Posted on 12/22/2013 1:46:25 PM PST by piusv
Disciple :
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
Isa 50:4; Mat 10:24; Mat 10:25; Mat 10:42; Mat 13:52;
Mat 27:57; Luk 14:27; Luk 14:33; Jhn 9:28; Jhn 18:15;
Jhn 18:16; Jhn 19:26; Jhn 19:27; Jhn 19:27; Jhn 20:2;
Jhn 20:3; Jhn 20:4; Jhn 20:8; Jhn 21:7; Jhn 21:20;
Jhn 21:23; Jhn 21:24; Act 9:10; Act 9:26; Act 9:36;
Act 16:1; Act 21:16
The followers of Jesus didn't call themselves "Messianic Jews" (nor Christian Jews) anyplace in the NT that I can recall. I'm more than willing to accept correction on that.
I'm tolerant of the Messianics. I think they're trying to recapture the specialness of the 1st century church. Sometimes they get weighed down with Jewish traditions, but they come up some real biblical insights. That makes it worth it for me. Buggman (if you remember him) was a FRiend. Some of the others aren't quite sure what to do with us biblical Christian evangelicals.
Thanks Uriel. See post 82. Should have pinged you.
Read the New Testament sometime.
Days begin at evening and end at the following evening. Shabbat starts at "Friday" evening and ends at "Saturday" evening The Oneg meal begins on the day following Shabbat Genesis 1 :
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
i.e."Saturday" evening
May you have a pleasant journey and a just reward.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
Unfortunately in this case the allusion struck a distasteful note. The notion that the Mother of God would think disparaging thoughts of the Creator has never been part of Catholic teaching. Personal speculations such as this in regard to Mary are not only superfluous, but as we have seen by the reaction, many people find them disturbing to their sensus fidei.
See #63.
He's not referring to some "hypothetical normal female" here, but he's apparently endeavoring to portray her as such. Not Catholic teaching.
Sorry, but you're wrong, BlatherNaut. Let's break this down.
She was quiet, but in her heart - how much she said to the Lord! That's true. Nothing wrong with it. Holy imagining.
'You told me then - that's what we have read - that He will be great. Again, nothing wrong there. It's true, Mary was told that.
You told me that You would give him the throne of his father David, that he will reign over the house of Jacob forever. Again, nothing wrong, and exactly as the Bible portrays Gabriel's message to Mary.
And now I see Him there!' The Blessed Mother was human! This is absolutely true theologically. There's no way the mother of Jesus was at the foot of the cross doing other than grieving, trying to figure it all out. She was human. She had not yet been assumed. It would have been no different than Jesus saying, "Father take this cup from me." And if we have great discussions pronouncing that Jesus was fully Human, then we darn well better attribute full humanhood to his own mother.
NOW comes the hypothetical, because the Pope uses the word PERHAPS:
And perhaps she would have wanted to say, 'lies! I have been cheated!'.
How do I know he was contrasting Mary with what a normal mother would have been thinking?
This is the follow-on that applies: But she was overshadowed with the silence of the mystery that she did not understand, and with this silence, she has accepted that this mystery can grow and flourish in the hope ".
The word BUT announces a contrast. Contrast with what? A silent acceptance is what actually happened, Pope Francis says, instead of that "tirade about lies" that would have been a normal reaction.
Some people are entirely TOO HARD on a preacher. Preachers do NOT provide theological treatises, no matter what you are used to out of the Vatican with those dry pronouncements that have been the norm for a couple generations. Now you have a preacher, and he is using allegory, hyperbole, hypothetical, allusion, illustration, etc., to make his points.
I imagine some people HATE the parables.
Heretical statements? As defined by you?
If you’re able to judge my posts cause “pain” to Our Lord, then I guess I can judge statements as heretical, no? I can’t say they are officially heresy, but what Francis said here is NOT Catholic teaching.
And I will continue to point these things out whenever necessary. You and your fellow “practicing Catholics” (nice dig at me by the way; not offensive in the least) can continue to make excuses for blatant non-Catholic statements. I prefer to call a spade a spade.
No, you need to read Catholic commentary on this. The Lord mentions the first line of a Psalm. The hearers will know the full psalm that way. There is no need for Him to introduce it as “Hey everyone, I am quoting Psalm 22”. The Jews of the time knew their Psalms. He was NOT questioning the Divine Plan.
Mary did not doubt the Lord. Nor did she ever consider it. To do so would be sinful. Francis is suggesting that Mary sinned at the foot of the Cross (you know, because she was human afterall!) Sounds Protestant to me. Just ask the other posters here.
xzins, as an evangelical preacher, can you use whatever rhetorical devices you wish even if you say/infer something that goes against the Bible?
If Mary thought of herself in the same fashion as some suggest RCC Tradition establishes her, she would be guilty of far greater blaspheme, than I suspect any sin she ever committed.
I don’t find the Pope’s comments as offensive as some might.
Whenever I have studied Scriptural passages mentioning Mary and Our Lord Christ Jesus, I have found it fruitful to study them first through faith in Christ in how He would handle situations with His mother. This is especially true when I recognize He is the second Adam, and she was not immune from an old sin nature.
Situationally, when they went to the Temple at the Feast of the Passover when Jesus was 12, Mary was worried over the safe provision of Jesus, when things were not amiss....
Luk 2:48-51
(48) And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.
(49) And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business?
(50) And they understood not the saying which he spake unto them.
(51) And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject unto them: but his mother kept all these sayings in her heart.
and again at the wedding feast....
Joh 2:3-7
(3) And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine.
(4) Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.
(5) His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.
(6) And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece.
(7) Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim.
In this instance, Mary did not cease in acting independent of God, (a type of sin) but followed a natural response of a woman to support a man with eyes upon a future success.
Note also, there is no need for His Word to accuse His mother of sin. Instead He respects His parents, (legitimate familial authority), and a simple record of events is made.
In both of these situations, we probably are only made aware of them because institutions outside the Parent-Child familial authority were infringed. Those in the Temple became aware of the parents missing their child. The authority in the Wedding Feast was infringed upon by Mary and Jesus, but as a gift it is respectful of legitimate authority established by God in both situations.
In the case of Mary at the foot of the Cross, she is given to John for providence when Jesus Christ was about to die.
It wouldn’t be surprising if she was tempted to have doubts, when so many others had anticipated a worldly reign by Jesus Christ at the time. Like the other events, I suspect she took these things in her heart without speaking much.
It also is manifest in whom our Lord chose to watch after Mary. John wasn’t wealthy materially, but probably was most able to spiritually guide his mother, while God’s Providence would watch over their material needs.
Like so many supernatural events, they aren’t always complementary blessings, but might very well manifest how God’s Plan will prevail, even when we fail to do the right thing at the right time, in the right place, and His miracles occur as a consequence of our failures.
Actually, the Jewish followers were more commonly called the Nazarines or Natzerim (the "Branches," as in, "I am the vine and you are the branches), being followers of Yeshua HaNatzeret (Nazareth, "Branch-town"), who is the prophesyed Branch of David. They were also known as the followers of The Way.
The term "Christian" is only used a couple of places in the NT, and in both cases, it's a term that the movement's enemies used of it. Interestingly, putting "-ian" at the end of a word in Latin makes it a political term, like "Republican." Some of the expositors (and I don't have the quotes on hand, being at work) point out that the term is somewhat disdainful.
As with with Cross itself, the gift of Christianity is taking things its enemies mean as a mark of shame and turning it into a badge of honor.
Nevertheless, the term Christian has taken on a meaning that I don't believe the Apostles or Paul would have completely identified with. Yes, a Christian is a follower of Christ, but implicit in the term is someone who goes to a church on Sunday, celebrates Christmas and Easter, happily chows down on pulled pork at the barbecue, etc. In other words, a Gentile, following Christ and worshipping God in a distinctly Gentile fashion.
The Apostles and that first generation of Yeshua's Jewish followers continued worship in the Temple right up until it was destroyed, went to synagogue on the Sabbath, kept the Feasts of the Lord given to Israel, kept kosher, took Nazrite vows and fulfilled them, and even maintained their membership in their original sects of Judaism (ala Paul still being able to say under oath twenty years after his Damascus Road experience that he was still a Pharisee and the son/disciple of the Pharisees).
If one of the Apostles walked into a church today, the Christians in that church would identify him as a Messianic Jew.
Ergo, based on what the words actually mean today and how they use them, Uriel is right that everyone would identify the Apostles as Messianic Jews based on their identity and practice.
Shalom.
Are you a theologian? Let's take a look at the Catholic Church's definition of heresy:
The Church's moral theology has always distinguished between objective or material sin and formal sin. The person who holds something contrary to the Catholic faith is materially a heretic. They possess the matter of heresy, theological error. Thus, prior to the Second Vatican Council it was quite common to speak of non-Catholic Christians as heretics, since many of their doctrines are objectively contrary to Catholic teaching. This theological distinction remains true, though in keeping with the pastoral charity of the Council today we use the term heretic only to describe those who willingly embrace what they know to be contrary to revealed truth. Such persons are formally (in their conscience before God) guilty of heresy. Thus, the person who is objectively in heresy is not formally guilty of heresy if 1) their ignorance of the truth is due to their upbringing in a particular religious tradition (to which they may even be scrupulously faithful), and 2) they are not morally responsible for their ignorance of the truth. This is the principle of invincible ignorance, which Catholic theology has always recognized as excusing before God. ref
Your postings and comments, on the other hand, cause scandal. Scandal can be provoked by laws or institutions, by fashion or opinion. CCC 2284-2286.
No, of course not. They were called "Christians" and still are. That is the same word as "Messianics". "Jews", however, would not be attached to it. "Jews" is used neutrally as in "King of the Jews", or in the sense of "those denying Christ" (Galatians 1:13, Acts 14:4) or even "persecutors of Christians" in the New Testament (John 5:16), even as we also know that "salvation is of the Jews" (John 4:22). The idea of Jewish separation even among the converted Jews is rejected by the Catholic Church (Galatians 2:14).
I'm tolerant of the Messianics.
Of course you are. They are Baptists with an accent that argue with everyone over anything; in other words they are typical Protestants. Those who possess "the specialness of the 1st century church" are Catholics; what the J*ws for Jesus and the rest are "trying to recapture" is available for the asking in the Church on the corner; you don't have to go far.
No, considering a doubt is called being tempted and is not a sin. It is possible that she did that, like Christ Himself did, -- whether using the Psalm to express it or not.
I think my posts have only commented on what Francis has done and said. So I would argue that your anger and judgment is misplaced. You don’t like what I have to say because I don’t defend it all.
I’m going to make a prediction here. At some point each and every one of you will come to the conclusion that there is something very wrong with this papacy. Some are already questioning it who didn’t just a few months ago. Part of coming to that POV is reading and posting about what Francis says and does. It means stopping and thinking clearly about what has been said and done and refusing to make excuses for him.
It is NON CATHOLIC to even suggest that Mary, the Immaculate Conception, even considered doubting God. His comments are scandalous.
Just look at the Protestant responses here. They agree with the Pope!
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.