparing Marys obedience with Eves disobedience. As for Jesus, we disagree. He was not man for a time,but for all time. He was and is, Marys sons and she, his mother.
But that's just it. It wasn't for Eve's disobedience, it was for Adam's, LIKE I SAID. Check the Hebrew OT scripture. Check what is said about the same by Paul in the NT. They don't mention Eve.
I see you won't touch a single thing of what I just told you, but instead call me ignorant. How convenient. But I'm obviously not ignorant, so the easy escape evaporates like a mirage...
No, the imaginings are not my own. Or you can prove your own assertions to the contrary. [but I know you won't...not from the scripture].
As for Jesus, we disagree. He was not man for a time,but for all time.
A "man" for all time? Like...even before His earthly Incarnation? Are you sure about that? I think the Word disagrees with that. Besides, He was never merely a man such as we (strictly created beings) for He was both fully man, and fully God during His Incarnation.
The "was and is Mary's son, and she his mother" business, with the hyper-inflation that is RC Marionism, alluding to Mary having god-like powers(!) could have been better avoided, if they had stuck more with the "god-bearer" limitation of description, or the "mother of the Incarnated Lord" (for he existed prior to his earthly incarnation, did He not?).
My "knowledge" isn't "lacking" for reason I'm not buying into RC claptrap concerning Mary, going far beyond scripture itself, and the early church itself.
It is for sake of my own knowledge, and that I am aware of the extra-biblical sources which first began to contribute to the hyper-inflation of her role as co-mediatrix, co-redeemer, etc, that makes me a tough customer, far beyond your own ability to cope with, or disprove.
In some instances, she is said to appear and direct people to "pray to her", or build churches "dedicated to her sacred heart", etc.
That sort of things is so distant from the Judeo portion of the Judeo-Christian construct, it would be laughable if it were not so blasphemous (to the one true God).
Adams and Eve were of one flesh, were they not? She being his other side,” and the one tempted by the the serpent. If you are going to reduce Christianity into philology, know there are limits to this. As for Ignorance, I merely said you havent read Against the Heretics, which was directly mainly against the Gnostics, who denied the Virgin Birth.
Now you're saying that, but if before I must have missed it...
Those who denied the virgin birth... doesn't apply to myself in any way, no matter how desperately one may simply wish to lump myself in with some past heritics.
Adams and Eve were of one flesh, were they not?
Adam tried to blame Eve, and Eve blamed the serpent. Neither excuse at the time, cut the mustard. Adam was convicted of the sin. Eve was not even (by God) charged with the crime. OR, show me where God pins the blame on her...and later scriptural foretelling concerning how it will or would require "obedience of a woman" to undo the ancient error.
If you are going to reduce Christianity into philology, know there are limits to this.
So sticking with the Hebrew understanding of long standing, even prior to the Incarnation, is "reducing Christianity to philogy"? It's more a matter of proper exegesis.
Adding Mary as goddess (just lacking the word goddess, itself, but not the role or "power") is more the philogy...word games, and mental associations games with some FABLE mixed in. Having a Roman Catholic protecting Marionism while accusing me of engaging in "philogy" in my own opposition to the same, is extremely laughable.
I see the response is always "personal". Stuff it, mister, I'm not interested in recieving any more personal insults.
Stick with the subject matter, or shut up.
Sorry. Poor etiquette on my part. No, the Church has allowed for this type of worship to take place. And the people love it.
Exodus 20:2-5 is about serving other gods. Mary, who was not a god,
That isn't the meaning of Exodus 20. Please read it again.
God is very specific in instructing us not make images after the likeness of those things of earth. There is no talk of serving other gods. That came later. All those statues of Mary would certainly fall into this category. That is why throughout the Old Testament (such as Daniel) you will find Jews refusing to bow down to images of any sort including kings such as King Nebuchadnezzar.
Very nice but I suspect, based upon her prayer, Mary would be the last person who would want people to worship her. Her joy was in God the Savior and in what He has done for her and others. She didn’t give thanks to Abraham or Moses.
Very nice but I suspect, based upon her prayer, Mary would be the last person who would want people to worship her. Her joy was in God the Savior and in what He has done for her and others.I am sure you are correct in that. That is reflected in Catholic teaching and practice. We venerate the Saints and Mary is venerated as a Saint and given special veneration as the Mother of God. Not worship but respect.
She became the Mother of God, in which work so many and such great good things are bestowed on her as pass mans understanding. For on this there follows all honor, all blessedness, and her unique place in the whole of mankind, among which she has no equal, namely, that she had a child by the Father in heaven, and such a Child . . . Hence men have crowded all her glory into a single word, calling her the Mother of God . . . None can say of her nor announce to her greater things, even though he had as many tongues as the earth possesses flowers and blades of grass: the sky, stars; and the sea, grains of sand. It needs to be pondered in the heart what it means to be the Mother of God.Your final point is just odd. Why did you say:
(Commentary on the Magnificat, 1521; in Luthers Works, Pelikan et al, vol. 21, 326)
She didnt give thanks to Abraham or Moses.
She became the Mother of God, in which work so many and such great good things are bestowed on her as pass mans understanding. For on this there follows all honor, all blessedness, and her unique place in the whole of mankind, among which she has no equal, namely, that she had a child by the Father in heaven, and such a Child . . . Hence men have crowded all her glory into a single word, calling her the Mother of God . . . None can say of her nor announce to her greater things, even though he had as many tongues as the earth possesses flowers and blades of grass: the sky, stars; and the sea, grains of sand. It needs to be pondered in the heart what it means to be the Mother of God.
(Commentary on the Magnificat, 1521; in Luthers Works, Pelikan et al, vol. 21, 326)
Why reject what Irenaeus said because it conflicts with what you have been taught by those whose adhere to your own tradition, which begins with the Reformation In any case, I dont follow you because what you say goes against what is clearly stated in Genesis 3. He first pronounces judgement against the serpent, then against the woman and then against the man. But Why do you think that sticking to the Hebrew is so important? The Jews dont read the Scripture your way. Luther started out thinking as you did, and then turned against the Jews in rage after they declined to accept his interpretation. Fact is that private interpretation of the Bible has led to endless division among Christians, but even before this, ling before the average Christian had ever seen anything like our Bible, there were many other causes of division. Sadly the Church often chose to use force rather than leave judgement to God. I suppose we have see no end to it until he comes to render that judgement.
By which I mean; the problem isn't such contemplations as you are quoting from Luther, but the rest of the over-inflated baggage of Marionism(s) that goes on from there, to far beyond anything which can be seen as continuance of revelation given to the Hebrew prophets.
There is only one true God, and it's not Mary. But listening to Roman Catholics, it's many times like "move over Jesus, you are sitting in mommy's chair".
If it is to be contemplated what it means for Mary to be god-bearer, one must always bear foremost in mind the context which she became, was raised up, chosen to be that person, at that precise time & location, fulfilling prophecy of the Messiah's birth.
Daughter of Israel. Ponder in your own heart, what that means, bearing in mind all that transpired from Abraham, to the day Gabriel told her, "you will", not asking for permission at that time.
Christ was fore-shadowed by Isaac as the son of promise, then both foreshadowed and foretold by Moses. Seen from still far off by David. Told of to lowly shepherds by a host of Angels, and revealed by the Holy Ghost to Simeon, that he should not die before seeing the Saviour of Israel, with that coming true, even holding the babe in his own arms, blessing him and prophesying over him, and Mary too.
This I mention is still not the entire story, nor the complete meaning;
Jesus is God in the second person of the Trinity. She bore Him in her womb, gave birth to Him, suckled Him at her breast, Changed His little diapers. Yeah Mary is the Mother of God. Just like your mother is the mother of whatever you are.
Twice, actually. The other is in the Nicene Creed: "And by the Holy Spirit, was incarnate of the Virgin Mary"
I wonder ... do these anti-Catholic folks disagree with this sentence? Perhaps that's the real problem.
Our Lord plainly tells us we are not to make images of anything on earth. Nor are we to bow down to those images. Now the real question is why, when given such clear and explicit instructions in scripture, would we go about doing exactly what the Lord God tells us not to do? But this is our sinful nature to willfully go against God's instructions.
Your final point is just odd.
Not really. Mary did not prayed or gave thanks to Moses. She prayed and gave thanks to God. One has to wonder why some feel the need to pray to anyone other than the Trinity.
Exo 25:18 And you shall make two cherubim of gold; of hammered work shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat. Exo 25:19 Make one cherub on the one end, and one cherub on the other end. Of one piece with the mercy seat shall you make the cherubim on its two ends. Exo 25:20 The cherubim shall spread out their wings above, overshadowing the mercy seat with their wings, their faces one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubim be.
Exo 25:31 "You shall make a lampstand of pure gold. The lampstand shall be made of hammered work: its base, its stem, its cups, its calyxes, and its flowers shall be of one piece with it. Exo 25:32 And there shall be six branches going out of its sides, three branches of the lampstand out of one side of it and three branches of the lampstand out of the other side of it; Exo 25:33 three cups made like almond blossoms, each with calyx and flower, on one branch, and three cups made like almond blossoms, each with calyx and flower, on the other branch--so for the six branches going out of the lampstand. Exo 25:34 And on the lampstand itself there shall be four cups made like almond blossoms, with their calyxes and flowers, Exo 25:35 and a calyx of one piece with it under each pair of the six branches going out from the lampstand. Exo 25:36 Their calyxes and their branches shall be of one piece with it, the whole of it a single piece of hammered work of pure gold.
Exo 26:31 "And you shall make a veil of blue and purple and scarlet yarns and fine twined linen. It shall be made with cherubim skillfully worked into it.
You folks did keep the book of Exodus in your Bible right?
I am pretty sure they agree with it, their problem I believe lies, ultimately, in the Faith v Works issue. Catholics believe that you can fall out of grace, and I think that is a threatening concept to many Protestants. The frustration and fear caused by their inability to even make to themselves a convincing argument against that concept, gets expressed in bashing and ridicule of Catholicism.
“Our Lord plainly tells us we are not to make images of anything on earth.”
Any FReepers out there on this beautiful Easter Sunday care to name the heresy involved in this odd claim? For bonus points, what schsimatic sects hold to this heresy even today?
Hey Harley - are you one of them that will not celebrate Easter or Christmas or worship on a Sunday?
She became the Mother of God, in which work so many and such great good things are bestowed on her as pass man’s understanding. For on this there follows all honor, all blessedness, and her unique place in the whole of mankind, among which she has no equal, namely, that she had a child by the Father in heaven, and such a Child . . . Hence men have crowded all her glory into a single word, calling her the Mother of God . . . None can say of her nor announce to her greater things, even though he had as many tongues as the earth possesses flowers and blades of grass: the sky, stars; and the sea, grains of sand. It needs to be pondered in the heart what it means to be the Mother of God.
(Commentary on the Magnificat, 1521; in Luther’s Works, Pelikan et al, vol. 21, 326)
What is your old screen name?