Posted on 12/22/2013 1:46:25 PM PST by piusv
No, I just expect popes to remain true to Catholic teaching.
“....Mary conceived without sin? No, she was not. She was human like all the rest of us...”
Do we have to go thru this again?
Yes Mary was human. She was created just like the rest of us. Yes she had human parents, Joachim and Anna. They were very devout Jews and longed for a child. They prayed unceasingly according to narratives written that were not included in the Bible.
“Conceived without sin” means that as the selected woman to be the Mother of the Messiah, God favored her with the Holy Spirit from her natural conception in order that His Divine Son would not be ever subjected to the power of Satan. That is why the angel Gabriel saluted her with the phrase, “Full of Grace.”
Since God so favored her, I would never presume to assume equality with Mary, the Mother of Jesus. To my knowledge no other woman has ever been so privileged.
It was a rhetorical device, Pius, the use of a hypothetical to make a point.
It did not contradict Catholic teaching since it was using what a hypothetical, normal female in that position could have been thinking to illustrate how in contrast the real Mary faithfully stayed beside her Son even in a horrendous situation.
Surely you see that.
The Mother of Jesus was the perfect icon of silence,” the Pope said. “From the proclamation of her exceptional maternity at Calvary.” The Pope said he thinks about “how many times she remained quiet and how many times she did not say that which she felt in order to guard the mystery of her relationship with her Son,” up until the most raw silence “at the foot of the cross. The Gospel does not tell us anything: if she spoke a word or not… She was silent, but in her heart, how many things told the Lord! ‘You, that day, this and the other that we read, you had told me that he would be great, you had told me that you would have given him the throne of David, his forefather, that he would have reigned forever and now I see him there!’ Our Lady was human! And perhaps she even had the desire to say: ‘Lies! I was deceived!’ John Paul II would say this, speaking about Our Lady in that moment. But she, with her silence, hid the mystery that she did not understand and with this silence allowed for this mystery to grow and blossom in hope.”*
There is NO hypothetical there. He is speaking of "Our Lady", the Mother of God, not a "normal female".
The mental gymnastics continue....
*8the first followers of Yah’shua were Messianic Jews.**
And they went to synagogue on Saturday and then they celebrated the Eucharist on Sundays in house churches.
***And perhaps she even had the desire to say: ‘Lies! I was deceived***
Did someone change the meaning of the word "perhaps" when I wasn't looking?
True, but still He did not say: "The Psalm says...", He simply said "Lord, why have you foresaken me". In this context it is possible for Mary likewise to question the Divine Plan.
so it is okay for a pope to posit errors in a homily?
This is not an error in the homily. It is a theological hypothesis, and remember no one said that Mary was ever without error, just without sin.
Where does it say in scripture that Mary was without sin for the rest of her life after having Jesus?
The question is why, not the fact that God "hast forsaken" Jesus is not put in a form of a question.
Pope Francis is ad-libbing scripture.
There is no underlying scripture, except perhaps Luke 2:19. He was not paraphrasing anything, he merely suggested an image of Mary on the verge of doubt.
Exactly, thanks for the even-headedness about it.
No, he didn't. "Perhaps she would have wanted to say, 'lies! I have been cheated!'" is not a statement of speech that actually occurred, nor even of speech that Mary wanted to express.
This happens to be the Holy Tradition of the Church, consistent with the description of her as full of grace (Luke 1:28), but no, it is not said in the scripture directly as such. Most dogmas of the Church are not spelled out in the Holy Scripture either.
Double translations artfully presented to say what they don’t intend to say, while contrasting a homily to an encyclical, is not a good example of “unite and fight for the truth.”
. Throughout the New Testament, Paul referred to them as believers, brothers, etc. Not once did he say "Messianics."
Trinitarian views: Sorry they were not called believers they were called
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
Disciples of Yah'shua HaMashiach
by Paul.
See Acts 11:19-26 Paying particular attention to v 26 29 Jesus answered, “The foremost is,
‘Hear, O Israel! YHvH our God is one YHvH;
And they went to synagogue on Saturday and then they celebrated the Eucharist on Sundays in house churches.
The Sabbath day ends at evening; Sorry, another jesuitical spin.
then the Oneg meal follows.
2 Thessalonians 1:10 on the day he comes to be glorified in his holy people and to be marveled at among all those who have believed. This includes you, because you believed our testimony to you.
Don't get me started on figuring out the Messianic Trinitarian explanation. Buggman finally explained it. I'd rather have a calculus class. :>)
Read the New Testament sometime.
Chapter and verse?
“Messianic” is another translation for “Christian” (”Christos” being the Greek equivalent of “Messiah”) and the word dates from before the eleventh chapter of the Book of Acts was written. With that, Xzins, I wish you a pleasant time arguing over words with a Judaizer. Ping me to some good ones if they come.
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.