Ping
This is a reading of the the tea leaves and even worse, an attempt to read Mary’s thoughts. Both interpretations are possible and are themselves wholly innocuous.
Its only a denigration of Mary if you have her placed on too high a pedestal.
I cannot help but muse that in at least one conversation Mary suggested that “maybe you should not go to Jerusalem.” I think she knew, as did Jesus, that it would not be good.
Mr. Vennari thinks that he is more Catholic than the Pope.
If the Lord could be so discomposed as the hour of truth approached, do you really think Our Lady could not have been similarly discomposed?
I'm not sure if either you or John Vennari have the spiritual acumen to engage in such extravagant criticism of the Holy Father. Perhaps a more prayerful, lest troll-like approach would be better.
Catherine of Siena you guys are not.
The one fact we know for sure about Mary is that she was a Jewish mother. Need I say more?
““Mary is the Queen of Martyrs” writes St. Alphonsus, “
Protestants tend to make less of mary than they should. Catholics tend to make more of mary than they should.
This article is a great example of the second.
There is no evidence Mary knew her Son had to die as Messiah. Only that she was to bear Messiah.
You guys are amazing...Untold numbers of people in your religion make us fables about Mary as does this posted piece and yet unlike your pope (in this instance) pervert the scriptures in the process...
Luk 1:28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
Luk 1:29 And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be.
Mary was pretty shook up...Obviously your pope and your pope only knew that...
LSJ Gloss:
διαταράσσω
to throw into great confusion, confound utterly
Strong's:
διαταράσσω
to disturb wholly, i.e. agitate (with alarm)
Perhaps we should pray for the gift of humility for Mr. Vennari.
;-/
IBTPWM
I don’t know how old the author is, but I’d bet he’s one of the “new” Old Rite people who is more a old than the old and more Catholic than the Pope.
This was a standard homily or meditation on Our Lady when I was growing up (50s and pre-VII 60s) So I’m assuming he’s not well-read enough in traditional Catholic devotion or piety to understand this.
So the author likes the idea by St. Alphonsus, that Mary foreknew her Son’s death on the Cross better than Pope Francis’ idea that she could have been surprised by it.
Note first that this is a far cry from the earlier “Pope has blasphemed” that you and your friends or alter egos were running around with.
Second, there is not contradiction. The pope stated as a fact that Mary remained silent “in hope”, that is she remained in the faith. In order to better deliver her astonishing faith the Pope points out that the natural thing to do would be to feel betrayal. The pope never said that Mary was actually feeling betrayed.
I don't wanna bust yer bubble, but Francis' homily and its understanding of Mary was way too high a view of Mary for almost the entire field of churches derived in some way, shape, or form from those early protestant churches. And it's too high a view even for the descendants of the original Protestans, except maybe historically the Anglican, and the Anglicans barely count any more given their many heresies -- (with apologies to the African Primates)
That homily is Roman Catholic or it's nothing. Realizing that I think you are misinterpreting the homily, maybe the human view of Mary is more orthodox. Perhaps the Orthodox have a high view of God's Ark but also one that doesn't require her sinless conception to such an extent that it prevents the human human from shining through.
These are the kinds of articles that make me dislike Catholics.
I don't care to debate the merits of the Pope's homily, but I fail to see how the pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church can be 'Protestant'.
The author doesn't appear to understand that particular word, IMO.