| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 10/13/2013 9:10:43 PM PDT by Religion Moderator, reason:
Poster’s request |
Posted on 10/11/2013 9:11:50 AM PDT by NKP_Vet
Vatican City, Oct 11, 2013 / 07:25 am (CNA/EWTN News).- Anticipating Pope Francis' entrustment of the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary on Oct. 13, a specialist in Marian apparitions reflected on how the Blessed Mother serves to bring people to Jesus.
“It is necessary to have recourse to the Virgin because she can only bring you to God. That's her whole mission. She has nothing of self in it at all. She lives only for God and to bring you to God,” said Marian expert Tim Tindal-Robertson during an Oct. 10 interview with CNA.
Tindal-Robertson is currently the national president in England of the World Apostolate of Fatima, an international association of the faithful which was erected by the Pontifical Council for the Laity in 2010.
Speaking of the significance of Pope Francis’ decision to entrust the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Tindal-Robertson said that “the Pope has judged that in the year of faith this is a very appropriate moment” to focus on Mary’s presence in the Church.
(Excerpt) Read more at catholicnewsagency.com ...
lol! I understand :)
So no “infallible” doctrines have ever been in error?
It most certainly is. It’s evidence of her total irrelevance in the teachings of the apostles or that it was considered of importance to the Holy Spirit to have them mention her.
By leading us to Christ. Why would a woman who, on earth, was asked by God to give her consent to conceive the Savior in her womb, and to devote her whole life to Him, suddenly have nothing to do with leading people to Him when she reached heaven?
The principal way Mary leads people to Jesus is precisely by their reading the gospels and meditating on her obedience to God, and her relationship with her Son. The few words of Mary recorded in the gospels are there for a reason. They tell us what the people of the Church meditated on and preserved orally, before the evangelists put down the most central traditions on paper.
Only a creature ey?
Let’s take the prayer of Prayer of Pope Pius XII.
[http://catholicism.about.com/od/tothevirginmary/qt/Honor_Immacula.htm]
I’ll use just the bolded excerpts from the prayer.
we cast ourselves into your arms
1 Peter 5:7 Casting all your care upon him; for he careth for you. (When did we need to replace God with Mary?)
confident of finding in your most loving heart appeasement of our ardent desires, and a safe harbor from the tempests which beset us on every side.
Hebrews 4:15-16 For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need. (once again Catholics replacing Christ with Mary)
O crystal fountain of faith
Romans 12:3 according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith. or "a measure of faith." (but Mary is the “fountain of faith” for Catholics)
Lily of all holiness
1 Samuel 2:2 There is none holy as the LORD: for there is none beside thee: neither is there any rock like our God. (for Catholics however, “all holiness” is given to Mary)
Conqueress of evil and death
Hosea 13:14 I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death: O death, I will be thy plagues; O grave, I will be thy destruction: repentance shall be hid from mine eyes. (but Catholics claim it was Mary who conquered death)
Convert the wicked
John 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; 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. 8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: 9 Of sin, because they believe not on me; (Catholics have even replaced the Holy Spirit with Mary)
Why, if it is true that Mary was “TOTALLY” irrelevant to the teaching of the Apostles, is there so much about her in the gospels? Everything in the gospels was TRADITION for decades before it was written down.
And you have missed my point: I pointed to the absence of any tradition regarding a TOMB or RELICS. I didn’t say there was an absence of tradition regarding MARY. As I pointed out: If there WERE no tradition about Mary in the early Church, she wouldn’t be mentioned in the gospels.
You are so eager to make a snarky retort, you aren’t even reading the posts you respond to.
There isn’t one word in the material you quote that asserts that Mary is anything other than a creature.
No.
And who WAS Israel when it came time for Jesus to be born?
Christ’s death and resurrection and the total failure of those Jewish people to recognize Jesus as the Messiah because they were so stuck on their “tradition” as Jesus showed and excoriated them for.
That’s the nation of Israel.
The “total” failure of his people to recognize Him? Were the Apostles, the many holy women, the many other disciples not Jews? Jesus celebrated the Pasch with his disciples—a liturgical act. And he told them to continue doing what he was doing with them that night.
You are flirting with Marcionism.
So you are told by the RCC. The Holy Spirit however neglected to inspire the apostles to write word one about one of the most important parts of the RCC faith. Go figure.
I'll grant that... but I don't grant that Mary does lead to Christ.
Why would a woman who, on earth, was asked by God to give her consent to conceive the Savior in her womb, and to devote her whole life to Him, suddenly have nothing to do with leading people to Him when she reached heaven?
Wow, so many unfounded assumptions. (You're reading a lot into the angle's greeting.)
The principal way Mary leads people to Jesus is precisely by their reading the gospels and meditating on her obedience to God, and her relationship with her Son.
Yeah... except the Mary-worship would be conducive to the exactly opposite.
The few words of Mary recorded in the gospels are there for a reason. They tell us what the people of the Church meditated on and preserved orally, before the evangelists put down the most central traditions on paper.
Yeah... except there are things that ARE emphasized; to the degree that mediating on the few words of Mary recorded
is pretty dumb. (How many times are Christians commanded to love each other? How many times is acting justly emphasized? Or mercy?) — in short, veneration of Mary is both rejection of the Bible and the justification of idolatry.
You mean like this?
Luke 11:27-28 27 And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked. 28 But he said, Nay rather, (Greek Menounge: nay surely, nay rather) blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.
>> And you have missed my point: I pointed to the absence of any tradition regarding a TOMB or RELICS<<
Oh I got your point. I simply pointed out the absence is due to it being of no importance.
>> You are so eager to make a snarky retort, you aren’t even reading the posts you respond to.<<
What you consider snarky are simply facts that show the RCC to be in error.
Don't add to the Gospel which was originally preached. How's that?
I would give chapter and verse, and a whole lot more -- but why should I bother?
Show me where in the scripture, or in the earliest writings of church notables, any mention of "the immaculate heart of Mary", or why anything should be "dedicated" or "consecrated" to her?
This "hyper-dulia" of Mary is so far out of the Judeo portion of the Judeo-Christian construct, it's not funny at all.
Did the Lord's revelations to the Jews include both the Law, and the promises? Or was He short-changing them, all along?
Christ Himself was "The Word" made flesh, according to the apostle John. Christ did not tell us to hyper-venerate his own earthly mother, but instead, clearly pointed away from anyone doing so.
Did any of the Apostles demonstrate "hyper-veneration" of Mary?
Not even the Apostle John, whom did indeed outlive her, in worldly existence.
The woman in Revelation, seen travailing in childbirth --- Mary can be seen to have lived that role in human form, but the deeper meaning of that image carries far beyond the personage of Mary, herself, to the heart of the church which was from most primitive times, first those longing for God among the Jews, then later, the wider church itself (which church has at all times been much larger than as Rome once defined it to be herself [the RCC proper] at exclusion of all else, yet now, if there be the tiniest squeak of "spirit" of God anywhere, has extended her singular [RCC] grasp of claim to include that to be also "subject to" her and her own singular bishop, above all else, regardless if the bishop is a creep -- or not.
That was not the original template of "the church", but it IS the Romanist template.
At the same time, as to anything that could be seen to embarrass or contradict that claim of being the be-all-to-end-all, well then, it's just "people" then, and not the [RC] "church" at all.
Stick with the original Gospel. If there be question of what that is -- compare the first couple of generations of the church, with the perspective of the original Apostles, taking care to weigh the words of Christ from Hebrew religious perspective, foremost. The Apostle Paul was a great help in that effort of perspective. Then, once one examines the OT and the NT through lens of Paul, try to turn that around and interpret Paul from lens of OT.
Can anything like the semi-deification of Mary be found in that process? Since it can not, what is found in that wider examination, what wider sense does one get that precludes the hyper-veneration of Mary?
Do you not know the Word of God? Hear Oh Israel, our God is One.
Is that not enough? Was the fulfillment of the law, along with the illumination of what the law actually meant -- not enough?
Marian expert Tim Tindal-Robertson, can go pound sand. This entire thread is just another of a long line of cunningly diversionary Cult of Mary codswallop, minus the dollops of Mary's breastmilk.
Of course! The Protestant heresies is a precursor to Modernism -- a synthesis of all heresies.
Yeah, I didn’t expect you to understand that one. Jesus death and resurrection did away with all the structure of priests etc of the Old Testament. He excoriated the “tradition” because it became something it was never to be. They had replaced God’s commands with “tradition” just as the RCC has. The importance of relying on “it is written” is clear from not only his words but the apostles as well as I illustrated with Paul’s words to the Bereans.
LOL! I don’t suppose you’ve heard about this new pope the RCC has? Talk about synthesis of all heresies. Watch as the RCC embraces all religions.
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.